Kerala Court July 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.
Kamala and ors. Vs. Ammanna Rai and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-15-1959
Reported in: AIR1961Ker153
ORDERP.T. Raman Nayar, J.1. It seems to me clear that the Court below erred in allowing the application of one alone of five plaintiffs (the 5th plaintiff to be precise) who in a suit for partition had claimed their ll/20th share jointly, to amend the plaint so as to givo him a 6/20th share separately. This, in the teeth of the opposition of the remaining plaintiffs who disputed the share claimed by the 5th plaintiff and who by reason of some intricacies of the Aliyasan-thana law -- into which it is fortunately not necessary to enter -- averred that in a fresh partition between the plaintiffs themselves, the 5th plaintiff would be entitled only to a smaller share than in a partition of the entire family.What the court below has done is to force an amendment on plaintiffs 1 to 4 by which the 5th plaintiff will, according to the plaint itself, get a . 6/20th share which is the very thing they dispute. How, in the face of such a plaint, the trial court can consider the contentions of plai...
State Vs. Joseph
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-14-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker16
Sankaran, C.J.1. This reference relates to the order passed by the Second Class Magistrate at Meenachil, committing the accused in C. C. No. 19/1959 to stand his trial before the Sessions Court for the offences punishable under Section 379 read with Section 75 of the Indian Penal Code. Before passing the Order of committal the Magistrate had formally convicted the accused under these two sections. The committal order passed after such conviction is stated to be illegal and accordingly the learned Sessions Judge has referred the case to this Court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a recommendation that the illegal order passed by the Magistrate may be quashed and the Magistrate directed to proceed in accordance with law.2. The procedure to be followed in the trial of the case mentioned above is that prescribed by Section 348 of the Cede of Criminal Procedure. Sub-section (1) of that section runs as follows:'Whoever, having been convicted of an offence punishable u...
Mytheen Kunju Vs. State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-10-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker86; 1960CriLJ349
Sankaean, C.J.1. The petitioner was prosecuted tinder Section 19 of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act (Act XI of 1125). He was convicted under Clause (b) of that section, for his failure to pay within the time allowed, the tax assessed on him and the fine due from him under the provisions of the Sales Tax Act. The learned First Class Magistrate who convicted the petitioner under Section 19(b), sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 415/- and also directed him to pay the tax of Rs. 921-14 annas, The petitioner preferred an appeal against that conviction and sentence and the learned Sessions Judge modified the order of the trial court by reducing the fine to Rs. 50/-. It was also directed that the petitioner has to pay a sum of Rs. 921-14 annas by way of tax assessed on him and a further sum of Rs. 12 by way of license fee.A general direction was also made that in default the petitioner will undergo simple imprisonment for 3 weeks. The revision petition filed by the petitioner agai...
Liladhar Mulji and anr. Vs. Inspector of Factories
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-10-1959
Reported in: (1959)IILLJ750Ker
ORDERP.T. Raman Nair, J.1. The only point taken on behalf of the petitioners who have been convicted of various offences under the Factories Act, 1948 (the conviction is really under Section 92 of the Act which creates the offences and prescribes the punishment, but the provisions mentioned by the learned magistrate are the provisions violated by the petitioners), is that their premises are not a 'factory' as defined in Section 2(m) of the Act.(a) because there was no 'manufacturing process' carried on there as the term is defined in Section 2(k), and(b) because the 21 persons who were found working on the premises on 10 January 1957 were not 'workers' within the meaning of Section 2(i), they being employees not of the petitioners but of D.W. 1, a contractor, to whom the petitioners had entrusted the work that was being done.2. The evidence of P.W. 1, a factory inspector who inspected the premises of the petitioners on 10 January 1957, that he found the 21 persons grading and packing c...
Adima Mytheen Kunju Vs. the State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-10-1959
Reported in: [1959]10STC417(Ker)
ORDERThe Order of the Court was made byK. Sankaran, C.J.1. The petitioner was prosecuted under Section 19 of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act (Act XI of 1125). He was convicted under Clause (b) of that section, for his failure to pay within the time allowed, the tax assessed on him and the fine due from him under the provisions of the Sales Tax Act. The learned First Class Magistrate who convicted the petitioner under Section 19(b), sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 415 and also directed him to pay the tax of Rs. 921-14-0. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the conviction and sentence and the learned Sessions Judge modified the order of the trial Court by reducing the fine to Rs. 50. It was also directed that the petitioner has to pay a sum of Rs. 921-14-0 by way of tax assessed on him and a further sum of Rs. 12 by way of licence fee. A general direction was also made that in default the petitioner will undergo simple imprisonment for 3 weeks. The revision petition...
Kesavan Nair Vs. State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-09-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker78; 1960CriLJ229
ORDERP.T. Raman Nayar, J.1. It is the case of the State as of the petitioner that the road in question is not a private road but a highway. That being no, it should be unnecessary to repeat what has been said so often by the courts (both before and after the leading cases in Parfhasaradi v. Chinna Krishnan, ILR 5 Mad 304; Simdaram Chetti v. The Queen, ILR 6 Mad 203 (FB); and Manzur Hsissan v. Muhammad Zaman, AIR 1925 PC 36, that the right to go along the road in procession (whether religious or otherwise) with appropriate observances heres in every member of the public. The learned; Magistrate was clearly in rror when in his order dated 25-3-1959 declining to rescind under Section 144(4), Criminal P. C., an order he had passed on 17-3-1959 under Section 144(1) restraining the petitioner from taking out a religious procession along the highway within a distance of three furlongs of a mosque about 50 yards from the highway on the ground that it would be objected to by the worshippers in ...
P.V. Mohammed Vs. Collector of Palghat
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-09-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker138; [1959]10STC422(Ker)
ORDERT.K. Joseph, J.1. The petitioner in these Original petitions prays for the issue of a writ of prohibition or other appropriate writ, direction or order restraining the respondent, the Collector of Palghat, from enforcing or executing the orders in Calendar Cases Nos. 145 and 146 of 1951 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Palghat, and collecting the sales-tax involved in the two cases. The petitioner was a dealer in untanned hides and skins, was carrying on business at Mankara, formerly in the State of Madras and now in the State of Kerala. He was assessed to sales-tax in respect of his dealings for the period 1947-48 and 1948-49 and was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,334-12-0 in respect of the former year and Rs. 1,766-2-6 in respect of the latter year.As the tax was not paid he was prosecuted under section 15(b) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act 1939, before the court of the Additional First Class Magistrate. Palghat. C. C. No. 145 of 1951 was the case in res...
Kannan and ors. Vs. Chirudu and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-03-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker93
ORDERP.T. Raman Nayar, J.1. I think that the court below erred in disallowing the amendment sought by the plaintiffs-petitioners. The suit as it stands is for a declaration of title and for an injunction restraining the defendants, who live in a house on the property, from committing waste thereon. The amendment sought is only in respect of the relief, the plaintiffs asking for a decree for possession on the averment that, subsequent to the suit, the defendants have been preventing them from entering on the property thus virtually depriving them of possession.I fail to see how it can be said, as the court below has done, that this will introduce a totally new and different case and if allowed will 'convert the suit into another of a different and inconsistent, character'. The title agitated is the same; only a new relief necessitated by subsequent events and essential for an effective adjudication is sought; and the suit remains substantially the same. The facts in Ma Shwe Mya v. Matin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›