Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1959CriLJ464
ORDER No. H/4-28800/57 Home (A) 'Sanction is accorded to the Public Prosecutor, Trivandrum, under Sub-section (3) of Section 198B of theCode of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to make a complaint against Sri K. Karthikeyan, Editor, Printer and Publisher of the Newspaper 'Pothujanam' before the Court of Session, Trivandrum for the offences punishable under Sections 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code for having published a news item in its issue dated 21-8-1957 under the caption (words in Malayalam omitted), and also the reply of the correspondent under the caption (words in Malayalam omitted.) and the Editorial in the issue dated 23-8-1957 which are highly defamatory of the Minister for Law in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his public functions. (By order of the Governor) Sd/N.E.S. Raghavachari. Secretary to the Council of Ministers and Chief Secretary'. 37. Now it is quite apparent from its wording, and, in particular from the recital 'By order of the Governor' under which the C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1960Ker98
Varadaraja Iyengar, J.1. This second appeal is by the defendant in a suit to set aside an order refusing to remove an obstruction in execution and for recovery, which was dismissed by the trial court but allowed by the court below.2. Kora Ulahannan started a chitty scheme in 1108 as foreman but it collapsed in or about 1110. There were five unprized subscribers to whom paid-up subscriptions were due, viz., D.W. 1, D.W. 2, plaintiff, Kurien and Kuriacko. It is the defendant's case that 3 meeting was held of these chitty creditors, the foreman and others on 9-6-1110 when measures were taken for the settlement of the debts by sales of the chitty security properties. In due course. Exts III, IV and V sale deeds were executed in favour of D.W. 1, Kurien and D.W. 7 respectively on 12-6-1110, and Ext II sale was executed in favour of the defendant with recitals on 15-6-1110 to pay off, the plaintiff and Kuriacko, all the documents being registered on 19-6-1110.The delay in executing Ext. II a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1959Ker291
ORDERC.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by Proprietor, Jai Hind Motor Service, Ernakulam, to call for the records and to quash the award of the Industrial Tribunal Trivandrum dated 25-5-1958 and passed in J-D. 3/57.2. An Industrial dispute numbered as I.D, 67/55 was pending before the Industrial Tribunal. Respondents 1 to 14 to this application, are workmen of the Jai Hind Motor Service employed in various categories. During the pendency of T.D. 67/55, the management alleging certain misconduct against the respondents 1 to 14 suspended them from service in October 1956. On 5-11-1956 the management filed two petitions before the Tribunal under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act asking for permission to dismiss all the 14 workmen for their alleged misconduct. On 12-1-57, the Industrial Tribunal declined to give the permission asked for on the ground that the decision of the management to dismiss the 14 workers was unjustified. As t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1959)ILLJ504Ker
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by the proprietor, Jai Hind Motor Service, Ernakulam, to call for the records and to quash the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Trivandrum, dated 25 May 1958 and passed in I.D. No. 3 of 1967.2. An industrial dispute numbered as I.D. No. 67 of 1955 was pending before the industrial tribunal. Respondents 1 to 14 to this application, are workmen of the Jai Hind Motor Service employed in various categories. During the pendency of I.D. No. 67 of 1955, the management, alleging certain misconduct against the respondents 1 to 14, suspended them from service in October 1956. On 5 November 1956, the management filed two petitions before the tribunal under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, asking for permission to dismiss all the fourteen workmen for their alleged misconduct. On 12 January 1957, the industrial tribunal declined to give the permission asked for on the ground that the decision of the mana...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1959Ker382
T.K. Joseph, J.1. Kuttikrishnan Nair the appellant in both the cases is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 40 of 1951 and the 3rd defendant-petitioner in Small cause suit No. 367 of 1940 of the District Munsiff's Court of Palghat. A: S. No. 441 is from the decree dismissing O. S. No. 40 of 1951 and A. S. No. 414 is froth the order dismissing an application to set aside an order in execution of the small cause-decree declaring the appellant ex parte. The two appeals were heard together.2. The facts necessary for the decision of the two anneals may be briefly stated. The appellant and Defendants 3 to 22 in O. S. No. 40 of 1951 are members of an undivided Marumakkathayam tarwad of which the appellant is the senior-most male member. One Padmanabhan Nair, a former karnavan of this tarwad had mortgaged with possession the properties described as items 1 to 16 in the plaint schedule as well as the mortgage right in four other items of immoveable property to one Kesavan Nair for a sum of Its. 4000. Ex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1959)IILLJ58Ker
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. This Is an application by the proprietor, Kallupalam Lads Jewellery Mart, Kottayam, under Article 226 of the Constitution for an order to call for the records in Industrial Dispute No. 37 of 1956 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Alleppey, and to quash the award in the I.D. No. 37 of 1956, dated 20 February 1958.2. The short point that arises in this proceeding is as to whether the industrial tribunal was right in law in holding that V.K. Narayanan Asari, P.K. Chellamani and A.K. Mam are 'workmen' as denned in the Industrial Disputes Act.3. The facts leading up to the filing of this application and as stated in the affidavit in support of the application are as follows:The Travancore-Cochin Government, by its notification, dated 9 May 1956, has finally referred an industrial dispute relating to the Kallupalam Lads Jewellery Mart for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal, Alleppey. The issues referred for adjudication related to four goldsmiths, namely, V...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1959)IILLJ505Ker
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. This is an application by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order dated 30 August 1957 made by the Labour Court, Kozhikode, in I.D. Nos. 3 and 4 of 1957 and also for the issue of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ directing the respondent 1 to allow the petitioners to be represented by Messrs. S.K. Kadar and P.K. Ahamed in the disputes pending before the respondent 1.2. It is not necessary to state very much the facts about the disputes pending in the labour court. It is seen from the affidavit filed in support of these applications that Messrs. S.K. Kadar and P.K. Ahamed appeared on behalf of the two petitioner concerns before the labour court and their appearance was objected to by the Secretary of the Match, Timber and Plywood Workers' Union, Feroke, on the ground that they are legal practitioners and that the permission of the opposite side as well as that of the labour court was required for their appearance. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1959Ker366; 1959CriLJ1328
ORDERKoshi, C.J.1. This Criminal Revision is directed against the order, dated 31-3-1958, of the learned First Class Magistrate of Karunagapally, in Miscellaneous Case No. 24 of 1958 of the file of his court, dismissing the claim a mother and her minor child made against the respondent herein for maintenance under the provisions of Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code. The respondent married revision petitioner 1 in February, 1954, but that marriage was dissolved by mutual consent under a registered deed, Ext P. 2, dated 24-11-1955.Eighteen days thereafter revision petitioner 2 was born to revision petitioner 1. It would appear that some months after the birth of the child the mother was demanding maintenance for the child from the respondent and according to her they decided to enter into a fresh marriage between them. The marriage was solemnised on 30-8-1956. Differences however soon arose and the respondent complained to the police that he was compelled to enter into the second marr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1960Ker100
ORDERKumara Pillai, J. 1. The facts necessary for the disposal of this Civil Revision petition are as follows:-- When the decree-holder applied for delivery of possession of the decree schedule properties, the present revision petitioner, who is a stranger to the suit, filed an obstruction petition and ultimately that obstruction petition was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that, being a stranger to the suit, he had no right to approach the court except under Order XXI, Rule 100, Code of Civil Procedure, that is to say on the ground, that he could file the obstruction petition only after dispossession by the amin. The High Court's decision is reported in 1955 Ker LT 413: ((S) AIR 1955 Trav-Co. 225), Kesavan Padmanabhan v. Neelkantan Narayanan. Thereafter certain proceedings intervened, and ultimately the decree holder himself made an application to the lower court in pursuance of which notice was issued to the revision petitioner to show cause why his obstruction should not b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1959]37ITR311(Ker)
KUMARA PILLAI, J. - This is a reference made by the Madras Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.2. The respondent, the Calicut-Wynad Motor Service Limited, Kozhikode, a private limited company, was assessed to income-tax for the year 1947-48 (the accounting period being the year ended 31st March, 1947,) on an income of Rs. 1,28,182. The income-tax and super-tax assessed on this income came to Rs. 56,080 and there remained a balance of Rs. 72,102 out of the income after deduction of the income-tax and super-tax payable thereon which could be distributed as dividend among its shareholders. As the general meeting on June 22, 1947, the respondent declared the dividend payable out of the income earned during the accounting period ending 31st March, 1947, and the amount required for distribution of that dividend to all the shareholders was only Rs. 32,538. Even after the distribut...
Tag this Judgment!