Kerala Court December 1959 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.
Nallathampi Chellayyan and ors. Vs. Govinda Pillai Narayana Pillai and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-05-1959
Reported in: AIR1971Ker9
Raman Nayar, C.J.1. When a mortgagee in possession of an udukoor or undivided half share of a property obtains an assignment of an adjoining property belonging to the Government on the strength of his possession of the former property, it seems to us that under Section 90 of the Indian Trusts Act he must hold the latter property for the benefit not merely of his mortgagor but of all persons interested in the former properly including those interested in the other half share -- it is hardly a case of an accession to the mortgaged property corning within Section 63 of the Transfer of Property Act. But that question does not arise in this case, for, we find that in their written statements the appellants (defendants 3, 5 and 9) who (among others) arc the successor mortgagees of an udukoor half share (now, as a result of a subsequent partition decree, of the eastern half) of the property in Schedule A to the plaint, of which half the plaintiff is the mortgagor, made no claim to any interes...
K.V. Thomas Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-03-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker292; [1960(1)FLR489]; (1960)ILLJ782Ker
1. This petition questions the validity of the award of the Labour Court, Quilon, inIndustrial Dispute No. 14 of 1958. The issue referred for adjudication was:'Whether or not the management of the Kunnad Boat Service is justified in refusing employment to worker Sri K. V. Ramkrishnan. In either case what should be the remedy?'The Tribunal said:'On an anxious consideration of the entire evidence adduced in the case and of the circumstances pointed out above I hold that Sri Ramakrishnan was under the services of the management for the 2 1/2 years period and the denial of employment to him is therefore quite illegal and unjustifiable and hence I reinstate him but without back wages since it has come out in evidence that he was being employed occasionally in other services. Conesequent on the reinstatement of Ramkrishnan if any retrenchment becomes necessary, the management is free to do the same bearing in mind the well established principle of 'last come first go'.'2. The first contentio...
Ramco Textiles Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-03-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker257
ORDERP.T. Raman Nayar, J. 1. The petitioner plaintiff consigned a bale of piecegoods valued at Rs, 460.26 by rail from Cannanore on the Southern Railway to Harinagar on the North Eastern Railway, both railways, as also all railways over which the goods had to pass in transit being railways owned and administered by the Central Government. The evidence shows that the goods were lost by the railway administration after they had reached Harinagar, and, on 10-5-1957, the plaintiff by his letter Ext., A8 made a claim for their value to the Chief Commercial Superintendent of the North Eastern Railway. Not obtaining satisfaction, he sued on the small cause side of the court of the Munsiff of Cannanore for the recovery of Rs. 463.26 as damages, after due compliance with the requirements of Sections 80 of the Civil Procedure Code. His suit was laid against 'The Union of India as the owner of the North Eastern Railway represented by the General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.' After o...
The State of Kerala Vs. K.M. Cheria Abdulla and Company and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-1959
Reported in: [1960]11STC295(Ker)
M.S. Menon, J.1. The respondents in these three cases were assessed to sales tax by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Cannanore (Rural), in respect of the year 1950-51. The assessments were revised suo motu by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Coimbatore Division.2. That the orders in revision were based on fresh evidence is not disputed. The question for consideration is whether the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes had the right to pass revisional orders on the basis of such evidence.3. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, decided that he had no such power by a common order dated 10th October, 1956. It said :On the preliminary point urged by the learned counsel for the appellants, we hold that in the cases before us, the revisional authority acted in excess of his jurisdiction under Section 12 (2) (i) of the Act in having directed the gathering of additional evidence by an authority subordinate to him and in proceeding to effect a revision on the basis of evide...
Umaprabha Thampuratti Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-01-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker186
ORDERS. Velu Pillai, J. 1. The petitioner is a junior member, and the second respondent is the senior most malemember of Chirakkal family which migrated from Malbar to the former Travancore State. The matter in dispute between them, relates to their rival claims to an annual grant of about 3900 and odd rupees, and the ultimate question is. whether this is a grant solely to the senior member of the family for the time being, or to the family as a whole in which each member is entitled to a per capita share. The second respondent petitioned the Government of Kerala on 4-2-1957, for registering him. as the holder of the grant, or Malikhana as it is called. On 20-3-1957, some of the junior members of the family including the petitioner, objected to such registry, and claimed that a per capita division of the Malikhana may be made amongst the members of the family. On 30-4-1958, Government passed an order, Ext. R 1, registering the second respondent as the Malikhana holder. Some of the juni...
Rajalekshmi Motor Service, Kozhikode Vs. Govt. of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-01-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker229
M.S. Menon, J.1. This is an appeal by the third respondent in O. P. No, 132 of 1959. The appellant was granted a stage carriage permit by the second respondent, the Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikode, on 13-11-1958. The petitioner, the third respondent in this appeal, contended that there was no properly constituted Regional Transport Authority in existence on that date, and that the permit cannot hence be sustained. The contention was upheld, and the permit was held to be invalid by the decision under appeal.2. Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 relates to the control of transport vehicles, and Section 44 which occurs in that Chapter deals with the Transport Authorities. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of that section (omitting the provisions thereto) read as follows-.(1) 'The State Government shall, by notification in the official Gazette, constitute for the State a State Transport Authority to exercise and discharge the powers and functions specified in subsection (3), and sha...
G. Samuel Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-01-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker231
ORDERS. Velu Pillai, J.1. The petitioner had been the Head Clerk, Government Central Press, Trivandrum, and was provisionally promoted as Manager in the office of the Superintendent of Government Presses, Trivandrum by an order, Ext. P-l, of the first respondent, the State of Kerala, dated 18-4-1959. In the integration of the services, upon the formation of the State of Kerala, the first respondent approved on 29-7-1959, Ext. R-3 which is 'a preliminary integrated gradation list of the former Travancore-Cochin personnel, and the staff allotted from Madras in the ministerial line of the department of Printing as On 1-11-1956, prepared in accordance with the general principles and the orders regarding equation of posts contained in the Government orders,' Ext. P-2 dated 29-12-1956 and others; but Ext. R-3 was not final, and permitted appeals to be preferred by those who were aggrieved by it.According to Ext. R-3, the petitioner's rank was fixed as the 5th, while that of the 2nd responden...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›