Kerala Court October 1960 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.
Raghava Menon Vs. Inspector General of Police, Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-13-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker299
Ansari, C. J.1. The appellant's writ petition under Article 226 has been rejected by a learned Judge of this Court. He had entered the police service in 1941, and was serving till 1953. In that year a complaint about the appellant's having contravened the Police Standing Order No. 134, due to misbehaviour under the influence of drink, was investigated by the Circle Inspector; and the Superintendent of Police, on the report furnished by the investigating officer, dismissed the appellant. The order was made on January 15, 1954, and the appellant submitted against the order several representations to the higher authorities. On May 18, 1958, the Inspector General of Police cancelled the dismissal order placing the appellant under suspension with effect from the date of the removal from service.The Inspector General of Police has, in the same order, come to the conclusion abcut the earlier order being without jurisdiction, and had proposed the appellant being dismissed from the date of his ...
Sreedharan Pillai Vs. Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board and an ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-13-1960
Reported in: (1961)ILLJ439Ker
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, Sri Kalathil Velayudhan Nair, on behalf of the petitioner, challenges the order of respondent 1-Board, dated 29 July 1960, namely, Ex. P. 1. The relevant portion of that proceeding evidenced by Ex. P.1, in so far as it relates to the petitioner, consists of(a) framing of certain charges against him;(b) directing that he be placed under suspension pending enquiry with immediate effect; and(c) the Government being requested to enquire into the allegations against the petitioner and the other persons mentioned therein along with the enquiry against the District Industries Officer.2. It is not necessary to consider about the nature of the charges for which departmental action by way of an enquiry is being taken against the petitioner.3. The attack on Ex. P. 1 by Mr. Kalathil Velayudhan Nair is threefold:(i) the respondent 1-Board has no jurisdiction or power to place the petitioner under suspension pending a...
Raja Krishna Menon Vs. Raman Unni
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-11-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker140
Govinda Menon, J.1. The question involved in these three appeals is as to the apportionment between the appellants-tenants and the respondent jenmi of the compensation amount awarded in three land acquisition cases. The learned Subordinate Judge of palghat to whom the reference was made under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act held that 40 per cent of the compensation amount should be awarded to the jenmi and 60 per cent should be awarded to the kanomdar. The tenants have come up in appeal and the appeals have been referred to the Full Bench for a final and authoritative decision as to what is the basis of distribution of the compensation amount between the landlord on the one hand and the occupancy-tenants on the other.2. The appellants contended that in these cases the entire compensation value as also the solatium should have been awarded in their favour as they are not tenants, but have become full owners of the properties, and the respondent is not entitled to get any micha...
Sarojini Amma Vs. Neelakanta Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-10-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker126
M. S. Menon, J. 1. This is an appeal from the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Attingal in O.S. No. 136 of 1954. The appellants were the plaintiffs in that suit 2. They are the widow and son of one Vasudevan Pillai who had taken out a policy from the 3rd respondent (3rd defendant), the Bombay Life Assurance Company Limited, Bombay. The 1st respondent (1st defendant) is the father of the said Vasudevan Pillai and the 2nd respondent (2nd defendant) is his mother.3. The policy issued by the 3rd respondent is Ext. 1 dated 21-11-1950. There is a column in the policy headed 'To whom the sum assured is payable.' The, entry in that column is 'To the assured if alive at maturity, otherwise to his father S. Neelakanda Plllai the nominee'. On the strength of this entry the 1st respondent contended that he was entitled to the entire amount due under the policy, and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any share in that amount. The court below accepted the contention and dismissed the suit....
Subramonia Iyer Vs. Subbayya Mudaliar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-10-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker335
S. Velu Pillai, J. 1. This appeal deserves only to be dismissed. Pending a suit for partition, the first defendant was alleged to have inducted the appellants here, into occupation of portions of two buildings which arc items 1 and 2 of A schedule. Under the final decree for partition, these portions fell to the share of the plaintiffs-respondents. When they proceeded to execute the decree for the recovery of possession, they were opposed by the appellants who contended, that they could not be evicted under this decree, and that in any event, the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Order, 1950, created a bar to such eviction. The objections have been overruled by the Court below and hence this appeal. 2. The first contention, that a partition suit is not hit by the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and that the appellants are not bound by the decree for partition and recovery of possession is opposed to the weight of decided cas...
Chellappan Nair Vs. Madhavi Amma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-10-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker311
M.S. Menon, J. 1. The petitioner in Divorce Petition No. 7 of 1957 of the District Court o Trivandrum is the petitioner before us. By that petition he sought a dissolution of his marriage to the 1st respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The lower court held that he was not entitled to invoke that section and that his only remedy was under Section 5 of the Travancore Nayar Act, II of 1100. 2. Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, provides that any marriage solemnised, whether before or after the commencement of that Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife be dissolved by a decree of divorce on any one of thegrounds enumerated in that section. Section 5 of the Travancore Nayar Act, II of 1100, reads as follows: 'A husband or wife may, notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Courts Regulation, present a petition for dissolution of the marriage, under Section 4, Clause (iii), in the court of the District Munsiff within the lo...
Alikutty Sahib Vs. Cherian and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-07-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker138
Joseph, J. 1. The main question for decision in this appeal id whether a suit for recovery of a debt from an agriculturist, instituted when the Madras Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Act, V of 1954, was in force, could be dismissed or could only be stayed under Section 4 of the Act. A Division Bench which heard the appeal has referred the same to a Full Bench as the correctness of an earlier decision of a Single Judge of this court holding that such a suit should be stayed was canvassed before it.The plaintiff sued for recovery of Rs. 10000 and interest due from defendants 1 and 2 (father and son) under a registered promissory note for Rs. 20,000/- executed by the defendants in favour of the 3rd defendant and endorsed by the latter to the plaintiff. The defendants contended that they were 'agriculturists' within the definition of the term in Act V of 1954 (Madras) and that the suit filed in contravention of Section 3 of the Act should be dismissed. Issue No. 1 which dealt wi...
K.P. Kochanujan Thirumulpad Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-07-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker324
Ansari, C.J. 1. We are in the happy position of having to decide this writ petition, after hearing very able arguments by the advocates of both the parties; and we wish to include, in acknowledging the assistance, the junior lawyers of both the parties as well, who have been assisting the seniors in the case. 2. The events, that have led to the powers of this Court being invoked by the writ petition, can be shortly narrated. The petitioner claims to be a landlord at Ernakulam and entitled to the usufructs of the lands owned by his family. He complains that the provisions of the Kerala Agrarian Relations Bill, 1957, relating to scaling down of rent, slab rate regarding compensation, ceiling, and automatic deprivation of ownership on an appointed date, amount to inroads on his rights of property. He further claims the provisions to be expro-priatory, discriminatory, opposed to the petitioner's fundamental rights, and create a new type of landlordism of the tenant. It is common ground tha...
Narayani Amma Kamaladevi Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-05-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker250; 1961CriLJ477
P.T. Raman Nayar, J.1. This case raises the question whether a criminal conviction can be revised after the death of the convicted person where the sentence imposed is one of imprisonment only and there is no sentence of fine. No decision having a direct bearing has been brought to mynotice and the question has to be decided on firstprinciples.2. The accused in this case, a cashier of the State Bank of India, Trivandrum, was convicted of the theft of a bundle (or a section as it has been called in the evidence) 'of 100 hundred rupee notes from the money in the charge of a fellow cashier (who has been examined as Pw. 4) and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. The alleged theft was on 12-11-1957 and a Fiat car bought by the accused for Rs. 7,000/- and odd within a month thereafter in the name of Pw. 17 was seized by the police from the possession of the accused in the course of the investigation, apparently on the footing that it had been bought with the stolen mo...
V.K. Nambudiri Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-04-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker155; (1961)ILLJ68Ker
M. Madhavan Nair, J. 1. This is a suit against the Union of India and the State of Travancore-Cochin instituted by an Ex-Military Officer for 'damage's and compensation for the wrongful termination of his employment' to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- and other reliefs. The main defence in the case is that the plaintiff, as a member of the Armed Forces, held office during the pleasure of the President by virtue of Article 310 of the Constitution and as such is not entitled to maintain a suit based on a wrongful termination of his employment. If this contention is accepted, the suit has to fail in limine; and I am of the view that the defence contention has to be accented.2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:--The plaintiff was a permanent employee of the rank of a Major in the State Forces of the erstwhile Travancore State when that State was integrated with the adjoining State of Cochin to form the State of Travancore-Cochin mentioned in Part B of the First Schedule to the Constituti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »