Kerala Court February 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.
Union of India (Uoi) Represented by the General Manager, Southern Rly. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-05-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Ker306
ORDER1. This petition, by the Union of India, represented by the General Manager of the Southern Railway, is directed against the decision of the District Munsiff of Ottapalam in Small Cause Suit No. 36 of 1937. The Union of India the defendant in the suit was directed to pay the plaintiffs by way of damages a sum of Rs. 365.13 for the non-delivery of certain goods despatched by them through, the Southern Railway.2. According to the defendant, the goods were, as a matter of fact, delivered to the consignee, and there was neither mistake nor misconduct on the part of the railway staff. Paragraph 7 of the written statement and issue No. 1 -- 'Whether the suit consignments were delivered to the proper consignee and whether there was any misconduct on the part of the Railway Staff -- deal with the said contention.3. The fact that the goods were consigned to 'self' is clear from the Parcel Way Bills, produced in the case, Exts. A2 to A7. The lower court found that the goods were delivered n...
Veervunni Mooppan Vs. State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-03-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Ker294
ORDERS. Velu Pillai, J. 1. The petitioner, who had been a Range Officer in the former Travancore-Cochin State service, has tiled this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, to set aside the order Ext. P1, passed by the respondent, the State of Kerala, on 4-7-1958, reducing him in rank and barring his promotion for a period of two years, He had been ordered to be punished on the same allegations against him by an earlier order Ext. P2, passed by the Government of Travancore-Cochin; but at the hearing of Original Petition 310 of 1956, which had been preferred by him to this court to quash Ext. P2, counsel for the contending parties agreed, that the case against the petitioner might be examined by the Government after consulting the Public Service Commission and that the petitioner might move again under Article 226, should the need arise; the contentions raised were left undecided. Now that the second order also has gone against the petitioner, he has filed this petition.2. Havi...
Narayanan Madhava Pannicker Vs. Kurian Ouseph
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-03-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Ker332
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. this Second Appeal on behalf of the plaintiff appellant, Mr. P. GovindanNair, his learned counsel, challenges the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Vaikom reversing the decree of the trial court.2. In view of the only point that has been raised and which will be mentioned later, it is unnecessary to refer to the various points that were in controversy in this litigation.3. The suit was for redemption of a mortgage evidenced by Ext H dated 5-2-1104, executed by one Govinda Kurup, in favour of the first defendant. The third defendant appears to have acquired some rights and there is no controversy that the 4th defendant has now obtained the rights of defendants 1 and 3.4. According to the plaintiff the suit property belonged to one Govinda Kurup, against whom a decree had been obtained in O. S. 1035/1104, District Munsiff's Court, Vaikom by one Padmanabhan. The decree-holder, in execution of his decree, attached and brought the property to sale...
S. Kumaraswamy Reddiar Vs. S. Noordeen and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-02-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker117
Govinda Menon, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the 3rd respondent, the District Judge of Quilon under Clause 16 of the Travancore-Cochin Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Order, hereinafter referred to as Rent Control Order. The petitioner is the proprietor of Lakshmi Talkies, Quilon, situated in Survey Nos. 8069 and 8070 in Quilon Pakuthy.The owners of the building are respondents 1 and 2 to this petition. They leased the said building to one P.K. Subbiah Pillai of Trivandrum on a monthly rent of Rs. 500/- for a period of 5 years from 1-4-1127 (M.E.). Subbiah Pillai, it is stated, assigned his lease-hold right to the petitioner with the knowledge and consent of respondents 1 and 2 and the petitioner says that he is now running the cinema.The petitioner filed B.R.C. No. 54 of 195S under Section 4 of the Rent Control Order for fixing the fair rent of building. The Rent Controller by his proceed...
State of Kerala Vs. Saithu Muhammed Pareed Kunju and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-02-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Ker358; 1960CriLJ1469
S. Velu Pillai, J. 1. This appeal by the State, arises out of the acquittal of the four accused, in a case against them upon a police report for offences under Section 448 read with Section 114, I. P. C. Including the complainant, four witnesses were examined for the prosecution. But the Sub-Inspector of Police did not attend even on the adjourned date of hearing and was not examined. Without even considering the evidence on record, on account of the non-examination of the investigating officer, the learned Second Class Magistrate, Trivandrum acquitted the accused under Section 245(1), Criminal P. C.Even if the investigating officer was not examined, it was the clear duty of the Magistrateunder Section 245, Cri. P. C., to consider the merits ofthe case before proceeding to acquit the accused.Of course the non-examination of the investigatingofficer is a circumstance which may be taken intoconsideration by the court, but does not per sefurnish a ground for acquittal. The acquittal canno...
Chamiar Kunchelan Vs. Kandan Damodaran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-02-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Ker284
ORDERT.C. Raghavan, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of an application in the lower court under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, for impleading the Petitioner as supplemental 4th defendant in the suit. The lower court dismissed the application and hence the Revision. 2. The suit is for arrears of Purappad based on a Kripanaya Kychit, defendants 1 and 2 being the original mortgagees and the 3rd delendant the assignee from them. The 3rd defendant, the main contesting defendant, pleaded that the suit transaction was not a mortgage but a Kanom and hence the suit was liable to be stayed under Kerala Act of 1957. 3. The Petitioner, who is the younger brother of the 3rd defendant, filed I. A. No. 2908 of 1952, out of which the present Civil Revision Petition arises, alleging that the assignment of the Kanom right (according to him also the suit transaction was a Kanom and not a mortgage) in favour of the 3rd defendant was obtained for and on behalf of the family by their f...
K.O. Daniel, Merchant, Kayamqulam Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bang ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-02-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Ker329
Ansari, J.1. The assesses, who is a dealer in grocery, salt and jaggery, also owns an oil mill, which he had leased on vent to a partnership between himself and his two brothers; and his accounting year for the assessment year 1952-53 extended over the period of 191/2 months, i. e., from 16-8-1950 to 31-3-1952. He had, for the year, furnished return, showing a net income of Rs. 6,737; but the Income-tax Officer. Alleppey Circle, had added to it a further sum of Rs. 24,128-14-0 under the head 'other sources of income'. This has been done because the said sum had been shown in the assessee's personal account as cash credited on 3-9-1951; and the explanation for not treating it as part of the earlier income has been rejected. That explanation is that the entry was made in order to adjust what had been earlier shown as debits in the accounts of three fictitious persons. The assessee's account books for the earlier year contained credit items of RS. 24.128-14-0 in favour of these three pers...
Rev. Fr. Antony Vs. V. Mariarpudhom
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-02-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Ker315
Anna Chandy, J.1. The Revision Petitioner is the 1st accused in C. C. No. 70 of 1958 on the file of the District) Magistrate's Court, Kottayam. He is the Editor of 'Deepika' a Malayalam daily published from Kottayam. He along with the Printer and Publisher of the paper who is the 2nd accused, was proceeded against under Section 34(1) of the Travancore-Cochin Public Safety Measures Act (V of 1950) read with Section 117, I. P. C. The proceedings were initiated by a complaint filed by the District Superintendent of Police, Kottayam. The gist of the complaint is that the accused published in the 'Deepika' dated 14-8-1958 a leading article under the caption ''Sankatakaravayapatam' with the intention of instigating and inciting the public to commit offences involving criminal force and violence against the officers of Government. The Government sanction necessary to institute the complaint as well as the authorisation in favour of the District Superintendent of Police were also produced. The...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›