Kerala Court June 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.
Sankaran Nadar Lekshmanan Nadar Vs. Varathan Nadar Krishnan Nadar and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-21-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker142
ORDERC.A. Vaidialingam, J. 1. The point that arises for consideration in this C. R. P. is as to whether the view of the learned Subordinate Judge of Trivandrum, that the present suit comes within the category contemplated under Section 3, Sub-section 4, Clause (e) of the Travancore-Cochin Court-fees Act, (Act 2 of 1125), is correct. 2. The suit Itself is for partition and separate possession of the shares claimed by the plaintiffs in the properties which, according to them, are held jointly as co-owners with definite shares. The plaintiffs claim partition and separate possession in the following manner : 59/216 th share in Items 1 and 2: 13/54th shares in Item 3; 1/3rd share in Item 4; 1/2 share in Items 5 to 10: 1/3 share in Item 11: and 1/2 share in Items 15 and 16. 3. The general allegations in the plaint arc to the effect that the plaintiffs are entitled to the shares mentioned above and that the properties are held bythe plaintiffs and the defendants as co-owners entitled to ...
ShamsuddIn Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-21-1960
Reported in: (1961)ILLJ77Ker
M.A. Ansari, C.J.1. The writ petitioner in O.P. No. 296 of 1959 is the appellant, and seeks to set aside the award by the industrial Tribunal, Trivandrum, in Dispute No. 1 of 1957. The aforesaid prayer has been rejected by a learned Judge of this Court; hence this appeal.2. The facts leading to the petition can be shortly stated : The appellant, who is a sub-agent of the Standard Vacuum Oil Company in Quilon, had dismissed three workmen on 3 October 1956. The employees got themselves subsequently enrolled as members of the 'Quilon Commercial Staff Association,' and on 19 October 1956, a dispute between the employer and the aforesaid association developed, in which the Government had referred two questions to the tribunal, by order of 8 January 1957. Before the tribunal, the dismissed workers on 28 January 1957 filed a petition, praying that in the proceedings they may be allowed to be represented by the Quilon Commercial and industrial Employees' Association, because they had, after th...
Abu Baker Vs. Sauda Beevi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-21-1960
Reported in: 1962CriLJ815
S. Velu Pillai, J.1. This is a petition under Section 491. Sub-section (1), Clauses (a) and (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code, for release from illegal detention, of the petitioner's son aged 11 years, by his mother, the first counter-petitioner. The petitioner had married her in the year 1123 M.E. corresponding to 1947-1948 A.D. and has three children by her, the boy in question being the eldest He divorced her on December 6, 1959, but according to him, his children continued to live with him. On January 4, 1960 a registered release deed was executed by the first counter-petitioner which, while affirming the divorce, declared inter alia, that the children would be maintained by the petitioner, but that, whenever she desired to see any of them the child would be sent to her. The only effect and meaning of this is. that the custody of the children was with the petitioner even after the divorce and at the date of the document.The petitioner's case is, that after the school closed, the b...
Shri Shaila Industrial and Spiritual Colony Charities Vs. State of Ker ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-17-1960
Reported in: [1960]11STC631(Ker)
M.A. Ansari, C.J.1. The appellant claims exemption from tax on sales of the French polish which he manufactures. Mis case is the tax can-not be levied because of Section 4 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act and having failed before the taxing authority, he has invoked the juris- diction of this Court under Article 226. But the learned Judge declined to interfere on the ground that the aforesaid Section 4 did not cover the claim. The section reads thus :The provisions of this Act shall not apply to the sales of electrical energy, motor spirit as defined in the Madras Sales of Motor Spirit Taxation Act, 1939, manufactured tobacco as defined in the Madras Tobacco (Taxation of Sales and Licensing) Act, 1939 and any goods on which duty is or may be levied under the Madras Abkari Act, 1886, the Madras Prohibition Act, 1937, or the Opium Act, 1878.2. It is obvious that the provision guards against double taxation so that the dealer, who has already paid some charge on the sales of the goods ...
State of Kerala Vs. K. Balakrishna and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-15-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker25; 1961CriLJ80
Govinda Menon, J. 1. This revision petition comes up for hearing before us on a reference made by our learned brother Joseph, J. The question that arises for decision in this case is whether the premature Publication of the State Budget would amount to an offence under the Official Secrets Act, 2. The 1st accused in this case is the Editor, Printer and Publisher of a daily by name 'The Kaumudi'. The second accused is its city correspondent. The compositor of the Government Press, Trivandrum, is the 3rd accused, but he had been discharged. The prosecution case is that certain parts of the Budget for the year 1957-58 Appendix V and VI, Memorandum explaining alterations in the Preliminary Budget estimate and also information regarding introductory preface to the 2nd Five Year Plan, detailed estimates and Budget figures relating to the Forest, Transport, Commerce, Civil Government Works, General Administration, Judiciary, Police and Jails, Education, etc., were published in the issue of th...
Commissioner, City Corporation Vs. Harihara Iyer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-15-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker62
Ansari, C.J. 1. The two references had come to this Court under the Trivandrum City Municipal Act, No. IV of 1116, hereafter to be stated as the Act, and been referred to the Full Bench, because the two questions arising therein have been considered to be of importance, and likely to affect a number of persons. Before answering them it is necessary briefly to state the facts that have brought about the references, and the sections as well as the schedule to the Act, whose interpretation would answer the two questions. 2. It appears that one M. K. Harihara Iyer had been assessed for two years to pay the tax on his income from investment by the Commissioner of Trivandrum City Corporation under Section 107 of the Act, and the assessee had appealed to the Committee that heard appeals against such assessments. The Committee dismissed the appeals, whereupon appeals were filed before the District Judge, who is vested with the appellate jurisdiction over the appellate orders of the Committee. ...
Balakrishnan Nambiar Vs. Gopalan Nambiar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-14-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker48; 1961CriLJ263a
ORDERS. Velu Pillai, J.1. Crl. M. P. 271 of 1959 is an application under Section 417(3), Crl. P. C. for special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal, and there having been a delay of two days in making it, Crl. M. P. 277 of 1959 was filed under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, or shortly the Act, to condone the delay. The latter has been referred to a Division Bench for decision, raising the question : 'Whether Section 5 of the Act can apply to an application under Section 417(3)'.2. Section 417(4), Crl. P. C. provides that: 'No application under Sub-section (3) for the grant of special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal shall be entertained by the High Court after the expiry of sixty days from the date of that order of acquittal'.The material part of Section 5 of the Act may also be quoted below :'Any appeal or application ........ for leaveto appeal or any other application to which this section may be made applicable ...... may beadmitted after the period of lim...
P. Ramachandra Rao and anr. Vs. Agricultural Income Tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-10-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker111
M.S. Menon, J. 1. The petitioner in those two petitions is an assessee under, the Agricultural income-tax Act 1950. He challenges the validity of the assessments for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60 in so far as they relate to his income from the cultivation of tobacco. According to him the levy of amagricultural income tax on the income from the cultivation of tobacco is in substance and in effect the levy of an excise duty and lienee beyond the powers of the State legislature under the Constitution of India. 2. There can be no doubt that if the tax amounts to an excise duty, the contention of the assessee has to be sustained and these petitions allowed. Duties of excise, on tobacco come under Entry 84 of the Union List and Article 246(1) of the Constitution specifically provides that Parliament has the exclusive power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in that list. 3. The only question for determination, therefore, is whether a tax on the income deriv...
Karanjia Vs. Chellappan Pillai and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-10-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Ker383; 1960CriLJ1597
ORDERP. Govinda Menon, J.1. The Revision Petitioner R. K. Karanjia, Editor of Blitz, Bombay is the accused in a case of defamation filed by the respondent. On an application by him, his personal attendance was exempted during the course of the trial under Section 205 Cr. P. C. After the evidence for the prosecution was recorded, the case stood posted to 14-4-1960 for further proceedings. On that day the petitioner was not present in court. His advocate presented a petition stating that as the personal attendance of the petitioner had been exempted his presence need not be insisted upon for his examination under Section 342 Cr. P. C. The learned Magistrate heard the parties and passed an order that the examination of the accused under Section 342 would mean the examination of the accused in person and not through his 'Mukthyar' or pleader and directed the accused to appear in person on the next hearing date. The Petitioner's advocate has come up in revision against the above said order....
Thomas and ors. Vs. Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-03-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker265; (1960)IILLJ523Ker; (1960)IILLJ523Ker
Ansari, C.J.1. These three petitions are under Article 226 and seek to vary the orders by the petitioners'' employer. The petitioner in O. P. 455 of 1958 has been the Manager of the Fertilisers & Chemicals, Travancore Limited's branch office at Cochin. He claims to have been promoted to the post on September 1, 19.57, in view of his efficiency, integrity and seniority in service, and to be then drawing the salary of Rs. 300 in the scale of Rs. 300-20-400 per mensem excluding allowances.The cause for filing the writ petition is that the employer passed on July 12, 1958 an order, whereby as per the award of March 14, 1958. by the District Labour Officer, Alwaye, the petitioner was reverted with effect from July 16, 1958, in his original position of the section head in the purchase department. The order further directed handing over charge to one Krishnan as mentioned in the, award; and this Krishnan has been implead-ed as the 5th respondent in the writ petition. The other respondents are...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »