Kerala Court November 1957 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Krishnan Balakrishnan and ors. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-15-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker94; 1958CriLJ516
Raman Nayar, J. 1. These appeals and the reference arise out of Sessions Case No. 27 of 1957 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge of Quilon sitting at A1-leppy. There were originally five accused persons in the case. Of these, one, namely, the 2nd accused, died pending the trial, while another, namely, the 5th accused, has been acquitted. Of the remaining three, the 1st accused has been convicted under Section 302, I. P. C. and sentenced to death and it is for the confirmation of this sentence that the reference has been made. He has also been convicted under Section 449, I. P. C. and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment for that offence. The 3rd accused has been convicted under Section 324, I. P. C. and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment; and the 4th accused has been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 and under Sections 440 and 324, I. P. C. and sentenced to concurrent terms of rigorous imprisonment for life, for three years, and for two yea...
Padmanabha Pillai Govinda Pillai Vs. Padmanabha Pillai Raman Pillai an ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-13-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Ker401
T.K. Joseph, J. 1. This is a Second Appeal by the decree-holder and it arises from an order in execution of a decree for redemption and recovery of possession of an Oodukur share in certain immoveable properties. The decree-holder applied for effecting a division of the land by the execution court and for delivery of possession of such land as he was found entitled to. The execution court allowed this prayer and directed that specific plots as per the division effected by the Commissioner deputed by that court be delivered over to the decree-holder. An order for delivery was accordingly made and after the Amin reported that delivery of possession was effected, the 12th defendant filed a petition stating that the execution proceedings were taken without notice to him and that recovery of specific plots was allowed without jurisdiction as the decree did not provide for the same but only for recovery of an Oodukoor share.It was further seated that the Amin had only created a record of del...
T.K. Abraham and ors. Vs. State of Travancore-cochin
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-08-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker129
M.S. Menon, J. 1. The petitioners are Stockists or 'A' Class licensees under the Rules framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 31 of the Travancore Tobacco Act, I of 1087, and published in theTravancore-Cochin Government Gazette (Extra-ordinary) dated the 25th January 1951.2. Rule 14 of the Rules provides that 'the vend of tobacco of all kinds is prohibited throughout the State, except under a licence'; Rule 15 that the 'licence for the vend of tobacco shall be of the following descriptions :--'(i) Stockist or 'A' Class license, (ii) Wholesale or 'B' Class license and (iii) Retail or 'C' Class license'; and Rule 16 (1) and (11): (1) Holders of Stockist or 'A' Class licensees shall be entitled to purchase tobacco from any dealer within or without the State without any quantitative restriction. This class of licensees shall sell only to other 'A' Class licensees or to 'B' Class licensees. (ii) The annual fee for these licenses shall be as follows: -- Variety of tobaccosto...
Kunji Amma Madhavikutti Amma Vs. Krishna Pillai Raman Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-07-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker119
Vaidialingam, J.1. The short point that arises tor decision in the Second Appeal is whether the application filed by the 9th defendant to set aside the court sale of item 3 is barred by limitation or not.2. There is no doubt that the decree, in pursuance of which execution was taken, provided that item 3 should be sold in the last instance. But actually, the item 3 has been sold first.3. The court sale was on 23-7-1124. The 9th defendant filed on 26-3-1952 the present application for setting aside the sale under Order XXI rule 90 and Sections 47 and 151 of the C. P. C. on the ground that the sale was contrary to the directions contained in the decree and as such, void and also on other grounds. The application was opposed by the court-auction-purchaser on the ground that it is barred by limitation. It will be noted that the application for setting aside the sale was filed nearly three years alter the sale.4. According to the 9th defendant, the sale of item 3 being void, no question of ...
Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal, Trivandrum
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-05-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker202; (1958)IILLJ722Ker
M.S. Menon, J.1. This petition questions the validity of theaward of the Industrial Tribunal, Trivandrum, in Industrial Dispute No. 3 of 1955. After hearing counsel for the petitioner (Management) we are satisfied that the only question that really arisesfor consideration is whether seven of the thirteen employees ordered to be reinstated by the Tribunal are workmen as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or not. The seven employees concerned are Nos. I, 2, 4, 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the employees specified in issue No. 3, namely,C. T. Thomas, Conductor; A. G. Cherian, Conductor; Kalis Pereira, Maistry; C. Unnunny, Maistry; P. M. Behanan, Maistry; V. E. Varghese, Maistry and K. Ehaskara Pillai, Maistry.2. The definition of the term 'workman' as it stood at the relevant time reads as follows :' 'workman' means any person employed (including an apprentice) in any industry to do any skilled or unskilled, manual or clerical work for hire or reward and includes, for the purposes of any p...
M. Kumaran Vs. First Additional Income-tax Officer, Kozhikode.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-01-1957
Reported in: [1958]33ITR290(Ker)
M. S. MENON, J. - The prayer in the petition is worded as follows :'For the reasps stated in the accompanying affidavit the honble court may be pleased to direct the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, call for records and quash the order of the First Additional Income-tax Act in G.I. No. 697-K dated March 13, 1956, and pass such further or other orders as this honble court may deem fit.'2. In Exhibit D, the order impugned, the respondent said :'The assessee was taken on file for the first time for 1947-48 assessment. Previously the business was being conducted by the Hindu undivided family of Messrs. Moothorakutty and Sons till March 31, 1946, and from April 1, 1946 partition in the family was recognised. Hence the assessee who is a member of the family got half share in the business and became a new assessee from 1947-48 assessment. He filed a voluntary return of income on September 10, 1947. But he did not file an estimate of his total income and pay advance...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›