Kerala Court November 1959 Judgments
Chami Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker241; 1960CriLJ1086
Anna Chandy, J.1. This appeal is by the accused in Sessions Case No. 75 of 1958 of the Trichur Sessions Court. He was convicted under Section 302 I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for causing the death of one Vellachi by stabbing her with a dagger, The incident took place on 30-10-1958 at about I. P. M.2. On Sunday previous to the date of occurrence there was a 'Kavadi Pooja' in the house of the accused. As the 'Pandaram' did not turn up for conducting the pooja it had to be performed by PW-13 'Raman and his wife Vellachi. Thereafter the accused and his family along with some others went on a pilgrimage to Palni. On their return they alighted at the Mankara Railway Station early in the morning of 30-10-1958 and walked the rest of the distance to their house in Tbiruvilwamala which is about six miles from the station. By the time they reached Thiruvtlwumala the accused became agitated and began to exhibit signs of mental derangement. When the accused and h...
Tag this Judgment!Kamalamma Vs. State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker321
ORDERVaidialingam, J. 1. In this application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners, who are the owners of Sy. Nos. 197/2 and 197/8 of Anchamada village, Trivandrum taluk, challenge the land acquisition proceedings taken by the State of Kerala, at the instance of the City Corporation, Trivandrum in respect of portions of the two survey numbers. The acquisition is also in respect of parts of certain other survey numbers belonging to otherowners and the petitioners are not interested inthem. 2. The main attack that is made by the petitioners in these proceedings is that the proposed acquisition is not intended for a 'public purpose' or to benefit the public and that it is only to benefit the third respondent. Therefore, the question to be decided is as to whether the proposed compulsory acquisition in this case, is for a 'Public Purpose' in which case alone, it will be saved under Article 31(2) of the Constitution. 3. The circumstances leading up to this application...
Tag this Judgment!S.M. Kadirsa Rawther Vs. K. Shanmugha Mudaliar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-27-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker188
ORDERP.T. Raman Nayar, J. 1. The plaintiff, a merchant of the Palghat District, sued in a Palghat court for the recovery of Rs. 1930.95 which he alleged was due for the price of two consignments of tamarind sold by him on 16-1-1954 and 23-1-1954 to the defendant, a merchant of the Tanjore District. The trial court, finding that it had no territorial jurisdiction, ordered the return of the plaint for presentation to the proper court, and his appeal, from that order having failed, the plaintiff has come up in revision. 2. To give jurisdiction to the Palghat Court, the plaint alleged that the contract of sale took place within the jurisdiction, of that court and that the moneys due by the defendant were payable there. If that were so, doubtless the Palghat court would have jurisdiction. But the concurrent findings of the courts below are otherwise. Both courts rejected the plaintiff's case that the order for the tamarind had been placed with him at his place of business in the Palghat Dis...
Tag this Judgment!Krisana Pillai and anr. Vs. State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-26-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker291; 1960CriLJ1210
ORDERS. Velu Pillai, J. 1. These petitions are to revise two orders passed by the Sessions Judge at Trivandrum, in two cases in which the Public Prosecutor had preferred two complaints under Section 198-B of the Criminal Procedure Code, for offences of defamation alleged to have been committed by the respective accused, against a public servant, who, at the relevant time, was holding office as Secretary to Government, Home Department. The Public Prosecutor produced two orders of sanction authorising the prosecution, which were signed. 'By order of The Governor-signed-Secretary to the Council of Ministers find Chief Secretary'. In Sankar v. State, 1958 Ker LT 1158: (AIR 1959 Kerala 100), which arose on a complaint preferred by the Public Prosecutor on behalf of one of the Ministers of the State Government the view was taken by a bench of this court, that a sanction signed in the above manner was not one in accordance with Section 198-B(3)(b), Crl. P. C. and though the question did not d...
Tag this Judgment!George Peter (C.) Vs. Its Workmen and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-1959
Reported in: (1960)ILLJ299Ker
S. Velu Pillai, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by an employer, challenges the validity of a direction made by the respondent 2 who is the authority appointed under B. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, which may be referred to hereafter as the Act, by which he directed the petitioner, who represents a firm which carried on the business of a coir factory till about the end of November 1955 to pay wages during leave period, bonus, and retrenchment compensation which, for the purpose of this judgment, may be deemed to include pay in lieu of notice, amounting to Rs. 21,474-2-6 in the aggregate, to 62 workmen represented by the respondent 1. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the authority that the petitioner having failed to prosecute his remedy against the direction, by preferring an appeal under Section 17 of the Act, is now precluded from making this petition.2. The parent application, which was made by the workmen on 14 March 1956 and was for a...
Tag this Judgment!Narayanan Namboodiripad Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-24-1959
Reported in: (1960)ILLJ619Ker
S. Velu Pillai, J.1. This is a petition for a writ of certiorari to quash a reference, made by the respondent 1- the State of Kerala-under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereafter to be referred to as the Act, to the respondent 2, the labour court, at Kozhikode-for a decision of the questionwhether the dismissal of 23 workmen by the management of Anangamala estate was proper and justified and if not,' to what reliefs the workmen are entitled,and for a writ of prohibition to the labour court to forbear from proceeding further with the reference. The petitioner is the head and manager of the Kanjoor mana which owns an item of property about 236 acres in extent. Out of this, an area of 47 acres had been cleared and developed, and fruit-bearing trees of various kinds had been planted thereon, including 10 area under coffee plantation. A dispute seems to have arisen between the petitioner and the 23 workmen, who were represented by Anangamala Coffee Estate Thozhilali...
Tag this Judgment!B.V. John and ors. Vs. Coir Yarn and Textiles Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-23-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker247; [1960]30CompCas162(Ker); (1960)ILLJ311aKer
ORDERRaman Nayar, J. 1. Two common questions arise in these applications brought by 49 'workmen' and the legal representative of a deceased workman of the company in liquidation under Sections 460(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Rule 155 of the Travancore-Cochin Company Rules against the partial rejection of their proofs by the Official Liquidator. The first is, whether the compensation payable to these workmen on the termination of their services is to be determined under Sections 25F(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, free of the limitation imposed by the proviso to Sections 25FFF(1) as claimed by them, or whether it is subject to that limitation as held by the liquidator. The second is, whether the award made by the Industrial Tribunal, Alleppey on 5-8-1957 on a reference under Sections 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (and published under Sections 17, in the Gazette dated 27-8-1957) of a dispute between the company and those of its workmen as come under the category,...
Tag this Judgment!Jacob Vs. Subramonia Iyer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-19-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker212
Velu Pillai, J.1. The revision petitioner claims to be a lessee of the suit properties, under a receiver appointed by court, who cultivated them in the year 1134 M. E. When the receiver advertised for making fresh arrangements for the cultivation of the properties in the year 1135 M. E., the petitioner contended, that he cannot be evicted, by reason of Section 4 of the Kerala Stay of Eviction Proceedings Act '1957, which may hereafter be referred to as the Act. The contention was overruled by the order sought to be revised on tbe ground that Section 4 of the Act is applicable only to a lease which was subsisting on the date of the commencement of tbe Act, and not to a lease which came into existence afterwards. Clearly, this reasoning cannot be sustained on the terms and provisions of the Act, and counsel for the respondent-receiver in this Civil Revision Petition, was unable to support it. P. T. Raman Nayar J. by whom this Civil Revision Petition was heard in the first instance, refer...
Tag this Judgment!Sankaran Nambudiripad Vs. Raman Nambudiri and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-18-1959
Reported in: AIR1961Ker13
P.T. Raman Nayar, J.1. The only decree sought by the petition of compromise -- in fact it purported to bE under Order XXIII, Rule (1) C. P. C. -- and the only decree passed was one of dismissal of the suit. No. clerical error is alleged so far as the decree is concerned, and it seems to me that the correction of an alleged clerical error in the agreement of compromise which was filed into court and merely recorded by it cannot fall within the scope of Sections 151, 152 and 153 of the Code. A separate suit for rectification on the ground of mutual mistake -- and as pointed out by Beaumont, C. J. in Karimunnissa Begum v. Mir Jamaluddin, AIR 1937 Bom 457 a clerical error can hardly fail to be that -- would appear to be proper remedy. I fail to see why, in departure from the normal procedure, the court should act under Sections 151 - 153 of the Code to correct an error in a proceeding which though formally recorded in the suit is really an extraneous proceeding. Rikhi Rain v. Radhe Shiam, ...
Tag this Judgment!C.P. Veeran Vs. Kuruvilla and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-13-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker211
ORDERAnna Chandy, J.1. The revision is against the order passed by the District Magistrate, Palghat, refusing to implead the petitioners as complainants in a proceeding under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. The facts which gave rise to the proceedings are as follows : The people of Kannambra including the appellants complained by a mass petition against the obstruction to a public cart track through a plot of land which was being converted into a rubber estate. The alleged obstruction was caused by the purchasers of the land and their employees. After investigation, the Executive First Class Magistrate, Palghat, passed a conditional order under Section 133 Cri. P. C. against the managing partner and two employees of the astate. They appeared and denied the public right.The case stood posted for the necessary enquiry under Section 139A Criminal Procedure Code. It is at that stage that the impleading petition was filed. That application was disallowed by the learned Magistr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »