Kerala Court January 1959 Judgments
V.G.K. Bus Service Ltd. Vs. Kerala State Transport Appellate Tribunal ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-30-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker18
ORDERVaidialingam, J.1. This is an application by Messrs. V. G. K. Bus Service (Private) Ltd., Coimbatore under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the order dated 12-3-1958 passed by the first respondent herein and marked as Ext. P8 in these proceedings. Alternatively, it is also prayed that the order of the second respondent dated 5-6-1959 and marked Ext. P6 in these proceedings may also be quashed if this court is of the view that the order, Ext. P8 passed by the first respondent is otherwise correct.2. The circumstances leading to the filing of this application as could be gathered from the statements contained in the affidavit of Sri M. Kali-appa Gounder filed in support of this application, are briefly as follows;3. The applicant is a private limited company, having its Head Office at Coimbatore. The petitioner company runs 3 buses from Koduvayur to Coimbatore via Tattamangalam, Velanthavalam and Chavadi. Velanthavalam in Kerala State is the frontier station between the Kera...
Tag this Judgment!Sridevi Amma and ors. Vs. Venkitaparasurama Ayyan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-27-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker1
Varadaraja Iyengar , J. 1. These two connected appeals arise respectively from a suit for declaration and injunction, O. S. 34 of 1124 and a petition for letters of administration, M. P. 6 of 1124, both on the file of the Trichur District Court. The suit and the petition were more or less in the nature of cross proceedings concerned with the succession to the estate of Varavoor Ven-kiteswara Iyer deceased.They were accordingly tried and disposed of together by the court below, the common evidence being let in in the suit. As the appeals involved some novel and difficult questions they were referred to a Full Bench and so have come before us and arc being disposed of by this single judgment. We will be referring to the parties as arrayed in the suit for the purpose of convenience.2. Venkitcswara Iyer, deceased, died suddenly as the victim of a murderous attack in his own, house at Vadakkancherry in Cochin, in Chingom 1124. He left behind him considerable properties movable and immovable...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnan Namboodiri and ors. Vs. Cheria Kesavan Namboodiri and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-27-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Ker336
Varadaraja Iyengar, J. 1. This appeal is by the defendants 2, 3 and 11 against the judgment and decree of the lower court in a suit for partition in a Malabar Namboodiri family called Mankolathillam in Cheruthazham Amsom in Chirakkal Taluk and comprising the 1st plaintiff'and defendants 1 to 10 except the 3rd defendant. Of these parties and the 11th defendant, defendants 1 to 3 are brothers. The 6th defendant is the wife of the 1st defendant and the 11th defendant is the wife of the 3rd defendant. Plaintiff 1 and defendants 4, 7, 8 and 9 are the children of the defendants 1 and 5 and the 6th defendant is the wife of the 4th defendant. The 10th defendant is the son of the defendants 4 and 6. The defendants 4, 6 and 10 were transposed as plaintiffs 2, 3 and 4 pending suit. According to the plaintiff, the 3rd defendant had separated from the family under registered release Ext. A-6 dated 24-3-1939 but he was allowed to deal with the family properties and income by the 1st defendant karana...
Tag this Judgment!Government Pleader Vs. Mathai Manjooran and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-23-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Ker266; 1959CriLJ1075
Vaidialingam, J.1. This is an application filed by the Government Pleader under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Contempt of Courts Act -- Central Act XXXII of l952, for taking such action as this court thinks fit under the circumstances, against both the respondents herein.2. The first respondent Sri Mathai Manjuran is the editor and the second respondent Sri. K. Sudhakaran is the publisher of the Malayalam Daily newspaper called 'Kerala Prakasom' printed and published at Ernakulam.3. In the petition filed by the Government Pleader, it is stated that in the issue of the newspaper dated 29-7-1958, the respondents have published a report purporting to be an account of the occurrence on the 26th July 1958 at Varandarappally (near Trichur). In that occurrence, about 5 people lost their lives and several others sustained injuries.4. The heading of report is : (Here follow the heading in malyalam script). A copy of the issue of the said paper of the said date has also been attached along with the...
Tag this Judgment!Marimuthu Chettiar Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-22-1959
Reported in: (1959)IILLJ500Ker
1. The question involved in this petition is whether Ex. P. 1, a notification of the Government of Kerala dated 8 November 1957, is valid or not. The notification reads as follows :-In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 85(1) of the Factories Act, 1948 (Central (Act LXIII of 1948), and in supersession of all previous notifications on the subject, the Government of Kerala hereby declare that the provisions of the said Act specified in Col. (4) of the schedule hereto annexed, shall apply to any place in the State of Kerala wherein any manufacturing process specified in the corresponding entry in Col. (2) and described in Col. (3) thereof is carried on notwithstanding that(i) the number of persons employed therein is less than ten, if working with the aid of power, and less than twenty, if working without the aid of power; or(ii) the parsons working therein are not employed by the owner thereof but are working with the permission of or under agreement with, such owner:Provided th...
Tag this Judgment!Narasinga Shenoi Vs. Madhava Prabhu and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-20-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker45
ORDERKumara Pillai, J. 1. This is a petition to revise an order of the District Munsiff of Crangannore, passed under Order XXV, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, calling upon the plaintiff to furnish security for costs of the defendants. Plaintiff has admittedly no property and he has also filed an insolvency petition. The defendants' application under Order XXV, Rule I. C. P. C. to order the plaintiff to furnish security for was opposed by the plaintiff on the groundsthat the mere fact of his poverty was not sufficient for calling upon him to furnish security for costs and that as the suit was filed by him on behalf of the Samajam and the Samajam was possessed ot properties Order XXV Rule 1 could have no application to this case at all. 2. Order XXV R, 1, Code of Civil Procedure, reads as follows: 'I. (I) At any sage of a suit, the court may either of its own motion or on the application of any defendant, order the plaintiff, for reasons to be recorded, to give within the time fixed by...
Tag this Judgment!Vallabhdas Kanji Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal, Alleppy
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-20-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Ker340; (1959)ILLJ616Ker
M.S. Menon, J.1. The petitioner, Messrs. Vallabhdas Kanji (Private) Limited, Alleppey, discharged 77 workmen consequent on the introduction of a garbling machine in their produce section. Disputes arose regarding this retrenchment, attempts at conciliation failed, and the matter was referred to adjudication. The relevant issues read as follows:(1) Whether the action of the management in introducing machine for garbling is justifiable? (2) To what reliefs are the workers thrown out of employment consequent on the introduction of the garbling machine entitled, in case, (a) The management is justified in introducing the garbling machine? (b) The management is not justified in introducing the garbling machine?2. On issue No. 1 the 1st respondent (Industrial Tribunal, Alleppey) accepted the contention of the petitioner and said:'I find that the action of the management in introducing machinery for garbling is justified.' On the second issue the Tribunal held: 'This is a case where the intro...
Tag this Judgment!Lonappan Vs. Sub-collector, Palghat
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-09-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Ker343
Kumara Pillai, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madras dismissing an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The appellant is the owner of R. S. No, 125/7 in Thaikad Amsam, Ponnani Taluk. His house is situated in the adjacent land, R. S. No. 125/12. Both these survey numbers, R. S. 125/7 and 125/12, are enclosed by one fence all round and form part of the compound in which the appellant's house is situated. But a portion of R. S. 125/7 has been leased by the appellant to one Appu for the purpose of conducting a school, known as the Thaikad South Higher Elementary School. There is a dispute between Appu and the appellant as to who put up the school building in R. S. No. 125/7 and to whom that building belongs. According to the appellant, the building was put up by him and belongs to him and Appu has been allowed only the use of it.According to Appu the building has been put up by him and belongs to him. This disp...
Tag this Judgment!Maman and ors. Vs. Ranga Iyer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-09-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Ker363
1. This is an appeal from the preliminary decree in a suit for partition of properties belonging to a joint Hindu family consisting of defendants 1 to 3 of whom the 1st defendant is the father the 3rd defendant the mother and plaintiff and 2nd defendant the sons. Besides the two sons there were 3 daughters also, all of whom have been married long before the date of the suit.According to the plaintiff all the properties described in Sch. B of the plaint belonged to the joint family the major portion having been obtained under an earlier partition and the rest being acquisitions by the 1st defendant with the income of the properties obtained in partition. It is alleged in the plaint that the 1st defendant alienated all the properties under several deeds to defendants 4 to 53.The plaintiff was a student till 1932 and thereafter he was working outside the State in various places. He came back in December 1948 when he found that all the properties had been alienated. The 1st defendant had e...
Tag this Judgment!Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Ltd. and ors. Vs. their Staff
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-09-1959
Reported in: (1959)ILLJ608Ker
ORDERT.K. Joseph, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and the prayer is to call for the records of Industrial Dispute No. 58 of 1956 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam, for the purpose of quashing by a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order, two orders Exs. E and F passed by respondent 2, the industrial tribunal. The petitioners are the Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company, Ltd., Munnar, the Anglo-American Direct Tea Trading Compay, Ltd., Munnar, and the Amalgamated Tea Estates Company, Ltd., Munnar. The staff of those companies represented by the regional secretary, Estate Staffs' Union of South India. High Range Branch, Munnar, is respondent 1.2. The three companies which have jointly filed this petition are subsidiaries of James Finley and Company, Ltd., having their registered office in Glasgow. The managing agents of the companies in India are James Finley and Company, Ltd., Calcutta. The question referred to the tri...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »