REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

GOPALAN BHAVANI Appellant

V/S

RAGHAVAN ARAVINDAKSHAN Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

ST.MELLONS RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL V. NEWPORT CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
KAMMINS BALLROOMS CO. LTD. V.SENITH INVESTMENTS (TOROUAY) LTD. [REFERRED TO]
R V. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS [REFERRED TO]
NOTHMAN V. BARNET LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL [REFERRED TO]
M.P.MENON,J. IN CHERU OUSEPH V. KUNHIPATHUMMA [REFERRED TO]
S.CHENNIAPPA MUDALIAR MADURAI V. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANY LIMITED VS. P N SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
SAKVATE T B VS. NEMICHAND [REFERRED TO]
HUKUMCHAND MILLS LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
INCOME TAX OFFICER CANNANORE VS. M K MOHAMMAD KUNHI [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MADRAS VS. S CHENNIAPPA MUDALIAR MADURAI [REFERRED TO]
MATTULAL VS. RADHE LAL [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. RAJDHANI GRAINS AND JAGGERY EXCHANGE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
RAM PASRICHA VS. JAGANNATH [REFERRED TO]
RAJA LAKSHMI DYEING WORKS VS. RANGASWAMY CHETTIAR [REFERRED TO]
KALYANI AMMA BHARGAVI AMMA VS. OUSEPH VARKEY [REFERRED TO]
ACHUTHA MENON VS. NARAYANAN [REFERRED TO]
KUTTAPAN VS. CHELLAMMA [REFERRED TO]
DY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS VS. SAROJINI [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRASEKHARAN VS. JENNAT [REFERRED TO]
GOPALAN ADIYODI VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One of us referred these two cases for the decision of a Division Bench. One of the questions that requires consideration for a proper decision of these two Civil Revision Petitions is the question whether the Land Tribunal, under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, has got the power to restore an application dismissed for default.

(2.) Gopalan Nambiyar, J., as he then was, had occasion to consider this matter in Kuttappan v. Thresia ( 1973 KLT 521 ), where His Lordship observed thus:-

(3.) His Lordship further held that the former part of O.9, R.9, providing for the bar of a fresh suit on the same cause of action would not be attracted as far as the Land Tribunal is concerned. The court referred to the Full Bench decision of this court in Kalyani Amma Bhargavi Amma v. Ouseph Varkey ( 1967 KLT 317 ) and said that the Full Bench has held with respect to the provisions of Ss.101, 129(2)(e) of the Land Reforms Act and R.99 of the Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules, that the Land Tribunal had power to set aside an ex parte order. It was further held that the requisite power was found under the provisions of R.99 and the Full Bench overruled the contrary view taken in three single bench decisions. The thrust of the decisions in 1973 KLT 521 can be seen from the following passage:

Click here to view full judgment.

GOPALAN BHAVANI Vs. RAGHAVAN ARAVINDAKSHAN

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address