Kerala Court September 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.
N.P. Sankaran Nair Vs. P.V. Rama Iyer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-08-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker131
M.S. Menon, J.1. The first defendant in O. S. No. 124 of 1952 of the District Court of Anjikaimal, Ernakulam, is the appellant before us. The suit was for damages for malicious prosecution against the first defendant and the Union of India (2nd defendant) represented by the General Manager, Southern Railway.2. The lower court held :'In the result, there will be a decree against the first defendant for Rs. 23,875 with future interest and proportionate costs on the same. The first defendant shall bear his own costs. The claim against the second defendant is dismissed with costs.'The decree in so far as it exonerates the second defendant from liability is not in controversy before us.3. The plaintiffs case as against the first defendant is summarised as follows in the opening paragraph of the Judgment under appeal :'The plaintiff was the Station Master (1) attached to the railway station of Chalakudy on 23-12-1949. The first defendant was then one of his assistants attached to the same st...
Achuthan Nair Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-08-1959
Reported in: (1960)IILLJ409Ker
T.K. Joseph, J.1. The petitioner was appointed on 30 June 1955 to act temporarily as menon, Anjukunnu amsom, Waynad taluk. Subsequently he was ordered to take charge as acting menon in Nallurnad amsom in the same taluk. While discharging his duties as acting menon, he was appointed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tellicherry, as menon of Nallurnad amsom in a vacancy caused by the dismissal of the respondent 3 from service. He was working there when he received an order (Ex. P. 4) from the tahsildar, North Waynad taluk, directing the respondent 3 to take charge from him. The petitioner prays for quashing this order. Respondents 1 and 2 are the State of Kerala and the tahaildar of North Waynad taluk, respectively.2. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 stating that the order appointing the petitioner as permanent menon of Nallurnad amsom was the result of a mistake. The respondent 3, who was the permanent menon, has been dismissed from Service and the petitione...
State Vs. Forest Range Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-04-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker148; 1960CriLJ593
1. When it came to the notice of this court that some cases pending in criminal courts were stayed by subordinate civil courts in the State, this Court suo motu issued notices to the parties concerned to show cause why such orders should not be quashed as having been passed without jurisdiction. Notice was given to the Advocate-General also. Criminal R. P. No. 387 relates to an order of stay Issued by the Additional District Judge of Parur in O. S. No. 3 of 1957 staying the trial of C. C. No. 305 of 1957 of the Second Class Magistrate's Court of Thodupuzha. Criminal R. P. No. 389 is in respect of an order issued by the Sessions Judge, Trichur staying trial proceedings in C. C. No. 312 of 1957 of the Sub-Magistrate's Court, Parur. Criminal R. P. No. 388 relates to an order passed by the Additional District Judge of Parur in C. M. A. No. 70 of 1957 staying trial proceedings in C. C. No. 248 of 1957 of the Sub-Magistrate's Court, Parur. The 11th respondent in Criminal R. P. No. 387 who in...
Gopala Pillai Vs. Registrar of Companies
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-04-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker155; [1960]30CompCas272(Ker); 1960CriLJ597
ORDERT.K. Joseph, J. 1. The petitioner who is the first accused in C. C. 927 of 1956 of the First Class Magistrate'sCourt, Vaikom, has preferred this revision petition seeking to have the charge framed against him quashed. The petitioner and other directors of the Bharat Ayurvedic Works Limited, Vaikom, are being prosecuted for offence punishable under Section 282 of the Indian Companies Act, VIII of 1913 for having published a false balance sheet of the company for the year ending 31st December, 1952. The case was taken up on the complaint of the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies who has been authorised by the Government of India in this behalf. The petitioner's contention is that under Section 141A of the Indian Companies Act (VII of 1913), the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies is not competent to prefer the complaint and that the only persons who can do so are theAdvocate-General or the Public Prosecutor, to whom the matter may he referred by the Government. The matter was taken i...
Bhaskaran Vs. Kunhipennu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-03-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker110
ORDERT.K. Joseph, J. 1. This criminal revision petition arises from an application under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The two petitioners in the court below a mother and child, applied for a maintenance order against the counter-petitioner in the court below alleging that the latter was co-habiting with the first petitioner on the promise that he would marry her and that the second petitioner was born as a result of such union. The counter-petitioner denied the allegation in the petition. The court below hold that the counter-petitioner was the father of the child and accordingly ordered that he should pay maintenance to the child at the rate of Rs. 10 per month. The counter-petitioner has preferred this criminal revision petition from this order. 2. The main point urged on behalf of the petitioner is that there is no evidence corroborating the version of P.W. 1 and that in cases where the paternity of the child of an unmarried woman is denied, it is unsafe to act on ...
Kunju Mohammad Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-02-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker228; 1960CriLJ907
ORDERT.K. Joseph, J.1. This is a criminal revision petition by the sureties for the accused in Miscellaneous Case No. 26 of 1958 on the file of the District Magistrate of Ernakulam. When: the accused was arrested and brought before court he was granted bail and the two petitioners executed bonds undertaking to produce him on the dates of trial, binding themselves each in the sum of Rs. 500/-. The case was ppsted to 30th August 1958 and notice was issued to the accused and also to the sureties to produce him on that day. Neither the accused nor the sureties were present on 30th August, and thereupon notices were issued to the sureties to show cause why the bonds executed by them should not he forfeited and the penalty realised from them.The sureties appeared in court on 27th September 1958 and applied for one month's time to produce the accused. Accordingly the case was posted to 27th October 1958 when the sureties again applied for time, on the ground that the accused was ill. This app...
Joseph Alias Kochu Vs. Makkaru Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-01-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker127
1. This is an appeal by defendants 2, 11, 17, 19 to 24, 31, 35, 38, 46 and 104 in O.S. No. 65 of 1952 of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry. The suit was for the recovery of possession of the items of property described in the schedule to the plaint on the strength of the plaintiff's title, of Rs. 1,200 as mesne profits for the three years immediately preceding the suit and of future mesne profits at the same rate, i.e., Us. 400 per year.2. The contentions of the plaintiff are summarised as follows in paragraph 2 of the judgment under appeal :'The plaint schedule properties belong in jenm to Kizhakkadath Kovilakam. These properties were in the possession of Pakaadavath Chandu on kanom Kuzhikanom right under the Kovilakam as per kanom document dated 5-5-1919. The rights of Chandu were acquired by the plaintiff by assignments dated 3-4-1943 and 23-12-1944 from the heirs of Chandu. The plaintiff obtained a renewal from Kizhakkadath Kovilakam as per document dated 27-4-1943....
Ananthan Pillai Vs. Krishna Iyer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-01-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Ker222
Sankaran, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the 8th defendant, whose tarwad had conducted a chitty. The present suit is an administration suit for collecting the assets of the chitty and for paying the several creditors of the chitty. A preliminary decree has also been passed and a Receiver appointed to take the necessary steps for collecting the assets and distributing the same. When the properties of the 8th defendant's tarwad were attempted to be sold in execution of the decree, the 8th defendant objected. He also filed an application under Act III of 1956 for permission to pay the debts in instalments under the provisions of that Act. Some of the counter-petitioners objected to the granting of the prayer of the 8th defendant. The main controversy was on the question as to how many of the claims against the foreman had become barred by limitation. According to the 8th defendant, the claims of the plaintiffs and also of defendants 42 and 44 were alone subsisting, while the claims of all th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›