Kerala Court November 1960 Judgments
Durga Dutt Sarma Vs. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Ker156
Ansari, C.J. 1. The question arising for decision in the appeals is when a word or combination of words commonly used would be acquired as the trade mark of a person. The same issue arises for adjudication in the petition for the rectification of the Registers of Trade Marks. The two appeals, Nos. 233 and 301 of 1959, are against the decree by the District Judge, Ernakulam, in O.S. No. 233 of 1951. The plaintiff in the aforesaid action is a registered firm called the Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories, and has prayed against Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma, a resident of Jullunder City, a perpetual injunction and damages. The injunction as to restrain the defendant, hereafter referred to as Pandit Sharma, and others under him,from advertising, selling, or dealing in any preparation or preparations containing the term 'Navaratna', or any similar term; to restrain Pandit Sharma from trading under any name and style containing the term 'Navaratna', or any other similar term; and to restrain h...
Tag this Judgment!Palghat Valia Raja Vs. T.S. Veeraraghava Iyer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-29-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker222
Govinda Menon, J.1. A. S. 249/56 (M) is filed by the 1st respondent in L. A. O. P. No. 595/54 is the jenmi of Akamalavaram, portions of which have been acquired in 1953 by the Government for the Malampuzha Reservoir Scheme. The land 'belongs in jenmam to Emoor Bhagavathi Dcvaswom and the appellant, Palghat Valia Raja is the trustee of the Dcvaswom. A. S. No. 356/56 is by the tenant who was the 2nd respondent in the Court below.2. The properties were outstanding under Exts. Bl and B2 two Cowle deeds executed by the Collector of Malabar to one Ravunni Nair. Under Ext. B3 the tenant's rights passed on to one Narayana Pattar. In June 1903, the then trustee of the Devaswom, granted a lease to Narayana Pattar as per Ext. B4 and the property is outstanding under this lease deed. Narayana Pattar's rights were assigned to the 2nd respondent under Exts B5 to B-7.This property of 37 acres was acquired by the Government and the lands were valued at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per acre of double crop la...
Tag this Judgment!Kasargode Bus Transport Co. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Ker14
Ansari, C.J.1. The writ petitioner is a company, and plies under valid permit a stage carriage with registration No. MDX 884 on the route between Kasargod and Sulliya via Adhur. That permit has been, under Section 60 of the Motor Vehicles Act, suspended For a month, on the ground of the petitioner's having plied from May 1, 1957 to May 3, 1957 the bus without any current certificate of fitness. The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal had failed, though the period of suspension been reduced to a week. Various grounds have been taken against the aforesaid orders in the writ petition, two of which are: firstly, that the suspension under the section is illegal because such an order can only be passed under Section 123, and the next is that the Secretary who had directed the suspension has no authorisation under Section 123, and the order would be without jurisdiction. It is further urged that the initial error vitiating the exercise of jurisdiction would not be curable by the exercise of ...
Tag this Judgment!Patti Amma Vs. Raman Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-24-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Ker6
ORDERM. Madhavan Nair, J. 1. The petitioner is the decree-holder who has obtained a decree for recovery of possession of the suit property with arrears of rent on the strength of a lease of 1946. 2. The decree provided'(1) That the defendants do surrender possession of the plaint properties shown below to plaintiff. (2) That the defendants do pay plaintiff arrears of rent Rs. 382-1-6 with interest on Rs. 328 at the rate of five and a half per cent per annum from this date till realisation in four instalments, the 1st instalment of Rs. 95-1-6 payable on 6th June 1956 and that the 2nd instalment Rs. 120-8-2 and 3rd and 4th instalments at Rs. 125-6-8 per instalment payable on 1st July 1956, 1st July 1957 and 1st July 1958 respectively with interest on each instalment at five and a half per cent per annum from this date till realisation; (3) That the defendants do pay plaintiff future rent at the rate of 410 seers of paddy per annum due in 1131 payable in two instalments in the month of ...
Tag this Judgment!Jayanthilal and Bros. Vs. Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Agricult ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-24-1960
Reported in: [1961]12STC245(Ker)
M.S. Menon, J. 1. These petitions are directed against the assessment of the petitioner to sales tax under the General Sales Tax Act, 1125, in respect of the years 1952-53, 1953-54, 1954-55 and 1955-56. It is common ground that there is only one assessment in each of these years, and that those assessments cover the entire turnover of all the non-resident principals of the petitioner. His contention is that such omnibus assessments are not warranted by the Act, and that they should be quashed by appropriate writs or directions from this court under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The contention on behalf of the State is that such assessments are proper and are justified by Section 18 of the General Sales Tax Act, 1125. That section reads as follows :-In the case of any person carrying on the business of buying or selling goods in the State but residing outside it (hereinafter in this section referred to as a 'non-resident'), the provisions of this Act shall apply subject to the foll...
Tag this Judgment!Vellanikkara and Thattil Rubber Estates Vs. Its Workman and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-24-1960
Reported in: (1961)ILLJ727Ker
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In this proceeding under Article 226, Sri K.P. Abraham, learned Counsel for the petitioner, attacks the award, Ex. P. 1, passed by the industrial tribunal, Ernakulam, in Industrial Dispute No. 43 of 1958 and published in the State Gazette on 1 March 1960.2. The relief that has been granted to the workman concerned by virtue of this award is not reinstatement as such but an alternative relief directing the management in this case to pay compensation alone and that amount has also been stated in the award of the industrial tribunal.3. According to Sri K.P. Abraham, learned Counsel for the petitioner, even on the findings arrived at by the industrial tribunal, it cannot be stated that there is an industrial dispute coming within the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act on which an award can be passed by the industrial tribunal. Sri Abraham also contended that the tribunal has categorically found that the workman concerned is not in the establishment of the Vellanlk...
Tag this Judgment!Moideen Kutty Haji Vs. Moosa
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-24-1960
Reported in: 1962CriLJ132
ORDERP. Govinda Menon, J.1. This is a petition Under Section 215, Cr.PC to quash the committal of the two accused by' the District Magistrate to the court of Sessions, Tellicherry to stand their trial for offences Under Sections 466 and 471, I.P.C.2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows:One Soopi Haji of Kolavallur amsom was a trader in Burma. He had acquired large properties in Burma as well as in India. He died in 1955 leaving his wife and children in India and a wife and children in Burma. The 1st accused is his son by his wife Biyathuma in India and he was representing the wife and children in India. The other wife Ayissa Bi in Burma had three daughters and one son.3. Pw. 1, the complainant is an Indian having his business in Burma and was known to deceased Soopi Haji. The Burmese wife and children wanted Pw. 1 to negotiate with the 1st accused for a settlement of their share of the properties. They executed a power of attorney Ext PI in favour of Pw. 1 giving him full powe...
Tag this Judgment!Moideenkutty Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-23-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker301
Ansari, C.J.1. This appeal is by the writ petitioner, whoso prayer for getting the order of September 17, 1957, by the Collector of Kozhikode, vacated has not been allowed. The circumstances. Under which the aforesaid petition has been filed in this court, can beshortly stated. 2. The appellant had, on May 10, 1957, obtained an agreement whereby he has been given a right to cut and remove 150 trees from the unsurveyed parts of the Kovilakam forests in Kanhirapuzha and Vadakkummuri Malavaram in Nilambur Amsom, Ernad Taluk. The lease (had?) been executed after a sanction under Section 3(1)(a) of the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and the appellant on May 12, 1957, requested the Collector of Kozhikode District, who has been impleaded as the second respondent to the writ petition, for permission to cut and remove 150 trees under Section 3(2) of the Act.The Collector forwarded the application to the proper authorities for report and the...
Tag this Judgment!N. Vasudevan Nair Vs. Government of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-22-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Ker43
Madhavan Nair, J. 1. The appellant was a clerk in the Taluk Office, Meenachil, who was dismissed as per Ext. P-3 order of the 2nd respondent, the Board of Revenue, Kerala, on charges of falsification of accounts, tampering with the records and misappropriation of Government money while he was a clerk in the Jenmikaram Section of the Taluk Office. That order was, on appeal, affirmed hy Ext. P-4 order of the 1st respondent, the Government of Kerala. By O. P. No. 424 of 1958 he prayed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing Exts. P-3 and P-4 orders and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate him in service. But it was dismissed by Justice Sri M. S. Menon. This appeal is against that order. 2. The contention urged by the appellant is that the proceedings which culminated in Ext. P-3 order of his dismissal were conducted in a manner violative of all rules of natural justice and as such the impugned orders are unsustainable in law. 3. The admitted facts of the cas...
Tag this Judgment!Vaidyanatha Ayyer Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-18-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker175; 1961CriLJ816
Govinda Menon, J. 1. The accused in C. C. 77 of 1959 on the file off the District Magistrate of Palghat who had been convicted under Section 409 I. P. C., and whose appeal before the Sessions Judge, Palghat had been dismissed has filed this revision petition. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year by the District Magistrate, but in appeal the sentence was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for three months. On admission of the revision petition., notice has been issued to the accused to show cause why the sentence should not be enhanced and that is how it has come up before this Bench for hearing,2. It is not disputed by the petitioner that monies were entrusted to him. On 5-5-57, Pw. 2 the then President of the Panchayat Board handed over charge to the petitioner who was then the Vice President. The balance cash on hand was also entrusted. The petitioner was thereafter functioning as Vice President, and being a minor Panchayat he was also the Executive Officer of the Pan...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »