Kerala Court September 1959 Judgments
New Model Bank Ltd. Vs. P.A. Thomas
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-30-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker243; [1960]30CompCas135(Ker)
P.T. Raman Nayar, J.1. On 4-11-1957 the defendant obtained a decree for money, charged on the property now in suit, against the plaintiff banking company. This was in O. S. No. 384 of 1957 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Alleppey. On 15-11-1957 the plaintiff company was ordered to be wound up by this court. On 13-12-1957 nearly a month later, the defendant applied to the Munsiff's Court Alleppey for execution of the decree he had obtained and, in pursuance thereof, the property was brought to sale and bought by the defendant himself on 3-3-1958. All this he did without obtaining the leave of court required by Sections 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 and, in due course, on 16-7-1938 he obtained delivery of the property he had bought.On 26-2-1959, the plaintiff bank came forward with the present suit asking for a declaration of its title to the property and for possession with mesne profits, past and future. In doing so it averred that the execution proceedings and the defendant's pur...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rahimankutty Vs. Aysha Beevi and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-28-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker101; 1960CriLJ351
ORDERT.K. Joseph, J. 1. This criminal revision petition arises from proceedings under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The first respondent applied on he-half of her minor child, the second respondent, for an order of maintenance against the revision petitioner. Holding that the second respondent was the child of the revision petitioner, the learned Magistrate awarded maintenance at the rate or Rs. 10/- per month. 2. The respondents' case may he briefly stated. The first respondent, an unmarried young woman was residing in the house of the petitioner for two years from Mithunam 1129 to Makaram 1131, working as a domestic servant. During this time, she cohabited with the petitioner and became pregnant. When she told the petitioner about this and requested him to marry her, he asked her not to divulge it to anybody and he even threatened to kill her if she gave rise to any talk. Subsequently he got her married to P. W. 6 on 25-6-1131. Within a few days, P. W. 6 discovered t...
Tag this Judgment!Kannu Pillai Vs. Pankajakshi and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-28-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker158
Vaidialingam, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decrees of both the Subordinate courts in so far as they relate to dismissing his suit for recovery of possession of the suit property described as Sy. No. 1069 of the Mattancherry Village. The suit, among other reliefs was also for recovery of the site on which a hut or a homestead appears to be existing and the recovery was sought for of the site after removal of the building or after paying the necessary compensation in respect of the building.. 2. The events that have led up to this litigation are these: There was originally a lease in favour of one Kannappan. According to the plaintiff, this Kannanpan, who was in possession of the property as a lessee, appears to have inducted into possession his niece one Bhavani in or about the year 1118, who in turn on the basis of this permissiongiven by Kannappan as lessee has put up a buildingon the property.In Thulam 1119, as evidenced by Ext. VI, there has been an assignment...
Tag this Judgment!Bernardo Steenholf Ultrich Vs. District Collector, Ernakulam and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-28-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker177; 1960CriLJ821
ORDERNo. Cl.--2869/59 dt. 25-2-1959 Whereas it has been reported to me that Mr. Bernardo Steenholf Ultrich a Bolivian National the accused in C. C. 11/59 of the District Magistrate's court Ernakulam under Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act -- 8 of 1878 is now on bail and is residing in room No. 22 of the Malabar Hotel, Willington Island and it is necessary to restrict his movements, I do hereby order and direct under para 1 of the Foreigners Order, 1948 that the said Bernardo Steenholf Ultrich should restrict his movements to the premises of the Malabar Hotel, Willington Island and to his journeys from the hotel to the District Magistrate's court, Ernakulam and back from the court to the Hotel.(Sd.)District Collector andSeal of the Court Additional District Magistrate. ToMr. Bernardo Steenholf Ultrich, Room No. 22, Malabar Hotel, Willington Island (through the Superintendent of Police. Ernakulam).2. Superintendent of Police, Ernaknlam for information and necessary action.' Exhibit ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Velayudhan and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-28-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker220; (1960)ILLJ319Ker
T.K. Joseph, J. 1. These petitions arise from proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act for recovery of sums due to some workmen under an award of the Industrial Tribunal, Trivandrum. The District Labour Officer issued a certificate under Section 33(c)(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Collector, Trivandrum, far recovering the amounts under the Revenue Recovery Act. Pursuant to the certificate, the Tahsildar attached immovable property of one M. Velayudhan (petitioner in 6. P. No. 63) and certain buses belonging to the petitioners in the three other original petitions. These petitions have been filed to quash these proceedings. 2. The reference to the Industrial Tribunal was by an order dated 19-4-1955. The Tribunal Have an award on 28-10-1955 and the same was published in the Government Gazette on 22-11-1955. The dispute referred was one between the workmen of M. V. Motor Service and M. V. Velayudhan, the Proprietor of M. V. Motor Service. The latter appeared before the Tribun...
Tag this Judgment!George and anr. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-23-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker142
Anna Chandy, J.1. This appeal is against the judgment in Sessions Case No. 22 of 1959 of the Sessions Court of Quilon, The two accused were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34, I. P. C. for having caused the death of one Thomas George by stabbing and heating him in furtherance of their common intention to murder him. The 2nd accused was also charged under Section 324, I. P. C. for having caused hurt to Pw. 1 by beating him with a stick.The charge under Section 34 being negatived, the 1st accused was convicted under Section 302 I. P. C. and sentenced to the extreme penalty, while the 2nd accused was convicted under Section 324 for causing hurt to Thomas George and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, In addition, th 2nd accused was convicted under Section 324 ande sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for causing hurt to Pw. 1. The appeal is by the 1st accused and the reference is by the Sessions Judge in respect of the death sentence aw...
Tag this Judgment!Sangameswara Iyer Vs. Krishna Iyer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-23-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker108
Sankaran, C.J. 1. The 2nd defendant's challenge to the right of the assignee-decree-holder to execute the decree has given rise to this appeal. The decree is in favour of the Lakshmi Prasad Bank Ltd., and it is based on a promissory-note executed by defendants 1 and 2. These two defendants are brothers who have he-come divided in interest. They are governed by Hindu Mitakshara Law. Under the decree both the defendants are jointly and severally liable for the debt due to the bank. The 1st defendant's son obtained an assignment of the decree on payment of the entire decree debt to the bank and himself, along with the original decree-holder, filed an execution petition praying for recognition of the assignment and for permitting the assignee to proceed with the execution of the decree. When notice was served on the judgment-debtors, the 2nd defendant appeared and contended that execution should not be allowed to proceed. The main objections raised by him are that he joined in the executio...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Krishna Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-18-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker227
ORDER1. The point raised in the reference is correct and has to prevail. Even though the counter-petitioner was arrested under Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Sub-Magistrate who ordered such arrest did not proceed with the matter. The police also did not want the case to go on before the Sub-Magistrate. The police wanted to start proceedings against the counter-petitioner under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and accordingly an independent charge was filed under Section 109 before the Executive First Class Magistrate.This was an independent action and the First Class Magistrate was exclusively competent to go on with the proceedings after passing a preliminary order under Section 112 in case he is satisfied that there are proper grounds to justify the adoption of such a course. For proceeding in that manner, he need not have called for a report from the Sub-Magistrate under Clause (3) of Section 107 of the Code. In fact that clause does not contemplate ...
Tag this Judgment!South India Corporation and Ors. Vs. All Kerala Cashewnut Factory Work ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-09-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker208; (1960)IILLJ103Ker
T.K. Joseph, J.1. The petitioners in the three petitions seek to have part of an award given by the Industrial Tribunal. Trivandrum, quashed under Article 220 of the Constitution.2. The facts necessary for the decision of these petitions may he briefly stated; On 24-10-1951 the Government of Travancore-Cochin referred to the Industrial Tribunal certain disputes between the workmen in cashewnut factories represented' by the first respondent, the All Kerala Cashewnut Factory Workers' Federation, Ouilon and 31 owners of cashewnut factories in the State. The order of reference specified 13 issues in dispute between the parties. The Industrial Tribunal, Trivandram the second respondent, gave an award which was published on 20-8-1957. The award in respect of issues Nos. 4, 9 and 13 is questioned by all the petitioners. The petitioner in O. Fs. Nos. 381 and 382 of 1957 further challenge the correctness of the award in respect of bonus. The original petitions thus relate to the award in respec...
Tag this Judgment!Kunhutty Sahib Vs. Veeramkutty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-09-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker264
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff claiming enhanced compensation in a suit filed by him claiming damages as against the defendant for malicious prosecution. The plaintiff, according to the case set up in the plaint, was prosecuted for a charge under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of a complaint made by the defendant to the Police at Chowghat. The Second Class Magistrate at Chowghat in C. C, No. 45 of 1953 enquired into the matter and ultimately discharged the accused on 14-7-1952 under Section 253(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The said judgment is Ext. A2 in these proceedings.2. It was the further case of the plaintiff that the complaint filed by the defendant, namely, Ext. A1. on 3-10-1951 was false to the knowledge of the defendant and he has given the complaint without any reasonable and prohable cause and with malice just to put the plaintiff to disgrace and loss.3. In consequence of the judgment in his favour of the criminal court evidenced by Ext. A...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »