Kerala Court December 1960 Judgments
State of Kerala Vs. Hassanar and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-23-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker194
ORDERP. Govinda Menon, J.1. The facts of the case have been set out in full in the order of reference by the District Magistrate and it is unnecessary to restate them. The two questions that arise for decision are whether the order for the execution of the bond from Usman who is not an accused but only the manager of the accused and its subsequent forfeiture is illegal and has to be quashed and secondly whether any question of contempt of court arises in this matter.2. As soon as cognizance is taken of a case the Magistrate has to issue summons for the attendance of the accused. The accused need not necessarily appear in person. Under Section 205 Cr. P. C., a Magistrate issuing summons may if he sees reasons to do so dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and permit him to appear by his 'pleader'. But the accused must first be served with summons and he must apply for permission to exempt his personal appearance. It may be, it is open to an accused to appoint his 'manager...
Tag this Judgment!CochIn Devaswom Board Vs. Akhileswara Iyer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-23-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker282; (1961)IILLJ562Ker
Ansari, C.J.1. These two appeals and O. P. No. 825 of 1959 arise from disputes between the Principal and the Management of Sri Kerala Varma College, Trichur. The Cochin Devaswom Board, which had been vested with authority under Section 62 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, is the appellant in both the appeals and is the respondent in the writ petition.The aforesaid section directs that the administration of incorporated and unincorporated DEvaswoms and Hindu Religious Institutions under the management of the Ruler of Cochin prior to July 1st, 1949, or under the Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1 of 1081, should vest in the Board; and the appellant, therefore, manages Sri Kerala Varma College, Trichur, which was started in 1947 and is being run with funds from one such institution.A. V. Akhileswara Iyyer, the respondent to the appeals before us, was on August 16th 1947, appointed as a Professor and the Head of the Department' of History and Economic...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrasekharan Nair and ors. Vs. Secretary to Government of Kerala an ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-22-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker303
Raghavan, J.1. These writ petitions are all by Managers of Aided Elementary Schools in the Malabar area, with the exception of O. P. No. 617 of 1958, wherein a teacher has also joined as the 2nd petitioner. But at the time of hearing the learned Advocate of the petitioners in O. P. No. 617 of 1958 has agreed to treat the petition as one by the 1st petitioner alone, who is the Manager of the Upper Primary School Payyoli. So that all these petitions are by Managers of aided elementary schools and the question involved in them is regarding the effect of the Rules for the grant of recognition and aid to Elementary schools and the nature and scope of the powers of the Officers of the Educational Department and the Government in hearing appeals against orders arising from those Rules.2. In O. P. No. 467 of 1957 the 4th respondent, who was a teacher in the Nemmeni Aided Lower primary School, Kollengode, tendered his resignation On 30th August, 1954, on the strength of which the Manager of the...
Tag this Judgment!Thomas and ors. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-21-1960
Reported in: 1961CriLJ489
ORDERP. Govinda Menon, J.1. This is an application under Section 561-A to modify an earlier order made by me in Crl. M. P. 166/60 and to direct the First Class Magistrate, Pattambi to proceed with the trial of the two cases C. C. Nos. 21 and 26 of 1960 on his file.2. Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure clearly empowers the High Court to order that an accused person be committed for trial to itself or to the court of session if such an order is expedient for the ends of justice. This jurisdiction covers both classes of cases. That is cases exclusively triable by a court of session and also cases not exclusively triable by such a court. So for the ends of justice a case of the latter description also may be ordered by the High Court to be committed to the court of session for trial. In a case and counter where the High Court feels that in the interests of justice the two cases should be heard by one and the same Judge, it can order accordingly.3. It was argued that merely becau...
Tag this Judgment!Lekhraj Sathramdas Lalvani Vs. Mathur and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-06-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Ker152
Ansari, C. J. 1. These two appeals arise from the order by a learned Judge, whereby he has vacated two orders, Exts. P. 13 and P. 16, which had terminated the services of the writ petitioner as the Manager of two evacuee businesses, and has directed the petitioner's being put back in possession. The respondents to the petition have appealed against the mandamus so granted. The learned Judge has not issued any writ restraining the aforesaid respondents from selling the business by public auction and not to do anything in violation of the petitioner's right under the Central Government's order, Ext. 5. The writ petitioner has, therefore, appealed against the refusal to issue such a writ. Connected with the aforesaid two appeals, is the application for contempt on the ground of the respondents to the writ petition failing to comply with the mandamus issued by the learned Judge. It follows that the question arising for consideration in the aforesaid consolidated cases is whether the writ o...
Tag this Judgment!Joseph Pothen Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-06-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker259
ORDERC.A. Vaidialingam, J. 1. Three prayers are asked for by the petitioner in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.They are:-(a) The issue of a writ of prohibition or other appropriate writ or direction prohibiting respondents 1, 3 and 4, namely, the State of Kerala, Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings, Trivandrum, and Sri Ratnaswamy, P. W. D. Contractor, Trivandrum respectively from entering into or trespassing upon the property mentioned in the schedule or constructing a wall in the property or in any other manner interfere with the ownership and possession by the petitioner of the wall on the eastern side of the schedule property:(b) A writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing respondents 1, 3 and 4 to remove the wall if they have already constructed it, on the property, belonging to the petitioner; and(c) A writ of certiorari or other appropriate proceedings quashing the order, Ext. P-2, as infringing the petitioner's right under Article ...
Tag this Judgment!Saraswati Vs. Madhavan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-06-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker297; 1961CriLJ640
ORDERP. Govinda Menon, J.1. The only question raised in this petition is whether the word 'child' under Section 488, Cri. P. C,, can apply to a person who has already attained the age of majority. The learned First Class Magistrate, Ernakulam disallowed the claim for maintenance to the petitioner who is aged 22 years. According to the petitioner's learned counsel the word 'child' is not confined to minors, but the word is synonymous with sons or daughters of whatever age and that so long as that person was unable to maintain himself or herself, he Or she would be entitled to maintenance. It was pointed out that the reference to age has been purposely omitted in the section.2. The decisions are not uniform. In W. L. Faria v. Anita Merlene Faria, AIR 1951 Gal 60, it was held that:'The word 'child' in Section 488 (1) has been used simply to mean the son or the daughter without reference to the age. The deciding consideration is whether the child is or is not able to maintain himself or he...
Tag this Judgment!Reserve Bank of India Vs. Palai Central Bank Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-05-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker268; [1961]31CompCas154(Ker)
ORDERP.T. Raman Nayar, J.1. By this application brought under Section 38(3)(b)(iii) of the Banking Companies Act, 1949, the Reserve Bank of India seeks the winding up of a hanking company called the Palai Central Bank Ltd. The application is opposed by the company and by sixty-six creditors, some of them contributories, the debts due to whom, it is said, amount to about Rs. 70 lakhs out of a total outside liability of about Rs. 860 lakhs. Five creditors to whom, according to their claims about Rs. 2 lakhs is due, have appeared to support, or seemingly to support, the application.2. The company and some of its cerditors have applied under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 for considering schemes of reconstruction and the company has also applied for a stay of the present proceedings pending disposal of these applications. In view of Section 44B of the Banking Companies Act, I have had the schemes examined by the Reserve Bank (in a rather summary way it is true) and it not appearing...
Tag this Judgment!itty Kurian and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Ker267
ORDERC.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In both these writ petitions, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the vires of Section 49-A of the Banking Companies Act, 1949 are challenged. Section 49-A which was added to the original Act by the Banking Companies (Amendment) Ac; 1959 -- Act 33/1959 is as follows:'Section 49-A: No person other than a banking company, the Reserve Bank, the State Bank of India, or any other banking institution notified by the Central Government in this behalf. shall accept from the public deposits of money withdrawable by cheque;Provided that nothing contained in the section shall apply to any Savings Bank scheme run by the Government.'2. The petitioner in O. P. 1371/59 claims to be an individual, doing banking business, by receiving deposits from the public for the Purpose of lending to others and that the deposit is repayable by cheque or otherwise. The petitioner therein claims to have been doing this business from 1952.3. The petitioner further alleges_ that b...
Tag this Judgment!Godasankara Valia Raja Vs. Tharappan Vareed
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker293
S. Velu Pillai, J. 1. The suit is for the redemption of a mortgage with possession, Ext. B dated August 14, 1931 A. D- corresponding to Karkadakom 29, 1106 M. E. in favour of Thamppan, represented in this suit by his sons, defendants 1 to 3, and grandsons defendants 4 to 9. The principal Question for decision is whether a prior lease, Ext. A dated Karkadakam 28, 1091, in favour of Tharappan subsisted after Ext B, or must be deemed to have been surrendered impliedly on the date thereof. Ext. A was a 'verumpattom' lease with no premium and no right in the lessee to make improvements, and was for a term of one year. It stipulated the payment of tax by the lessee amounting to Rs. 48-8-1 annually, and the payment of pattom or rent at 670 paras--2 edangazhees--2, nazhees of paddy in the months of Kanni and Makaram, and a perquisite of 'vazhakula' at eight annas per annum. Ext. B is called 'kaivasapanyadharam' (mortgage with possession), the mortgage amount being Rs. 2500. The mortgaged prope...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›