Kerala Court November 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.
Kumara Pillai Vs. Thomas
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-15-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker287
T.K. Joseph, J. 1. The plaintiff has preferred this civil miscellaneous appeal from an order of the Subordinate Judge, Mavelikara, remanding the suit to the trial court. The suit was for recovery of money from defendants 1 and 2, father and son, on the basis of oral loans. On the date of first hearing the second defendant did not appear and an order declaring him ex Parte was passed. The first defendant filed a written statement denying the transactions. While the trial was proceeding the second defendant made an application on 12-8-1955 for setting aside the order declaring him ex Parte. This was an application under Order 9, Rule 7 Code of Civil Procedure, and not under Rule 13 as observed by the appellate Court more than once. The second defendant's application was allowed, his written statement was admitted and he was examined. The trial court Passed a decree against the second defendant and dismissed the suit against the first defendant. The second defendant took up the matter in ...
P. Kunju Raman Vs. V.R. Krishna Iyer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-14-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker188
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. The writ petitioner is the elected member of the Kerala Legislature from the Tellicherry Constituency, in the elections held in the State on 1st February 1960. The votes polled in favour of the petitioner were 28,380 and in favout of the 1st respondent, the defeated candidate, 28,357. It will be seen that the 1st respondent lost by 23 votes and in consequence, the 1st respondent was declared to have lost the election by a margin of 23 votes.2. The 1st respondent has filed an Election Petition No. 9/60 challenging the election of the writ petitioner- and it is pending enquiry and adjudication by the Election Tribunal, Tellicherry.3. In the said Election Petition, the 1st respondent prays for a declaration that the election of the writ petitioner from the Tellicherry Constituency, is void and also asks for a further declaration that the 1st respondent has been duly elected from the Tellicherry Constituency.4. Several allegations have been made in the Election Peti...
Varghese and anr. Vs. Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-11-1960
Reported in: (1961)IILLJ479Ker
M.A. Ansari, C.J.1. These four writ petitions seek to vacate the award by the Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam in dispute No. 4 of 1957. The facts preceding the award are that the Alice Boat Service had three boats, 'Alice', 'Sofa' and 'Crown', which were running the boat service on the Ernakulam-Kottapuram line. Two of the aforesaid boats 'Alice' and 'Sofa' were owned by P.I. Varghese and the third 'Crown' by K.K. Ittyera. The service during the period, with which we are concerned, was being conducted by lessees, of whom P.T. Thomman was running the 'Alice' and T.T. Jacob the other two boats. Service employed 17 persons under the categories of masters, drivers, syrangs, and lasoars; and they were represented by the Trichur District Motor Boat Workers' Union. At the meeting of the union held on 20 September 1956, it was decided to launch a strike, should the demands by the employees of the aforesaid Alice Boat Service be not met, which demand was communicated by letter of 8 October 1956....
Gopalan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-09-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker196
ORDERP.T. Raman Nayar, J.1. This seems to be a case where there is no evidence at all to prove the charge of wife-murder levelled against the accused so that if his commitment on the charge of murder were under Section 213 of the Criminal Procedure Code there would have been a point of law justifying the quashing of that commitment under Section 215. The commitment in this case is, however, under Section 207A and since the legislature forgot to put that section in Section 215 when it made special provision in the shape of Section 207A for commitment in proceedings instituted on a police report thus taking such commitment out of the scope of Section 213, it might be that Section 215 does not in terms apply.That being so Section 561A would at once be attracted --see Pavalappa v. State of Mysore, (S) AIR 1957 Mys 61 and Tribeni Kahar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1960 Pat 131 and the unintended result might well be that the quashing of a commitment made under Section 207A is not subject to the l...
Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax Vs. Shern ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-09-1960
Reported in: [1961]12STC519(Ker)
M.A. Ansari, C.J. 1. These four revision petitions are by the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax, and raise common legal issues. They together seek to vary the orders by the Appellate Tribunal, that have sustained the dealers' objections to being assessed to sales tax. The facts in these petitions are that for the assessment year 1953-54, the dealers had been held under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, IX of 1939, liable to pay sales tax on rubber sold at Fort Cochin, that then formed, part of the Madras State, and the appeals by the dealers were rejected. The Appellate Tribunal has upheld the objection against the tax on the ground of the commodity being agricultural produce and sales by the plantation owners being excluded from the definition of turnover under the Act.2. In T.R.C. 8/58 the respondent is Messrs Sherneilly Rubber and Cardamom Estates Ltd., Ayalur, which was then within the Travancore-Cochin State, and the turnover determined by the assessing ...
Abraham and anr. Vs. Industrial Tribunal and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-08-1960
Reported in: (1961)IILLJ555Ker
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In this proceeding under Article 226, Sri K.P. Abraham, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contests the award of the Industrial tribunal, Trivandrum, Ex.P. 2, dated 4 December 1958 and published in the State Gazette on 23 December 1958.2. The main contention that is urged by Sri Abraham is that the order of reference on the question of the payment of wages to the tappers of the two estates at piece-rate and the adjudication of the tribunal on this question are both without jurisdiction and as such cannot be sustained.3. The various other issues decided by this award are not the subject of attack in these proceedings and therefore do not arise for consideration.4. It will be seen that issue 1 that was referred for adjudication by the Government to the industrial tribunal was as follows:Should the tappers of the Karimpanal and Korongode estates be paid wages at piece-rates5. On this point the industrial tribunal has, in my opinion, more or leas based its conclusi...
Kunhipennu Vs. Special Tahsildar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-07-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Ker25
M.S. Menon, J.1. The claimant in L. A. O. P. No. 115 of 1955 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Kozhi-kode, is the appellant before us, The question for consideration is the amount of the court-fee due of her memorandum of appeal.2. The Collector awarded a sum of Rs. 5,523-7-4 and the statutory solatium thereon. The Subordi-nate Judge after discussing the facts and circumstances of the case said ;'I would, therefore, ind that the claimant has not established her right to any enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Collector';and rejeced the claim.3. The operative portion of the judgment is by no means artistic. But there is no doubt that what the Judge intended to do was to pass an award under Section 26 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the same amount as was awarded by the Collector.4. The appellant claims an enhancement of the compensation awarded by a sum of Rs. 20,000 inclusive of the statutory solatium. There can be no doubt that she has to pay an ad valorem cou...
Kochunni Kartha and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-07-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker210
Ansari, C.J. 1. The constitutionality of the Kanam Tenancy Act, No. XXIV of 1955, hereinafter referred to as the Act, has been challenged in these ten writ petitions. Three landlords or 'jenmies' are the petitioners in O. P. Nos. 339/56, 106/57 and 206/58, and claim part of the Act to be violative of their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(f) and 31. The remaining seven petitions are by the holders of kanam tenures, who dispute the Cochin Devaswom Board's right to auction their properties due to their failure to pay rent in kind, whose money value had yet to be determined in exercise of the powers under the Act.The Devaswom Board, in the replies, not only adopt the plea of the Act not being constitutional due to the landlords' fundamental rights having been infringed; but further claim the Act not having repealed the earlier enactments, under which holders of kanam tenures in the Devaswom lands, were subject to special powers, that authorised auctioning of the tenants' proper...
P.S.N. Motors Ltd. Vs. Gangadhara Menon
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-04-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Ker34
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The appellant, the 1st respondent and 8 others bud submitted applications for a stage-carriage permit for the route Chalakudy -- Malayattur via Kalady in response to a notification dated 9-11-1955 of the Regional Transport Authority, Trichur (who will be referred to hereinafter as the R. T. A.). After due notification, receipt of representations, and a public bearing as per Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the R. T. A. granted the permit to the 1st respondent by its order Ext. R-l dated 5-5-1956. Four of the disappointed applicants appealed to the appellate authority, the Central Road Traffic Board, Trivandrum, and the latter by their order Ext. R-2 dated 14-8-1956 vacated the order of the R. T. A., on the ground that the order did not give reasons for the rejection of the applications other than the one which was allowed by the R. T. A. During the pendency of the appeal before the Central Road Traffic Board there wag a stay of operation of the order of the R. ...
Mathew Vs. Kerala United Corporation Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-04-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker180
Govinda Menon, J. 1. The point for decision in the Revision Petition is whether a company as a juridical person is entitled to sue in forma pauperis under Order 33, Rule 1, C.P.C. 2. The contention raised before us is that the terms of Order 33, Rule 1, C.P.C, confer the privilege of suing as a pauper only upon a 'person' and that the word must for the purpose of Order 33 mean only 'natural person' as distinguished from 'juridical persons' such as Corporations, Companies, Associations or idols. In support of this proposition reliance has been placed firstly upon the case reported in S. M. Mitra v. Corporation of Royal Exchange Assurance, AIR 1930 Rang 259. In that case the applicant was an official receiver who applied to sue in forma pauperis. It was held: 'Word 'person' in Order 33 means 'natural person', that is, a human being and does not include a juridical person such as a Receiver and therefore a Receiver appointed under the Provincial Insolvency Act cannot be allowed to sue as ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »