Kerala Court August 1959 Judgments
Paul Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-31-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker235
ORDERVaidialingam, J.1. This is an application by the first accused in C. C. 20/1951 on the file of the First Glass Magistrate, Trichur to revise the orders of both the subordinate courts rejecting an application filed by him for return to him of the value of the goods seized and confiscated in the original C. C.20/1951. In C. G. 20/1951, the first accused, along with 5 others, was tried for offences under Sections 7 (2), 8 and 17 of the Essential Supplies Temporary Powers Act -- Central Act XXIV/1946. The case for the prosecution then was that these accused were transporting, without permit on 13-11-1950 about 150 bags of dried tapioca chips from a place called Kanjirappilly in the erstwhile Cochin State to Pannimedu in Pollachi Taluk.It is not necessary to go into the merits of that case, because there is no dispute that the present petitioner, who was the first accused and also accused 2 and 4 were convicted under the sections mentioned earlier. It is also evident from the records t...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnaswamy Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-31-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker224
ORDERT.K. Kerala, J. 1. The petitioner who was a clerk in the State Transport Department was discharged from service by the first respondent, the State of Kerala, on 14-10-1958, and he has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that the said order as well as certain earlier orders relating to the matter be quashed. 2. The facts leading to the order of discharge may be stated : During February and March 1957, while the petitioner was working in the Ticket and Cash section of the Trivandrum City District Office of the Department, some concession tickets were found missing. The second respondent, the District Transport Officer, Trivandrum, reported the matter to the Director of Transport, the fourth respondent. The latter directed the second respondent to enquire into the matter and he also reported to the Government that he was deputing the second respondent to take necessary action. The petitioner was on leave at that time and he was asked to cancel his le...
Tag this Judgment!Palace Administration Board, Tripunithura Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-27-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker151; (1960)ILLJ178Ker
T.K. Joseph, J. 1.This is a petition by the Palace Administration Board, Tripunithura. The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order quashing an order dated 9-6-1958 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam, and also for a writ of prohibition or other appropriate writ or order directing the Industrial Tribunal not to proceed with the adjudication of Industrial Dispute No. 25 of 1958. The three respondents are the State of Kerala. the Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam, and the V.T.K. Estate and Palace Fund Employees Union, Tripunithura, respectively.2. The facts necessary for the decision of the petition may be stated. The V.T.K. Estate or the Valiamma Thampuran Kovilakam Estate consists of properties belonging.to the Royal family of Cochin, the income of which was utilised for the maintenance of the ladies and minor members of the Royal family. Originally the Estate was under the management of the seniormost lady of the Royal family. The...
Tag this Judgment!K.C. John and anr. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-27-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker145; (1960)ILLJ73Ker
S. Velu Pillai, J. 1. This is a petition for a writ of certiorari, or other appropriate direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution quashing Ext. P-5, a memorandum, said to have been passed by the second respondent, the Director of Upper and Lower Primary Schools, Trivandrum, calling upon the first petitioner who is the manager of an Upper Primary School concluded under the Private Secondary School Scheme or the P. S. S. Scheme to relieve the second petitioner who had been appointed by him an the headmaster of the school, and to appoint the fourth respondent in his place. The Director of Public Instruction was afterwards impleaded as the fifth respondent, respondents 1 and 3 being respectively the State of Kerala and the Assistant Educational Officer, Kottayam West. The office of the headmaster in the school fell vacant at the commencement of the midsummer recess in the year 1958, on the 29th March. After the school reopened the first petitioner appointed the second petiti...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Abraham Alias Kunjukutty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-25-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker115
Anna Chandy, J.1. This appeal is by the State against the judgment in Sessions Case No. 52 of 1958 of the Sessions Court of Kottayam acquitting the accused Thomas Abraham alias Kunjukutty. He was charged for the murder of Rev. Fr. Mathai, Vicar of the Anthinad Church by stabbing him with a knife at about mid-night on 22-1-1958.2. Rev. Fr. Mathai became the Vicar of the Anthinad Church about six months prior to his death. He was living in a building situated to the south of the Church. Just to the south of his room is the kitchen. At the time of the incident Pw. 7 a boy aged 15 was employed as a servant by the Vicar. He used to sleep in the kitchen. At about 8 P.M. on the date of the incident the Vicar had his meals and he went to sleep by 9 P.M. Pw. 1 is the Sexton attached to the Church As usual he came to the Church at 5-30 the next morning. He went inside for the purpose of ringing the Church bell when he saw the dead body of the Vicar over the door step of his room partly inside th...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Thomas Vs. State Transport Authority, Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-25-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker111
ORDERC.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order of the first respondent dated 2-54959 and marked as Ex. P-1 in these proceedings. Though several points have been raised in this application, this original petition can be disposed of on a very short point, namely, as to whether the first respondent has got jurisdiction to entertain a revision at the instance of the second respondent to pass the order complained of.2. The petitioner applied on 3-5-1956 for a stage carriage permit for the route, Thiruvella-Periyar. As it was in inter-district route, the matter was referred by the Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam, to the C. R. T. B. Trivendrum. After the necessary formalities, the application was transmitted to the R. T. B., Kottayam, for consideration and disposal.3. The application is stated to have been heard on 20-2-1959 in the presence of the petitioner, and also the other objectors and the R. T. B. sanctioned the g...
Tag this Judgment!Raghavan Pillai Vs. Gourikutty Amma and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-21-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker119; 1960CriLJ476
ORDERT.K. Joseph, J.1. This criminal revision petition arises from an application made by respondents 1 and 2, mother and child, against the petitioner, alleging that he had married the first respondent in Karkadagam 1129 and that the second respondent was born in wedlock. The respondents alleged that the petitioner was co-habiting with the first respondent from Edavam 1129 and that the second respondent was born as a result of such union. On the allegation that the petitioner had abandoned the respondents from Makaram 1131 the respondents claimed maintenance for both.2. The petitioner contended that the first respondent was the lawfully wedded wife of one Raghavan Pillai and that the marriage between them was subsisting. He denied the averments made in the petition that he co-habited with the petitioner or married her in Karkadagam 1129. The allegationregarding the paternity of the child was also denied. On the date of final hearing in the trial court, the first respondent withdrew he...
Tag this Judgment!Unni Pillai Vs. Sreedharan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-18-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker146
Sankaran, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the lower court's order dismissing an application for a review of an earlier conditional order allowing the insolvent's prayer for an order of discharge. The lower court considered the grounds on which the review was sought for and came to the conclusion that there is no proper or justifiable ground for a review. Accordingly, the application for review was dismissed, Such an order is not an appealable order. There is no specific provision in the Insolvency Act for review-' fog the orders passed by the Insolvency court.However, it may be taken that the Insolvency court has got that power also in view of the provision making the Civil Procedure Code applicable to insolvency proceedings. Even then it cannot be said that there is a right of appeal to any of the parties, in respect of an order dismissing an application for review. The aggrieved party could have preferred an appeal against the original order.2. In the result the preliminary ob...
Tag this Judgment!Arul Raj and ors. Vs. Elisikutty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-18-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker223; (1959)IILLJ770Ker
Sankaran, C.J. 1. This appeal is directed against the award made in this case under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. One Arumugham, a labourer working in Thunkamala Estate was injured on 26-4-1957 and he died on 13-5-1957. Themanager of the estate deposited a sum of Rupees 1,200/- with the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, on 17-6-1957. This amount was to be paid to the dependants of the deceased. The Commissioner directed the District Labour Officer to inquire into the master and to send up the report on the question as to the persona who were depending on the deceased. The report of that officer is to the effect that the present respondent who is the widow of the deceased was the only person depending on him. But the Commissioner was not prepared to accept that report without further enquiry. Accordingly he published a notification calling upon others who were dependants of the deceased to appear and prefer their claims. The father of the deceased had already ...
Tag this Judgment!Nellikkai Estate Vs. Its Workmen and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-17-1959
Reported in: (1959)IILLJ751Ker
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. This is an application by the Superintendent of the Nellikkai estate, Vandiperiyar, under Article 226 of the Constitution, for quashing the award in industrial dispute No. 88 of 1957 of the Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam, and published in the Kerala Gassette dated 28 April 1959. The respondent 1 is the workman of the Nellikkai estate, Vandiperiyar, represented by the president, Peermade Taluk Estate Labour Union, Vandiperiyar ; respondent 2 is the Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam, and the respondents herein is the State of Kerala, The Government notification, including the award, is marked as Ex. P. 1 in these proceedings.2. The issue that was referred for adjudication of the tribunal by the State Government was:Whether the dismissal of the five workers named below from the Nellikkai estate is justifiable? If not justifiable, to what relief are the dismissed workers entitled ?Names of workers.-(1) Kajendran, (2) Thangavelu, (3) Rajiah, (4; Bhaskaranathan, and (5) ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »