Kerala Court October 1959 Judgments
Ramakrishnan and anr. Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakula ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-30-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker245
ORDERS. Velu Pillai, J. 1. These two Original Petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, for quashing two interlocutory orders passed by the State Transport Appe'late Tribunal, Ernakulam, in two appeals pending before it, staying the operation of two orders passed by the Regional Trims-port Authority, Palgbat, by which it granted permits to the petitioners, to operate their stage carriages. The petitions are founded chiefly on two grounds, first that the orders sought to be quashed suffer from a jurisdictional defect which is common to both of them, and secondly, that, they are vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record.2. The operative part of the impugned order. Ext. P-l, in O. P. 1194 of 1959 says 'pending appeal, it will be very hard to permit the grantee to put his vehicle into operation on the basis or the order. I am therefore constrained to pass an order of stay in all the above petitions' and the operative part of the impugned order, Ext. A-L...
Tag this Judgment!Burmah Shell Workers Union, Ernakulam Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-30-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker190; (1960)ILLJ323Ker
Joseph , J. 1. This is a petition by the Burmah Shell Workers Union, Ernakulam, praying for a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing an order of the Government of Kerala dated 21-8-1957 (Ext. J) referring the disputes mentioned therein for adjudication to the Labour Court, Ernakulam. The petitioner also prays for a writ of prohibition or other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the Labour Court from proceeding with the enquiry. The first respondent is the State of Kerala, the 2nd respondent, the Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Limited, Ernakulam, the 3rd respondent T. K. Rajan, Secretary, Burmah Shell Temporary Workers Action Committee, and the 4th respondent the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ernakulam.2. The facts stated in the petitioner's affidavit may be briefly stated: The Burmah Shell Workers Union is the only representative Union of temporary workers attached to the Burmah Shell Installation, Ernakula...
Tag this Judgment!Karuppa Valayan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-30-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker238
S. Velu Pillai, J.1. The third accused, who is the appellant in this appeal, and accused 1 and 2 have been convicted by the Sessions Judge at Palghat, for offences under Sections 395 read with Sections 397 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused 1 and 2 have not preferred any appeal. The third accused has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. The case against the accused is, that at about 9 P. M. on 12-10-1958, they and two others not identified, committed dacoity in the house of Pw. 1 and caused hurt to him and his wife. Pw. 3.The third accused was said to have caused hurt to Pw. 2, by cutting him with a chopper and by beating him. Pws. 1 to 3 were removed to thehospital on the next morning and Pw. 1 gave thefirst information of the occurrence at 11-15 A. M.on that day. After the case was registered, thePolice Inspector arrested the accused on 22-10-1958, when they were found hiding in a forest.It is the prosecution case, that some w...
Tag this Judgment!Angappa Chettiar (A.L. an.) Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-30-1959
Reported in: (1960)ILLJ775Ker
T.K. Joseph, J.1. The petitioner, one of the partners of Sri Mahalingam Tile Works, Karuvannur, Trichur district, has filed this petition praying that an appropriate writ be issued quashing an order of the Government referring a dispute to the labour court, Ernakulam.2. According to the petitioner, the workers in the tile factory were members of a registered trade union, named Panamkulam Karuvannur Ottu Company Thozhilali Union, Pour workmen were dismissed by the management in June 1957, on the ground of misconduct. The union took up the cause of the dismissed workmen and talks were going on between the management and the union regarding the matter. At this stage the dismissed workmen and several outsiders began to create trouble before the factory making it impossible to carry on work in the factory peacefully. This was without the approval of the trade union and the request of the management to the Government for protection did not meet with success. The Labour Department convened se...
Tag this Judgment!A.J. Declase Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-29-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker169
M.S. Menon, J. 1. These are petitions under Sub-section (2) of Section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The petitioner is the same in all the five petitions. O. P. No. 57 relates to the assessment year 1122, O. P. No. 56 to the assessment year 1123. O. P. No. 59 to the assessment year 1124 and O. P. No. 55 to the assessment-year 1952-53, and O. P. No. 58 to the assessment year 1953-54. 2. The question in respect of which the reference-is sought is worded as follows : 'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal had sufficient material to hold that the payment of a moiety of the sale proceeds of ilmenite sand supplied by Sri Pulimana S. Chellappan Pillai to Messrs. Hop-kins and Williams (Travaucore) Ltd., Chavara, was bribe to Mr. Declase and is income assessable in his hands and that the receipts were not on behalf of Mrs. Hilda Declase.'3. The sufficiency or otherwise of the evidence available is not a matter for our determination. As pointed out by the Supre...
Tag this Judgment!Antony Thomas Vs. Ayuppunni Mani
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-28-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker176
M.S. Menon, J.1. The defendant in O. S. No. 63 of 1122 of the District Court of Trichur is the appellant before us. He had undertaken to deliver to the plaintiff 125 candles of cashew nuts and received Rs. 4,000/- in part payment of the price. The suit was for the refund of the said sum with interest at 6 per cent per annum.2. The plaintiff rejected the goods on the ground that the bad nuts exceeded the stipulated maximum of twenty per cent. The question for consideration is whether the plaintiff was entitled to reject the goods as he did. The answer depends on whether the stipulation regarding the bad nuts was a condition or a warranty. That the bad nuts as a matter of fact exceeded twenty pet cent is not in dispute before us.3. Section 12 of the Indian Sale of Goods Act, 1930, deals with conditions and warranties as follows :'1. A stipulation in a contract of sale with reference to goods which are the subject thereof may be a condition or warranty.2. A condition is a stipulation esse...
Tag this Judgment!Eastern Mercantile Bank Ltd. Vs. N.T. Philip
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-28-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker194
P.T. Raman Nayar, J. 1. This is one of those very rarecases where an agreement to stitle prosecution is set out on paper, for, the very mortgage deed onwhich the claim is based, expressly states that the mortgage was executed by the 1st respondent for the sum of -Rupees 2,400 misappropriated by hisson the 3rd respondent and as a compromise of the police prosecution pending against the latter. Theprosecution then pending in the Peermade 1stclass Magistrate's Court was for a non-compound-able offence under Section 408, I.P.C. It only remains to add that, on the day after the mortgage, the Managing Director of the claimant Bank wroteto the police not to proceed with the prosecutionand that the case was eventually thrown out in1958 under Section 253(2) Cr. P. C., for failure of the prosecution to adduce evidence in support of the case. Obviously the mortgage is void under Section 24 of the Indian Contract Act and it is quiteunnecessary to refer to the decisions cited at the bar to come to ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Ninave Rawther Vs. Neelacandan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-27-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker216
S. Velu Pillai, J. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff, arising out of a suit for the declaration ofhis title to the suit property which is a building, and for the recovery of possession thereof with arrears of rent and future rent at an enhanced rate. Originally, the suit was laid for the recovery of possession and other reliefs, but on denial by the defendant of the plaintiffs title, and of the lease set up, the suit was converted into one on title, for the reliefs set forth above. The building in question is his southern-most room, which is separated from a row of three or four rooms on the north, by a covered passage or corridor, about 3 1/2' in width. According to the plaintiff, the building was leased to tho defendants in Medom 1123 M. E. for a term, of twoyears, at a monthly rent of Rs. 5. The defendant was alleged to have defaulted in the payment of rent, when the plaintiff issued a notice on the 23rd February, 1951, demanding surrender of the building with arrears of rent...
Tag this Judgment!Malathi Amma Vs. Kallyanikutty Amma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-27-1959
Reported in: AIR1961Ker128
ORDERP.T. Raman Nayar, J.1. These petitions arise out of seven suits brought by the same plaintiffs, and they pose a question under Order XXXIII of the Code which seems to be well nigh bereft of authority.2. The suits were initially brought by four plaintiffs after obtaining permission to sue as paupers. Plaintiffs 2 to 4 were minors and one Bhargavi Amma was their next friend. (She still is the next friend o plaintiffs 3 and 4; the 2nd plaintiff attained majority during the pendency of the suits and he has obtained an order discharging the next friend and granting him leave to proceed in his own name). Subsequently, it seems to have been discovered that this Bhargavi Amma was a necessary party, and, on application duly made, she joined as a plaintiff in her own right and became the 5th plaintiff.This she did without paying any court-fee andwithout obtaining permission to sue as a pauper.On 18-8-1958, eight months after the 5th plaintiffthus came on record, the trial court woke up toth...
Tag this Judgment!Kanthaswami Pillai Vs. Sivarama Pillai and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-20-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker196
ORDERRaman Nayar, J. 1. I see no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Subordinate Judge rejecting, on the ground mentioned in Order XXXIII Rule 5 (d) of the Code, the petitioner's application for permission to sue as a pauper.2. The suit is for partition and possession of the petitioner's alleged l/4th share of the separate properties left by one Chidambaram Pillai, a Mitakshara Hindu domiciled in Parur in the former State of Travancore. The petitioner is a grandson of this Chidambaram Pillai and he seeks his share ignoring certain alienations made, and decrees suffered, by Chidambaram Pillai's sons. According to the allegations in the plaint, Chidambaram Pillai died on 30-12-1107 M. E. (14-8-1932) while the petitioner was born on 8-5-1935, nearly 3 years later, so that he could not even have been in the womb at the time of Chidambaram Pillai's death.The petitioner was therefore not an heir in intestacy, but the plaint alleged that Chidambaram Pillai had left a registered ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »