Kerala Court January 1958 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.
P.K. Pavoo Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-31-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker65
Vaidialingam, J.1. This is an application to call for the records and to quash by a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam in Adjudication No. 28/1951 as confirmed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Madras in Appeal No. III-73/1954 in so far as it is against the petitioner and also to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ to the 1st respondent to refer an industrial dispute to the Tribunal at Trivandrum and also for the issue of a writ in the nature of Mandamus to the Industrial Tribunal, Trivandrum to enquire into the dispute.2. In the view that we take in this matter, it is unnecessary to mention in any great detail the several contentions of the parties before the Industrial Tribunal, the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Madras, and in these proceedings before this Court. It is enough to state that by order 19-9-1951 the then State of Travancore Cochin referred an industrial dispute for adjudi...
Kunnath Textiles Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-29-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker3; (1959)IILLJ510Ker
Raman Nayar, J.1. In 1942 one K. T. Paul and his six brothers started a handloom textile factory which they ran until about March 1948. In January, 1949, the seven brothers formed a private limited company with one of the brothers, by name Cherukutty, as the managing director. This company took the factory on lease and worked it until 1-11-1953 when it surrendered the lease. The provision of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, XIX of 1952 were applied to the factory while it was being run by the Eastern Agencies Ltd., and that company was contributing to the Employees' Provident Fund as required by the Act and the Scheme framed thereunder. On the termination of the lease of the company, the seven brothers formed themselves into a partnership which they called the 'Kunnath Textiles' and they took over the factory which they continued to run with the same employees (although they now choose to call them new workers) making the same goods and with no change whatsoever as to its character....
Penukka and ors. Vs. Kelukkutty and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-24-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker212
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants 4 to 8 and 30 against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tellicherry in O. S. 72/1952 holding that the plaintiffs are entitled to a partition of items 1 to 10 and 12 of the plaint B schedule.2. One Kelu had 5 sons namely, Chathunni, Unni (1st defendant), Kelukutly, Cherutty and Kunhikrishnan (defendant 2). Unni the 1st defendant has no male issues and defendants 4 and 7 are his wife and daughter. The 8th defendant is a son of the 7th defendant. Kelukutty appears tohave died some time in April-May 1951 just prior to the present suit. The 1st defendant Unni died during the pendency of this suit and his wife and daughter are defendants 6 and 5 respectively.3. The three plaintiffs and the 3rd defendant are the sens of Chathunni, the eldest son of Kelu. The 9th defendant is an assignee of the rights of the 3rd defendant. The 10th defendant claims as a legatee of the rights of the 1st defendant in item 1 of plaint...
Paily Vs. Kunjumuhammed
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-13-1958
Reported in: AIR1960Ker11
N. Varadaraja Iyengar, J. 1. This second appeal is by the surety for the 3rd defendant and is directed against an appellate order of the lower court confirming an order of the executing court which repelled his contentions that the surety bond executed by him had become unenforceable. 2. The decree of the trial court had provided for recovery of property with rent past and future against the 3rd defendant and others. Pending his appeal before the District Court, the 3rd defendant applied for and obtained stay of execution on condition that he furnished security for a sum of Rs. 400. The appellant accordingly stood surety and executed bond on 29-2-1125. The bond was accepted on the same day by the executing court and further execution was stayed. Subsequently on 23-3-1125 the plaintiff-respondent filed review petition before the District Court praying for modification of the stay order on ground that the decree amount had really come up to Rs. 600 and there was also future rent recovera...
Velumpi Kunji Vs. Velayudhan Gopala Panickan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-13-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Ker178
K. Sankaran, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for partition which was instituted in the year 1103 M. E. The parties to the suit are members of the Ezhava community and are governed by the Travancore Ezhava Act (Act III of 1100). As per the case put forward in the plaint, plaintiffs 1 to 8 and defendants 1 to 114 were members of an undivided Ezhava Marumakkathayam tarwad on the date of the suit. This tarwad is known by the name of Kollasseril or Kollasseril Kizhakkethu. The 1st defendant was the karanavan of this tarwad on the date of the suit. He died during the course of the suit and no additional party was brought on record as his legal representative.On the other hand, defendants 2 to 114 who were the other members of the tarwad excluding the plaintiffs who had attained a divided status with the institution of the suit, were recorded as the legal representatives of the 1st defendant. A genealogical table showing- the relationship of the several members of the tarwad was ...
K. Ari Vs. State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-13-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker325; 1959CriLJ1182
ORDERSankaran, J. 1. The accused in Summary Trial Case No. 1935/1956 on the file of the Honorary Special First Class Magistrate's Court at Kozhikode is the revision petitioner. The prosecution against him was for' the offence punishable under Section 3(a) and Section 3-A(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, Central Act XI of 1890 as amended by Act XIV of 1917 and Act XXV of 1938. The prosecution was launched by the S.P.C.A. Inspector at Kozhikode, According to him he noticed the accused driving a double bullock bandy along the Big Bazar Road at Kozhikode at 3 P.M. on 26-6-1956 and, on finding that the bandy was heavily loaded and that the bulls were struggling hard to move forward with such a load, he stopped the bandy and prepared a mahazar noting the total weight of the load in the bandy and also the weight of the bulls.Since the load was in excess of the permissible limit, the charge was laid against the accused under the aforesaid sections. The accused pleaded not guilty...
Arthur Import and Export Co. Vs. Collector of Customs, CochIn and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-13-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Ker357
Vaidialingam, J.1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by Arthur Import, and Export Company Bombay, for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order to quash the levy imposed on the applicants by the 1st respondent, the Collector of Customs, Cochin and the orders passed by the 2nd and 3rd respondents, the Collector of Customs, Madras and the Union of India represented by the Joint Secretary. Ministry of Finance (Revenue Division) New Delhi. There is also a further prayer to direct the Collector of Customs, Cochin, the 1st respondent, by issuing a writ of mandamus, to refund the amount of Rs. 31,993-8-0 stated to have been illegally collected from the applicants.2. It will be seen from what is stated above that the Collector of Customs. Cochin, the Collector of Customs, Madras and the Union of India represented by the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance (Revenue Division) New Delhi, are respondents 1 to 3 respectively...
Ouseph Devassi Vs. State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-06-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Ker262; 1958CriLJ1184
Sankaran, J.1. This is a revision petition, filed by accused 1 and 2 in Calendar Case No. 1325/954 on the file of the Stationary Second Class Magistrate's Court at Alwaye. There were four other accused in the case. All the six of them were prosecuted for the offences punishable under Clause (f) of Section 27 of the Travancore-Cochin Forest Act (Act III of 1952) and under Rule 11 of the Timber Transit Rules framed under the Travancore Forest Act (Act II of 1068). On 1-8-1954 the Forest Depot Officer at Varapuzha noticed two bamoo rafts being rowed down the Periyar river by accused 3 to 6 and, on suspecting that those bamboos were being unauthorisedly removed from the reserve forest, the Depot Officer seized the bamboos fastened together in the two rafts.Accused 3 to 6 produced the passes Exts. C to C 10 before the Depot Officer to convince him that the bamboos were being transported on the authority of these passes. But the passes were found to be time-expired and hence the Depot Office...
Narayani Amma Rajamma Vs. Nanukutty Alias Nanukutten Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-03-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Ker216; 1958CriLJ1024
ORDERSankaran, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the lower court's order in M. O. No. 10/ 1956 on the file of that court. That was a case filed by the mother and her three children, under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for an order against the respondent to pay maintenance for the three children alleged to be born to him in the first petitioner. According to the 1st petitioner, she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and petitioners 2 to 4 are the children born of that union. The respondent has subsequently married another lady and thereafter he has been neglecting to maintain these petitioners. The first petitioner, however, has not claimed anything for her maintenance from the respondent. The claim for maintenance has been put forward only on behalf of the minor children who are petitioners 2 to 4. On behalf of the petitioners the first petitioner as Pw. 1 gave evidence in support of her case that she is the legally wedded wife of the responden...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›