Kerala Court October 1960 Judgments
K.R. Kumaran and ors. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-28-1960
Reported in: 1961CriLJ98
P.T. Raman Nayar, J.1. The three accused persons in S. C. 22 of 1959 on the file of the Court of Session, Trichur, appeal against their conviction for offences of conspiracy to cheat, cheating, and forgery. Criminal Appeal 348 of 1959 is the appeal by the 1st accused, Criminal Appeal 339 of 1959 that by the 2nd accused and Criminal Appeal 344 of 1959 that by the 3rd accused.2. The 1st accused is a homoeopathic practitioner living in Trichur and running a dispensary at a place called Mannuthi about four miles from Trichur. The 2nd accused, it is said, was his compounder while the 3rd accused was an agent of the Lakshmi Insurance Company and later, after lite insurance was nationalised, of the Life Insurance Corporation doing business in the Trichur area.In 1956 there was a man by the name of Gopalan Nair but called Kochubala Menon and hereinafter referred to as Gopalan Nair who was living in the 1st accused's dispensary as his dependant and was generally assisting the 1st accused. This ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamed Haji Vs. Saithu Mohamed and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-26-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Ker28
ORDERP.T. Raman Nayar, J.1. It is the common case that the suit is one coming under Section 92, Civil Procedure Code and ought to have been instituted in the Principal civil court of original jurisdiction, namely, the District Court, Alleppey. But it was in fact instituted in the Sub-Court, Alleppey, a court lacking in inherent jurisdiction. The withdrawal now ordered by the District Court under Section 24 of the Code cannot cure the initial defect of institution in a court incompetent to entertain the suit, and, any proceeding hereafter, albeit by the District Court, would be void (see the Privy Council decision in Ledgard v. Bull, ILR 9 All 191 at p. 202); especially so in the face of the express bar in subsection (2) of Section 92 of the Code.Granting for the purposes of argument that this circumstance does not affect the jurisdiction of the District Court to make a withdrawal under Section 24 of the Code, and that as laid down in Narain Das Gopal Das v. Khunni Lal Lachmi Narain, AT...
Tag this Judgment!Mulji Ratanshi and Co. Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-25-1960
Reported in: [1961]12STC657(Ker)
M.A. Ansari, C.J. 1. These seven writ petitions are against the provisional assessment orders under the General Sales Tax Act No. XI of 1125, and the grounds, on which the petitioners seek to vacate them, are two in number. The first is that the assessment orders, based on the notification under Section 5(vii) of the General Sales Tax Act, are notwithstanding the validation by the General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, No. III of 1960, defective and inadequate to levy the sales tax on the petitioners. The Amendment Act has been passed because of Abu v. State of Kerala 1960 K.L.J. 457 wherein a Division Bench of this Court has held that the aforesaid notification due to non-compliance with the provisions of Section 24 of the General Sales Tax Act, which section provided how the rules are to be framed under the Act, would not justify the last purchaser of the commodities mentioned in the notification being made liable to sales tax, even though the notification be mentioned in Rule 4(2) under...
Tag this Judgment!Balakrishna and Sons Vs. Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-25-1960
Reported in: [1961]12STC272(Ker)
M.A. Ansari, C.J. 1. These two writ petitions seek to vacate assessments made in absence of any materials furnished by the dealer. The assessment challenged in O.P. 533/60 is for 1957-58 ; and that in O.P. 532 for 1959-60. The turnover determined in the earlier assessment is Rs. 17,00,000 and in the later year Rs. 20,00,000. The assessment order for each year is very brief; and states the several dates on which the dealer had been asked to furnish the accounts and his persistent failures. The order then says that the officer has determined the net turnover to the best of his judgment; and, thereafter, amount for the tax is mentioned. We arc convinced about the petitioner's conducts in both the cases not being satisfactory ; and, therefore, we would not allow costs for these writ petitions. But it is clear that the taxing authorities when making assessment discharge quasi-judicial functions and the order must not be capricious, arbitrary or punitive. The order by the taxing authority mu...
Tag this Judgment!Nilgiris Tea Estates, Ltd. Vs. Workmen of Stagbrook Estate and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-25-1960
Reported in: (1961)IILLJ573Ker
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In this application under Article 226, Sri K.P. Abraham, learned Counsel for the petitioner, challenges the award passed by Industrial tribunal, Alleppey, namely, Ex.P. 14, dated 12 December 1957 and published in the State Gazette on 14 January 1958.2. The short attack that is made on this award by the learned Counsel is that the tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in making a scheme for gratuity payable to the workers in this estate.3. Sri Abraham also contended that there was really no industrial dispute as such which could form the subject of an award regarding gratuity payable to the workers, because all along and right through, the workers have been claiming from the vendor company only what could be retrenchment compensation payable under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, which is the relevant provision of law applicable on the material date.4. The circumstances under which this award came to be passed can be mentioned briefly. The estate, whi...
Tag this Judgment!Cherian Mathai and ors. Vs. Narayana Pillai and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-18-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker136
M.S. Menon, J. 1. These Second Appeals were referred to a Full Bench by a common order dated 19-2-1958. The first question for determination is whether a tenant is entitled to be in possession until he is paid not only the amount of compensation embodied in the decree as originally passed but also the compensation granted under Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Kerala Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act, 1958.2. Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act (omitting the provisos thereto) provides:'Every tenant shall, on eviction, be entitled to compensation for improvements which were made by him, his predecessor-in-interest or by any person not in occupation at the time of the eviction who derived title from either of them and for which compensation had not already been paid; and every tenant to whom compensation is so due shall, notwithstanding the determination of the tenancy of the payment or tender of the mortgage money or premium, if any, be entitled to remain in possession un...
Tag this Judgment!Antherman Vs. Kannan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-18-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker130
M. S. Menon, J. 1. The 4th defendant in O. S. No. 345 of 1948 of the District Munsiff's Court, Badagara -- a suit for partition -- is the appellant before us. The properties concerned belonged to one Kunhi Chekkan in kanomkuzhikanom from the Kauttmatath Mana.2. On the death of Kunhi Chekkan the properties devolved on his children under his will, Ext. A7 dated 17-12-1908. The courts below have found that the children took the properties with all the incidents of a tarwad property under the Marumakkathayam system of law. That hinding is not challenged before us.3. Kunhi, Kalliani and defendants 2 and 3, four of the children of Kunhi Chekkan, assigned their rights to one Kadungon by Ext. B1 dated 5-1-1943. Kadungon in his turn assigned his rights under the document to the appellant by Ext. B2 dated 26-11-1943.4. It is common ground that the assignors under Ext. B-1 could have claimed partition if they had so desired under Section 38 of the Madras Marumakkathayam Act, 1932. It is also agre...
Tag this Judgment!Caltex (India) Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal No. 2 and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-18-1960
Reported in: (1961)ILLJ85Ker
T.C. Raghavan, J.1. This is an appeal by Caltex (India), Ltd., Cochin Terminal, Ernakulam, to reverse the order of a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing O.P. No. 489 of 1957. The respondents in the appeal are the industrial Tribunal No. 2, Ernakulam, the workmen of the appellant-company represented by the President, Petroleum Workers' Union, Ernakulam, and the State of Kerala represented by the Secretary, Labour and Local Administration Department.2. The respondent 2 union made a charter of demands containing 17 heads on 10 September 1955 on the appellant-company and as a consequence of this an industrial dispute arose between the workers and the management of the appellant-company. There was a reference of this dispute on 31 August 1956 to the respondent 1 tribunal, by the appropriate Government, the respondent 3 before us. The tribunal passed an award on 12 October 1957, which was duly published in the Gazette dated 5 November 1957 and became enforceable on 5 December of th...
Tag this Judgment!Parukutty Vs. Province of Madras
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-14-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Ker93
Joseph, J. 1. This appeal was referred to a Full Bench for an authoritative decision of the question whether the last Sthani has absolute right to deal with sthanom properties. The Full Benchanswered the question in the negative and remanded the suit for a finding on the question whether the property claimed by the appellant was one attached to the sthanom or one belonging to the tarwad of the sthani. 2. The contentions of the parties and the decision on the question referred to above are stated in the order of remand a copy of which will be appended to this judgment. The plaintiff, the province of Madras sued for recovery of possession of 90 items of immoveable property alienated by Kunhiraman Moothavar, the last Sthani, who was also the last member of his tarwad, on the allegation that the properties were attached to the office of sthanom and that the alienations were invalid. The 64th defendant-appellant who was interested in item number 70 had a contention that this property did no...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Alleppey Chit Fund (Private) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-13-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Ker64; [1961]31CompCas641(Ker)
ORDERP.T. Raman Nayar, J.1. On the 2nd July 1959, the petitioner herein applied to the District Court, Alleppey for a winding up order against a company ofwhich he was a contributory, and winding up wasordered by that court on the 16th October of thesame year. The very institution of the; 'petitionwas after the issue of Notification, G. S. R. 663,dated 29th May 1959, by the Central. Governmentunder Section 10(2) of the Companies Act,, 1956. Thisnotification was in supersession of, all Previous notifications issued by the Provincial and State Governments under the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the-Indian Companies Act, 1913, and itdid not confer on District Courts the jurisdiction to order 'Winding up.It is therefore not disputed that the District Court, Alleppey no jurisdiction with respectto the subject matter of tbe proceeding, ' in other words, that it had no inherent jurisdiction, as distinguished from a mere lack of territorial jurisdiction. Therefore its order was vo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »