Kerala Court March 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.
State Vs. C.K. Joseph
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-31-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker10; 1959CriLJ45
Raman Nayar, J. 1. This appeal by the State is against the acquittal ordered in C. C. No. 789 of 1956 on the file of the First Class Magistrate, Meenachil. The case was tried summarily under the provisions of Chapter XXII of the Criminal Procedure Code, and all that the learned magistrate has said against columns (h) and (i) of the register kept under Section 263 of the Code, namely, the columns for recording the finding and the sentence or other final order, is that the accused is not guilty and that he is acquitted under Section 245 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. The accusation was of three offences; the first under Section 19(h) of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act XI of 1125 for failure on the part of the accused to renew his dealer's registration for the year 1953-54 as required by Section 10(3) of the Act and Rule 8(7) of the rules made thereunder; the second under Section 19(f) of the Act for collecting sales lax in contravention of Section 11(1) (during what period...
Gopalan Vs. Kannan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-28-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker12
M. S. Menon, J. 1. This is an appeal by the petitioner in Election Petition No. 261 of 1957. His petition to set aside the election of the 1st respondent to the Kerala State Assembly from the Gannanore Assembly Constituency No. 1 was dismissed by the Election Tribunal, Tellicherry, by its order dated the 16th September, 1957. It is the correctness of that order that is challenged by this appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.2. There were three contesting candidates, the petitioner (Congress), the 1st respondent (Communist) and the 2nd respondent (Independent). The polling was on 5-3-1957, and the counting of votes, on the 9th and the 11th March 1957. The 1st respondent, secured 17,464 votes, the petitioner 17,413 votes and the 2nd respondent 9082 votes. The result of the election was declared on the 11th March 1957.3. Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, details the grounds for declaring an election to be void. There are two sub-...
Govindan Raman Vs. Govindan Kesavan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-28-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker249
Joseph, J.1. These appeals arise from two suits O. S. Nos. 22 of 1122 and 28 of 1123 tried and disposed of together by the Temporary Additional District Judge of Mavelikara. Govindan Raman the appellant in the two appeals was the plaintiff in O. S. No. 22 and the 1st defendant in O. S. No. 28. O. S. No. 22 of 1122 was a suit for redemption of 6 items of immovable properties which were outstanding on mortgages executed by a former karnavan of the plaintiff's farwad. Exts. C, D and E are three mortgage deeds of the years 1060, 1067 and 1072 respectively. Govinclan Kesavan the defendant in. O. S. No. 22 took an assignment of the mortgage rights in respect of items 1 to 6 under Ex. F dated 1-2-1084 and he was stated to have been in possession of these properties from that date. The equity of redemption of items 1 to 3 and some other properties were sold through the District Court of Mavelikara in execution of the decree in O. S. No. 150 of 1101 of the Quilon District Court, obtained agains...
Narayanan Nair Vs. Narayanan Nair and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-26-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker116
G. Kumara Pillai, J.1. In a suit for partition brought by some junior members of a Nair tarwad governed by the Travan-core Nair Act, II of 1100, defendant 1, who was the karnavan of the tarwad, contended that some of the suit properties did not belong to the tarwad but were his self-acquired and separate properties andthat they were not, therefore, liable to be partitioned. He as well as several other members of the tarwad also claimed that their shares also should be partitioned in this suit itself.The Court of first instance found that the disputed properties were not defendant 1's self-acquired and separate properties and that those properties also belonged to the tarwad and were liable to be partitioned like the rest of the suit properties. Consequently, that Court passed a preliminary decree for partition awarding to the plaintiffs, defendant 1 and other members of the tarwad who had claimed partition, shares in all the suit properties on a per capita basis and allowing them to re...
Beeyyathumma Vs. MoidIn Haji
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-26-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker125
Vaidialingam, J. 1. A. S. 1125/53 is an appeal by the first plaintiff (in O. S 94/49 against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tellicherry, dismissing the suit so for as his claims were concerned,2. A. S. 818/54 is an appeal by defendants 12 and 13 against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge in the same suit disallowing certain reservations claimed by them.3. O. S 94/1949 was filed by the appellant and her sister for partition of the suit properties into three equal shares, ignoring certain transactions entered into by their father and guardian, the second defendant and for allotment and delivery of two shares to the plaintiffs. They also asked for certain consequential reliefs.4. The case of the plaintiffs was that the plaintiffs and the third defendant are the children of the second defendant by one Pathumma. The plaint item 1 of which the plaint item 2 formed part, was held by the second defendant in Kanomkuzhikanom light under a Marupat dated 26-6-193...
Banwarilal Jhunjhunwalla and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-26-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker311; 1959CriLJ1172
ORDERRaman Nayar, J. 1. These three petitions may be disposed of together since they raise the same question -- in fact two of them are from the same case.2. The petitioners are some of the accused persons in C. C. Nos. 1 and 2 on the file of Shri T. R. Balakrishna Iyer, one of the two special fudges appointed under Section 6 (1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, XLVI of 1952 for the whole State of Kerala and specified under Section 7 (2) of the Act as the judge to try these cases. (Crl. R. P. No. 44 is by accused 1 and 2 and Crl. R. P. No. 65 by the 3rd accused in C. C. No. 1; and Crl. R. P. No. 45 is by accused 1 to 3 in C. C. No. 2). 'Objection was taken to the trial on the score of want of territorial jurisdiction, but by two separate orders, dated 18-1-1958, the learned special judge overruled the objection and proceeded to frame charges under Section 251-A(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioners seek to set aside those orders and to quash the charges, the principal gr...
Kunhukuttan Nair Vs. Subakumaran and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-25-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker45
P.T. Raman Nayar, J.1. We think that this appeal against the grant of a temporary injunction has to be allowed on the short ground that the Civil Procedure Code does not authorise the grant of an injunction in the circumstances of the case.2. The suit in which the injunction has been granted was one instituted by the three sons of the, manager of a joint Hindu family governed by the principles of Mitakshara law. It was partition of their three-fourths share in the joint family. The suit was filed on 16-10-1957, hut the entire property had already been sold on 16-9-1957 in execution of a mortgage decree against the father in his capacity as manager of the family. The sale was confirmed on 20-10-1957.The suit was on the footing that the decree and the sale did not bind the plaintiffs since the mortgage debt incurred by their father was an avyavaharika debt and the decree-holder and auction purchaser were made parties to the suit being impleaded as defendants 3 and 5 respectively. On 18-1...
Kurumpakoehika Vs. Narayana Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-24-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Ker56
Vaidialingam, J. 1. The short point for consideration in this Second Appeal is whether the plaintiff-appellants are entitled to exercise their right of redemption. The trial court held that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover possession of the plaint items on depositing certain amounts mentioned in the decree. But on appeal by the plaintiffs, the learned District Judge, Mavelikara, has reversed the decision of the trial court and held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to redeem the suit properties and in consequence, has dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs have come up in Second Appeal to this court. 2. The circumstances under which the plaintiffs instituted the present suit for redemption claiming a right in them are briefly as follows: 3. The suit properties belonged to the second plaintiff and on 10-12-1103 he executed a mortgage in favour of one Chanda Pilla Chacko. On 11-6-1105, the second plaintiff along with his sister, executed a second mortgage as evidenced by Ex. B in fa...
Bethany Rubber Estate Vs. Industrial Tribunal, Quilon and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-20-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Ker271; (1958)IILLJ74Ker
M.S. Menon, J. 1. The petitioner is a Superintendent of the Bethany Rubber Estate, Ranni. The 1st respondent is the Industrial Tribunal, Quilon, the 2nd, the Ranni Plantation Labour Union and the 3rd, the State of Kerala.2. Certain disputes between the Management of the Rubber Estate and their Workmen were referred for adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The third of the five issues referred was in the following terms.'Should the time rate of system of payment of wages to the workers now prevalent in the Estate Be changed?'The Tribunal considered the question in paragraphs 22 to 25 of the award dated 30-9-1957 and found the issue in favour of the workmen.3. The minimum rates of wages payable to such workmen had been fixed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (Act 11 of 1948) and the contention of the petitioner is that asa result the reference of issue No. 3 for adjudication by the Government under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947) and the ...
M.V. Ittycheria Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-19-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Ker374; (1958)IILLJ724Ker
M.S. Menon, J.1. The petitioner is an Assistant Engineer who has been placed under suspension by Ext. P-7 dated 2-7-1957 and regarding whom a formal and public inquiry has been ordered by Ext. P-9 dated 21-11-1957 under Sec. 2 of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1122. Section 2 of the Act reads as follows: 'If, after a preliminary inquiry or otherwise, our Government are of opinion that there are sufficient grounds for making a formal and public inquiry into the truth of any imputation of misconduct by any person in the service of Our Government not removable from Office without their sanction, our Government shall cause the substance of the imputations to be drawn up into distinct articles of charge and shall order a formal and public inquiry to be made into the truth thereof.' It is clear from the section that the foundation for ordering a formal and public inquiry is the Government's SATISFACTION that there are sufficient grounds for making such an inquiry into the truth of any ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »