Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1958Ker154
Raman Nayar, J.1. At the last General Election held in March 1957, the appellant was declared duly elected to the Legislative Assembly of this State from the General Seat of the Devicolam Constituency. In April the 1st respondent, a candidate whose nomination had been rejected by the Returning Officer, filed the present petition for a declaration that the election of the appellant was void on the ground mentioned in Section 100(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petition has been allowed by the Election Tribunal, Kottayam, and hence this appeal.2. The 2nd respondent was returned from the reserved seat, and against him no relief has been claimed. He may be ignored altogether and we shall hereafter refer to the 1st respondent (namely, the petitioner before the Tribunal) as merely the respondent.3. The only question is whether the rejection of the respondent's nomination was improper. If it was, it is not disputed that in view of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1958Ker290
Kaman Nayar, J. 1. These petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution by the managements of certain private schools, recognised and aided by the State Government, are directed against an order of Government Order Ed. (G. Spl.) 1-20599/57/EHD dated 112th October, 1957, by which, in effect, grants earmarked for the salaries of the teachers employed in such schools which were theretofore being drawn and disbursed by the manager of the school concerned are to be drawn and disbursed by the headmaster. This order was to take effect from 1st October, 1957; in other words the new system would come into operation on 1st November when the salaries for October became payable. But the order notwithstanding, the managers of the schools with which we are now concerned prepared and submitted the bills for the salaries of the teachers of their schools for the month of October 1957 (as also for the arrears for some previous months) to the respective Assistant Educational Officers, (who are the cont...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1958Ker341
ORDERC.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution to call for the records relating to order No. 74/Genl/57 dated 18-10-1957 passed by the first respondent, the Central Road Traffic Board, Trivandrum and quash the same by the issue of at writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order. The order sought to be quashed is marked as Ex. B in these proceedings.2. According to the petitioner, he holds a permit for the stage carriage KLQ 1484 (TCQ 1081) running on the Kottayathukadavu -- Kallada route via Kundara. The second respondent holds a permit for stage carriage TCO 47 and 2149 running on the Kottayathukadavu -- Kundara route, the terminal point for which has been fixed at Kundara by the Road Traffic Board as C. P. Junction, Kundara. The order fixing the said C. P. Junction as the terminal point is the one dated 30-3-1957 and marked as Ex. A.3. Against the order of the Road Traffic Board fixing- the terminal point, the second resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1960Ker82
ORDERVaradaraja Iyengar, J.1. This is a petition under Article 228 of the Constitution. The petitioner is a servant of the Respondent Statn of Kerala. His complaint is that the service conditions which governed him while he was attached to the State of Madras before he came over to the service of the Respondent State as a result of the formation of Kerala have been altered to his detriment by various orders of the Respondent State. Reliance is placed by the petitioner on Section 115(7) of the States Reorganisation Act which prohibits such alteration except with the previous consent of the Government of India. The State in counter affidavit has repudiated that petitioner has any cause of action for complaint and contended that the petition is not maintainable under the writ jurisdiction of this court.2. Now there can be no doubt and it has been so held in numerons decisions that complaints as to service conditions by servants of the Central or State Governments are not amenable to judic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1959Ker130
M.S. Menon, J.1. O. S. No. 2 of 1950 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry from which A. S. No. 1152 of 1953 (M) arises was a suit for partition of the plaint B and C Schedule properties into four equal shares among the three plaintiffs and the 1st defendant and for the recovery of possession of the three shares of the three plaintiffs with future mense profits and costs. The lower court gave a preliminary decree for partition on the lines indicated in the judgment with future mesne profits at a rate to be decided at the time of the final decree and directed the costs to come out of the estate. From the said decision defendants 1 and 2 appealed to the High Court of Madras, impleading the three plaintiffs and defendants 3 to 7 as the respondents in the appeal.2. On 28-9-1956 the appellants filed C. M. P. No. 9037 of 1956 (M) before the High Court of Madras and prayed that the court:'be pleased to record that the suit O. S. No. 2 of 1950, Sub Court, Tellicherry has been co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1958Ker169
M.S. Menon, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The appellant was the 1st respondent in Election Petition No. 277 of 1957 and the appeal is against the order of the Election Tribunal, Trichur, declaring his election to the Legislative Assembly of the Kerala Slate from the Chalakudi Constituency No. 64, to be void under Section 100(1)(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.2. Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, details the grounds for declaring an election to be void. There are two sub-sections to that section and Sub-section (1) is subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2). According to Sub-section (1) (a) of that section, if the Tribunal is of opinion :'that an the date of his election a returned candidate was not qualified, or was disqualified to be chosen to fill the seat under the Constitution or this Act',the Tribunal shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void.3. Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1958Ker52; 1958CriLJ380
Vaidialingam, J. 1. We have absolutely no doubt that this appeal is devoid of any merits.2. This appeal arises out of an application filed by the appellant for the issue of a writ of certiorari or such other directions for quashing the judgments dated 14-9-1956 passed by the first respondent, the sub-majristrate, Koothattukulam in C. C. Nos. 3 to 5 and 10 of 1954 and 170/1955 and for the issue of a writ of prohibition to respondents 1 to 4 from talcing any strps to enforce the directions contained in the judgment of the first res-pondent.3. The appellant was prosecuted for an offence punishable under Sections 4 (1) (d) and 8 of the Travancore-Cochin Vehicles Taxation Act - Tra-vancore-Cochin Act XIV of 1950. In short, the prosecution case was that the appellant allowed the motor vehicles mentioned in the charge, to use the public road without paying the tax due on the same.4. Several contentions were raised but not those contentions which have been raised in this court in the Original ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1959Ker414
ORDERVaradaraja Iyengar, J. 1. This revision is by the 1st defendant and is directed against an order of the Court below which allowed to certain extent, a petition under Section 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act, filed by the respondent-plaintiff before it. 2. The suit was one for partition and recovery of the plaintiff's share with profits. Pending Suit, the parties compromised their differences by agreeing to the properties available for partition, the shares duo to the parties, and also the properties from which and the period during which the parties were liable for mesne profits inter se. But they left the estimation of the actual amount of profits and also the valuation of the properties to a lawyer Padnanabhan Nair and following the valuation, the division and allotments to Kunhahammad Musaliar who was also to decide the question of costs. The parties agreed finally to execute and register a partition deed to be drawn up by the said Musaliar in accordance with his decisions. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1959Ker230; 1959CriLJ981
Kumara Pillai, J.1. The accused in Sessions Case No. 38 of 1956 of the court of the Additional Sessions Judge at Parur is the appellant in this appeal. He has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge tinder Section 304, Part I, I. P. C., and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and also convicted on two counts under Section 324, I. P. C., and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years in respect of each of them. Besides these three convictions he has also been convicted for attempting to commit suicide, under Section 309 I. P. C., and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. All the four sentences are to run concurrently.The occurrence complained of took place in front, of and inside a car shed used as a house by the divorced wife of the accused and her parents in Talamattam Kara, Thodupuzha Taluk, at about 4-30 p.m. on 24-8-1954 corresponding to 8-1-1130. The accused married about three, years before the occurrence, Pw. 4 a de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1958Ker207; 1958CriLJ1021
P.T. Raman Nayar, J.1. The accused in this case, a man of 45, has been sentenced to death for the murder of his wife, Kotha by name, a woman of 22. He has appealed, and the learned Sessions Judge has submitted the proceedings for confirmation of the sentence.2. The accused and the deceased were married about four months before the occurrence which took place at about mid-night on the night of the 12th November, 1956. They lived together in the accused's house for only two months and then the deceased ran away to the house of her parents, P-Ws. 1 and 3, some distance away, and was Jiving there till the time of the occurrence. Whether she did this as a result of ill-treatment as alleged by the prosecution or for no reason whatsoever as stated by the accused is a matter of no consequence. But although it is supported by no other evidence, the accused's statement in the confession, Ext. P-ll, he made before a Magistrate, that his repeated demands that his wife should go back to him went un...
Tag this Judgment!