Kerala Court September 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.
M. Abdul Rahiman Vs. M.P. Kesavan and Sons
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-11-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker51
M.S. Menon, J. The 2nd defendant in O.S. No. 48 of 1950 of the District Court of Quilon is the appellant before us. A partnership, Messrs. Hidayathul Cashew Company, Quilon, of which he is at present the sole surviving member purchased from the plaintiff 700 cases of cashew kernels for a gross price of $16672.50. It is now agreed that the sale took place on 19-9-1949 and that the only controversy is as to the rate at which the price fixed in American dollars should be converted into Indian rupees. According to the appellant conversion should be at Rs. 329 per 100 dollars and not at Rs. 473-12-0 as claimed by the plaintiff and found, by the trial Court.2. Paragraph 6 of the plaint reads as follows:''The invoice for the aforesaid sale of 700 cases cashews was given to the defendants on 19-9-1949. But, by the oversight of the ,clerk concerned in the matter of calculation, the exchange rate was wrongly calculated at Rs. 329 per dollars 100.00 instead of Rs. 473-12-0 per dollars 100.00 the ...
M.A. Mohamed Vs. Regional Transport Authority, Trichur
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-11-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker140
1. The petitioner has to stagecarriage permits for the Vypeen-Pallippuram route. The Regional Transport Authority, Trichur (1st respondent), invited applications for four more stage carriage permits on the said route by a notification dated 3-7-1956.2. Fifty-five persons including the petitioner and respondents 2 to 5 applied. On 5-2-1957 the list respondent granted a permit each to respondents 2 to 5 and rejected the other applications.3. The petitioner and some of the others whose applications were rejected appealed to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, under Section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The petitioner's Appeal was numbered as Appeal No. 110 of 1957 and the other appeals, as Appeal Nos. 73, 74, 79, 81 and 100 of 1957. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in (his petition were respondent Nos, 1 to 5 in the aforesaid appeals as well.The appeals were heard together and by a common order dated 8-8-1957 the Tribunal directed as follows:'In the result, the order of the Regional Trans...
Firm of S.P.A. and A.R. Chockalingam Chettiar Vs. National Steamship C ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-09-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker47
Varadaraja Iyengak, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiffs in a suit for damages for conversion which has been decreed in part by the Court below. 2. The plaintiffs represent a firm of merchants carrying on business at Mattancherry in Cochin. They were the consignees of various goods under separate contracts of sea carriage between Bombay and Cochin, through-M/s, The New Dholera Steamship Ltd., Bombay, and the Malabar Steamship Co., Ltd., Bombay. These two carriers have their common agent in the sole defendant in the case, viz., M/s. The National Steamship Co., Bombay, with registered office at Mattancherry, and represented by Ratansee Panchan, residing at Mattancherry. According to the plaintiffs, there was failure on the part of the defendant to deliver 4 specific lots of goods covered by four separate Bills of lading, even though the goods had arrived and been stored in the defendant's go-down, along with the rest. Two of these lots which consisted of copper circles and brass circles...
Varkey Vs. Bhaskaran Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-09-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker78
Sankaran, J. 1. The 5th defendant has preferred this appeal against the lower Court's order objecting to the execution of the decree and the sale of his property On the basis of the proclamation schedule filed by the decree-holder. If the objections were only about the description of the properties proclaimed, the present appeal would not have been competent. But from the several objections raised by the 5th defendant we see that some of them go far deeper and question the manner in which the dercee-holder is seeking to enforce his decree. Such objections would come under Section 47, Civil P. C. The decree has specified separately the extent of the liability of each set of defendants and has directed that the amount due from each set has to be recovered from the particular property in the possession of that set of defendants.The Proclamation schedule has ignored this aspect of the decree and has been drawn up in such a way that for the entire amount due from all sets of defendants, the...
C.V. Kunhiman Vs. P.M.K. Idrosekutty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-05-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker126
Varadaraja Iyengar, J.1. This appeal is by the defendant in a suit on a foreign judgment which has been allowed by the Court below.2. The plaintiff and the defendant both hail from Ponnani Taluk in Palghat District. For some time they were doing certain joint business in Colombo and in settlement of accounts in connection therewith and for other moneys borrowed, the defendant executed in favour of the plaintiff a promissory note dated 31-10-1947 for a sum of Rs. 3,823 and odd with provision for interest at 18 per cent. On foot of this promissory-note, the plaintiff filed suit and obtained ex parte judgment in the District Court of Colombo in. Action No. 9321/S on 11-6-1948. The plaintiff then filed suit O. S. 24 of 1948 before the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Ottapalam, vide Ext. B1 plaint, for enforcement of the ex parte Judgment or alternatively, for the realisation of the promissory note debt, but subsequently allowed it to be dismissed, because the ex parte judgment was set as...
Chacko Varkey Vs. Thommen Thomas
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-02-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker31
M.S. Menon, J.1. The plaintiffs in O. S. No. 167 of 1124 of the District Court of Kottayam are the appellants before us. The suit was based cm Ex. A, an unregistered chitty udampady executed by the defendant in favour of the 1st plaintiff on 7-11-1107. The chitty terminated on 15-7-1116. The suit was instituted on 20-8-1124. The date on which the cause of action arose was not specified in the plaint.2. The lower Court found that the suit was barred by limitation. The learned counsel for the appellants concedes that the conclusion is correct but for Ex. A-1, an endorsement on Ex. A made by the defendant and signed by him on 18-10-1121. The endorsement reads as follows:(Endorsement in Malayalam omitted.)3. Section 19(1) of the Travancore Limitation Act (Act VI of 1100) provides:'Where, before the expiration of the period prescribed for a suit or application in respect of any property or right, an acknowledgment of liability in respect of such property or right has been made in writing si...
State of Kerala Vs. West Coast Planters' Agencies Ltd., CochIn and Anr ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-02-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker41; 1958CriLJ177
Raman Nayar, J.1. These appeals by the State against the acquittal of the same accused persons in two different cases raise the question whether there can be a general meeting under Section 76(1) of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, of a Company consisting only of one member. The 1st accused in both the cases is the Company itself, a private company as it happens to be, and the 2nd accused is the managing-director of the Company who, at the relevant time, was its sole member.In one case the prosecution was for an offence under Section 76(2) of the Companies Act for failure to hold a general meeting in the' year 1953 as required by Section 76(1); in the other, it wag for an offence under Section 133(3) read with Section 131 for failure to lay before the Company in general meeting a balance-sheet and profit and loss account in the same year; and in both the liability depends upon whether Section 76(1) enjoins such a meeting in the case of a one-man company or, perhaps, to put it more corre...
C.P. Mary Vs. State of Travancore-cochin
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-02-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker85; (1958)IILLJ717Ker
Varadaraja Iyengar, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner is C. P. Mary employed In the service of the 1st respondent State of Travancore-Cochin as clerk in the Assistant Labour Commissioner's Office at Alleppy. Her complaint is that she has not been assigned her due rank in the ministerial service in the Labour Department when the integration of the services in the two States of Travancore and Cochin was effected. Respondents 2 to 28 are other clerks in the Department, who, according to the petitioner, have been wrongly given higher rank. In view of the importance of the question raised, the petition was referred to a Division Bench by the learned Single Judge before whom it came on in the first instance.2. The integration of the Travancore-Cochin Stare took place on 1-7-1949. By that date, petitioner had come to occupy the post of a permanent clerk on Rs. 25-40 in the Education Department of the Cochin State and was serving as an officiating cl...
Veeria Perumal Pillai Padmanabha Pillai Vs. Avukkarummal Muhammad Path ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-02-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Ker257
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for money. The plaint claim was based on a loan of Rs. 16,000/- which, the plaintiff alleged, he had advanced on 3-4-1948 to a partnership business conducted by defendants 1 and 2, and which, according to him, was secured by a promissory note (Ext. A) and agreement (Ext. B) executed by defendant 1 in his favour on the same date and was used for discharging an earlier debt due from the firm to the South India Bank Ltd. Defendant 1 admitted that there was a partnership between him and defendant 2 and stated that they had been conducting a wholesale ration shop in Nemom Pakuthy.But he contended that he had not received any amount from the plaintiff and he was caused to execute Exts. A and B by the agent of the South India Bank, that defendants 1 and 2 were equally liable for the debt due to the said Bank, that on account of defendant 2's default to make the necessary contribution for discharging the debt due to the Bank he himself had paid the entire am...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›