Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: kerala Year: 1980 Page 1 of about 17 results (0.010 seconds)

Jan 16 1980 (HC)

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Metherukunju Moosakutty and ors.

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Jan-16-1980

Reported in : AIR1980Ker182

subramonian poti, j.1. this appeal is by the union of india against the decree of the court below granting injunction to the plaintiffs in the suit restraining the defendants, the state of kerala as well as the union of india from taking steps under the kerala revenue recovery act against the plaint schedule items for recovery of amounts claimed as due to the second defendant, union of india. there are two plaintiffs in the suit, the second plaintiff being the wife of the first plaintiff. they claim to be the owners of the plaint schedule items, item no. 2 being the building situated on item no. 1 which is land of an extent of 22 cents. the plaint items were purchased by the plaintiffs undera sale deed, ext. a1, dated 10-4-1967, executed by one janaki amma and her 5 children. that the suit property originally belonged to one velayudhan pillai is not in dispute. it was inherited by his widow janaki amma and the 5 children, who jointly executed ext. al sale deed. at the time the sale was taken by the plaintiffs the property comprised therein appears to have been encumbered. out of the consideration of rs. 40,000 a sum of rs. 30,200 was reserved with the plaintiffs for discharging a prior debt charged on the plaint items under a registered mortgage deed of 1959 in favour of the state bank of travancore. the bank had obtained a decree against the vendors based on the mortgage in the suit o. section 2 of 1964 of the sub court of quilon. a sum of rs. 2,500 was reserved with the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 11 1980 (HC)

V.P. Antony Vs. Licensing Authority and anr.

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Dec-11-1980

Reported in : AIR1981Ker116

ordergeorge vadakkel, j.1. the petitioner applied for and obtained a licence to drive light vehicles on 3-4-1978. within three years thereof, to be precise on 18-4-1980, he submitted ext. p-5 application to obtain a licence to drive a transport vehicle which admittedly is a heavy motor vehicle falling both within sub-sections (9) and (9a) of section 2 of the motor vehicles act, 1939. as per ext. p-6 endorsement the petitioner was told that since he has not completed three years after obtaining licence to drive light motor vehicles ext. p-5 application is returned. the application also was returned to the petitioner. this was for the reason that proviso to rule 10 of the kerala motor vehicles rules, 1961 provides that no authorisation to drive a heavy motor vehicle other than a car or tractor shall be granted unless the applicant satisfies the licensing authority concerned that he has had previous experience in driving light or medium motor vehicle or both together for a period of 3 years. the proviso proceeds to deal with authorisation to drive a medium motor vehicle about which i am not concerned in this case. the stipulation in the proviso as aforesaid as regards experience in driving light or medium motor vehicles or both together for a period of 3 years in order to obtain a licence to drive a heavy motor vehicle, is impugned in this petition as ultra vires of the rule making power of the state under section 21 of the act.2. section 21 of the act enables a state government .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 01 1980 (HC)

Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk Vs. Mrs. Lucy Eapen

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Oct-01-1980

Reported in : AIR1981Ker61

balakrishna eradi, c.j.1. respondents nos. 1 and 2 in o. p. no. 5481 of 1974 -- the tahsildar, kanayannur taluk, ernakulam and the district collector, erna-kulam respectively -- are the appellants in fhis appeal which has been tiled against the judgment of a learned single judge of this court allowing the said writ petition and quashing the orders exts. p-3 and p-5 impugned therein.2. the parties will hereafter be referred with reference to their rank and array in the original petition.3. proceedings under the kerala land conservancy act, 1957 (for short the act) were initiated against the writ petitioner by the 1st respondent in july, 1968 for unauthorised occupation of an extent of 4 cents 946 square links of poramboke land comprised in survey nos. 1803 and 1801/1 of ernakulam village. a notice in form 'b' was issued to the writ petitioner and in response thereto the writ petitioner appeared before the tahasildar and filed a petition stating that her occupation of the said poramboke land was authorised by the ernakulam municipality and that she had been paying poramboke occupation fee to the municipality. it was further submitted by her that the land was lying formerly as a part of a muddy pool and she has reclaimed it since it was essential for the benelicial enjoyment of her adjacent registered holding and that she had already submitted an application before the collector in feb., 1963 praying that the land may be assigned to her. on 11-4-1969 the 1st respondent ( .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 18 1980 (HC)

Abdul Sathar Hajee Moosa Sait Dharmasthapanam Vs. Agricultural Income- ...

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Aug-18-1980

Reported in : [1981]132ITR875(Ker)

chandrasekhara menon, j.1. this writ petition comes before us on a reference by justice t. kochu thommen. the order of reference reads :' two important questions arise in this petition. (1) can the agricultural income-tax officer validly refuse to make a refund in accordance with the directions of the appellate assistant commissioner when the latter's order was not challenged within the statutory period and, hence, became final, for the reason that a subsequent decision of the supreme court in a different case invalidated the reasoning of the appellate authority (2) whether section 50 of the agricultural income-tax act is applicable to a claim for refund as per the order of the appellate authority ? 2. in view of the general importance of these questions, i am of the view that this case should be heard by a division bench. the case is accordingly adjourned in terms of section 3 of the kerala high court act.' 2. the petitioner is a charitable institution. for the assessment years 1959-60 and 1962-63 to 1965-66, the agrl. ito, alwaye, fixed the tax payable by the institution under the agrl. i.t. act, 1950, for short, 'the act', at rs. 2,22,454.41 (for all the years together). this amount was fully paid in time though the petitioner challenged the orders of assessment in appeals. by a common order dated july 22, 1967, all the appeals were allowed, setting aside the orders of assessment on the ground that the income of the institution is income derived from properties held under .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 09 1980 (HC)

P.R. Francis Vs. Raghavan Pozhakadavil and ors.

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Sep-09-1980

Reported in : AIR1981Ker64

ordergeorge vadakkel, j.1. the petitioner complains of undue return of the 1st respondent from the ollur assembly constituency at the election held in jan., 1980. he alleges commission of the corrupt practices of undue influence and appeal to religious sentiments by the 1st respondent's agents with his (1st respondent's) knowledge and consent and at his instance; and of the electoral offence of violation of section 130(1)(e) of the representation of the people act, 1951 (hereinafter, the act) by the 1st respondent. he also complains of undue election on the ground of non-compliance with article 326 of the constitution. the 1st respondent defends his return denying all the material allegations advanced by the petitioner.2. the corrupt practices alleged are : (i) publication of ext. p 4 by p. w. 6 as the convenor of the diocesan political committee of the trichur catholic diocese (hereinafter mentioned as the political committee) and of ext. p 5 by him in his personal capacity; and (ii) preaching of sermons by rev. fr. cyriac mandumpala (hereinafter, for brevity, m) and rev. fr. antony anthicad (hereinafter, shortly, a). the accusation of electoral offence is that the 1st respondent drove into polling stations exhibiting his symbol in front of his car. the complaint of non-compliance with article 326 of the constitution is founded on the allegation that several persons below 21 years of age as on 1-1-1979 have been entered in the electoral roll of the constituency.3. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 29 1980 (HC)

Rev. Fr. Antony Nirappal and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Jul-29-1980

Reported in : AIR1980Ker199

order1. these two petitions are for stay of operation of the judgments in the above original petitions and consequent penal actions by the respondents under chapter v of the kerala education rules against the schools involved in the original petitions for a period of three months. these applications are filed under rule 150 of the rules of the high court of kerala. 2. the writ petitions were filed for a declaration that ext. p-1 notification amending rule 6 of chapter v of the kerala education rules, compelling the applicants to agree to appoint in the schools protected teachers retrenched from other aided schools, to entitle them to get sanction to open new schools or to upgrade existing schools is violative of article 30(1) of the constitution, and for other reliefs. by a common judgment dated 11-7-1980, a division bench of this court consisting of poti j., and one of us declined to exercise its jurisdiction in the matter under article 226 of the constitution and dismissed the original petitions. the other questions raised in the petitions were not gone into. 3. after the judgment was pronounced, the petitioners' counsel made an oral application to give certificate for appeal to the supreme court. the request was declined. it is thereafter that the present petitions have been filed. 4. since poti j., is on leave, these petitions have been posted before us. 5. shri vithayathil, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that this court has inherent jurisdiction under .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 23 1980 (HC)

Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax Vs. Chullikkan Parameswara Bha ...

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Jan-23-1980

Reported in : (1980)16CTR(Ker)378; [1980]125ITR28(Ker)

balakrishna eradi, c.j.1. the kerala agricultural income-tax appellate tribunal, additional bench, kozhikode (hereinafter called 'the tribunal'), has referred to this court under section 60 of the kerala agrl. i.t. act (hereinafter called 'the act') the following questions ;'(i) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal is justified in law in holding that when an assessment made against an 'individual' under section 18(4) has been reopened under section 19 of the act, the proceedings are pending against the 'individual' only and not against the hindu undivided family of which he is the karta or ejaman ? (ii) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of assessment completed against the karta or ejaman of a hindu undivided family is vitiated, if it is finalised after reopening an order of assessment under section 19 of the agricultural income-tax act against him as an individual ? (iii) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal is justified in law in holding that as no notice under section 35 has been issued calling upon the karta to file a return of the income representing the hindu undivided family, the proceedings against the hindu undivided family are vitiated ? (iv) whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal is justified in law in holding that on the death of shri narasimha bhat there is a disruption of status of the hindu undivided family under the provisions .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 25 1980 (HC)

Parameswaran and ors. Vs. Kumara Pillai Raghavan Pillai

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Jul-25-1980

Reported in : AIR1981Ker29

t. chandrasekhara menon, j.1. i do not think that i should order notice in this appeal. according to me, the questions of law the appellants have raised are concluded by definite decisions on the matter. though there is a view to the contrary taken obiter by a decision of beaumont, c. j., in the full bench case in the bombay high court (mukund bapu v. tanu sakhu, air 1933 bom 457 (fb)), the majority of the decisions in the matter are agreed on the principles.2. in execution of a decree for immovable property, the decree-holder-respondent filed an execution petition in the munsiff's court, ernakulam. pursuant to the order of delivery made in those proceedings, the amin came to the plaint schedule properly for effecting delivery on 21-12-1976. the appellants and three others who were not parties to the decree obstructed to their dispossession. the amin reported the matter to the court.3. thereafter, the respondent-decree-holder filed e. a. no. 15 of 1977 praying for removal of obstruction. he did not bring the appellants on the party array in that petition. of the obstructors who claimed exclusive possession of separate lots of property, two persons alone had been made parties to the e. a. that petition was decided in favour of the decree-holder and delivery was ordered. the matter had been taken op in appeal and pending final adjudication, the proceedings in the execution petition had been stayed. after stay in the execution petition was vacated the e. p. was again taken up. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 10 1980 (HC)

M.V. George Vs. S.M.R. Traders and anr.

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Jan-10-1980

Reported in : AIR1980Ker100

p. subramonian poti, j.1. order 17,rule 2 and order 17, rule 3 of the civil p. c. as they stand after the civil p. c, amendment act, 104 of 1976 are materially different from the corresponding provisions as they stood prior to the amendment. order 17, rule3 contemplated a judgment on the merits. but a judgment does not become a judgment on the merits falling under order 17, rule 3 merely because the judgment purports to be on the merits. the court may have, in the judgment discussed the issues in the ones, considered the evidence and decided the case on the merits. but nevertheless it will not be a disposal under order 17, rule 3 if the prerequisite for application of the rule is not satisfied. the party to whom time has been granted must be in default. if the case comes up not after grant of such time to the party, order 17. rule 3 will have no application the disposal will then be under order 17, rule 2 though it purports to be one on the merits. in such a case a defendant notwithstanding the purported disposal on the merits could seek to reopen the decreeby an application under order 9, rule 13 of the c. p. c.2. after the amendment in 1976, order 17, rule 2 stands with an explanation added to it. that explanation reads:'explanation:-- where the evidence or a substantial portion of the evidence of any party has already been recorded and such party fails to appear on any day to which the hearing of the suit is adjourned, the court may, in its discretion, proceed with the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 12 1980 (HC)

Krishnan Vs. Dorarajan Chettiar

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Sep-12-1980

Reported in : AIR1980Ker234

orderp. janaki amma, j.1. the revision petitioners are the respondents in e. a. no. 223 of 1979 in o. s. no. 299 of 1972, of the munsiff's court, chittur. in execution of the decree in the above suit, as per e. p. no. 98 of 1979, an item of paddy field along with the crops standing thereon, was attached by rw-1, amin, as per orders of the court. after attachment the amin entrusted the crops to the present petitioners and one manikkan on their executing a bond dated 16-3-1979. under the terms of the bond the executants undertook to look after the crops and to deliver over the property without any damage to the crops as and when required by the court. in default of doing so, they undertook to deposit an amount of rs. 3,450/- or such amounts as the court would direct them to deposit towards the value of the crops. e. a. no. 223 of 1979 was filed by the decree-holder on 24-3-1979 alleging that the present petitioners and the judgment-debtor together harvested the crops and removed the same. the decree-holder, therefore, requested the court to issue directions to the kychitdars to deposit the value of the crops as per the kychit, and if default is made, to recover the amount by arrest and detention of the petitioners. the petitioners filed objections to the above motion. they denied that the crops were entrusted to them by the amin. the property is close to their own residence and the amin made them sign in the document only as persons present at the time of attachment. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //