Kerala Court July 1960 Judgments
Kayiath Damodaran Vs. Induchoodan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-29-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker321; 1961CriLJ771
Ansari, C.J. 1. The application is to punish for contempt the Editor as well as the Printer and Publisher of newspaper called 'Desabhimani', that is published from Kozhikode. The aforesaid newspaper had published on December 1 and 2, 1959, what purports to he information from its special correspondent, and its translation in English reads thus:'It is learnt that Sri Chacko, the District Magistrate of Tellicherry, has been transferred to Kozhikode as the Principal Sub-Judge. It is further learnt that the black hands of certain leaders of the Deliverance movement were behind the transfer. Shri Chacko had issued a warrant to search the house of a prominent Congress leader of Cannanore and it is stated that the said leader had bestowed a blessing on Sri Chacko that he would not be able to issuesimilar Orders any longer. It is this blessing that has come out in the shape of a transfer.'2. The petitioner complains that the publication amounts to contempt of Court, because it defames him in c...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Thiraviyam Panicker (Accused)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-29-1960
Reported in: 1962CriLJ654
ORDERP. Govinda Menon, J.1. Criminal Appeal 346/59 and Criminal Revision Petition 321/59 arise out of an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Trivandrum in C.C. 22/59. Criminal Appeal 346/59 is filed by the State against the order or acquittal of the four respondents who had been charged along with another for an offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. Criminal Revision Petition 321/59 is a petition filed earlier by the 1st informant Pw. 1 in the case for revising the order of the learned Magistrate challenging the order of acquittal of, the accused and also the order regarding the disposal of the properties. These two matters were heard together and I propose to pass one common order.2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Puthenchantha had charged the four respondents who were accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 for having cheated, P.W. 1, an offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. Pw. 1 is a big businessman belonging to Kanyakumari District. It is stated that he had made arrangeme...
Tag this Judgment!Kunju Moosa (C.M.) Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-26-1960
Reported in: (1961)ILLJ437Ker
S. Velu Pillai, J.1. The petitioner, the president of a panchayat, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash an order Ex.P.1 by the respondent 1, State of Kerala, rejecting his appeal petition, Ex.P.2, directed against an order of the respondent 2 the Director of Local Bodies, by which he refused to cancel a resolution passed by the panchayat on 2 November 1957 accepting a letter of resignation purporting to have been signed by the petitioner. The chief ground on which Ex.P.1 was assailed before me was, that in making it, the respondent 1 called for a report from the respondent 3, the Deputy Director of Local Bodies and had acted upon it to the prejudice of the petitioner and without notice to him and that therefore the rules of natural justice have been violated. The first reply to this contention, on behalf of the respondent 4, the vice-president of the panchayat, who had been allowed to function as president, was that respondent 1 had not relied upon the...
Tag this Judgment!D. Devaraja Iyer Vs. R.T.A. Trichur
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-25-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker53
ORDERS. Veelu Pillai, J. 1. The petitioner was operating a stage carriage between Trichur and Kallur via Ollur Junction, Trikkur Bridge, Muttan's Corner and Pilliyara. The 3rd respondent was operating two stage carriages between Trichur and Trikkur via Ollur Junction; he has a case, that for one of the stage carriages, ho had a permit up to Muttan's Corner and for the other up to Ponnukara on the north of Pallivara, but this controversy is immaterial for the disposal of this petition.When the road from Muttan's Corner to Kallur was declared unfit for traffic, the Regional Transport Authority, Trichur, by order Ext. P2, dated December 18, 1959, permitted, the petitioner to operate his stage carriage, and also the third respondent to operate one of his stage carriages, between Trichur and Kallur via Ollur Junction and Amballur. This was without following the procedure prescribed by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, or simply the Act, for effecting variations in the conditions of the permit o...
Tag this Judgment!Malabar Plywood Works Vs. Government of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-25-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Ker9; (1961)ILLJ66Ker
Ansari, C.J.1. The Malabar. Plywood Works,. Feroke, is a registered partnership, and has filed this petition to-vacate the award in Industrial Dispute No. 47/57. The aforesaid award was made in a dispute between the petitioner and the firm's employees, which the Government had referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Kozhikode, and, on the Tribunal being abolished, to the Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam. Six issues were referred, but we are concerned only with two, whose findings the petitioner seeks to vacate. The issues are:--(1) Issue No. 4. 'Whether or not bonus at the rate of 25 per cent of the total earnings should be paid for the years 1954-55 and 1955-56.' (2) Issue No. 6. 'Whether or not the management should introduce a gratuity scheme at the rate of 15 days' wages for every year of service for the benefit of those workers, who will have to retire from service.'Dealing with the fourth issue, the Tribunal has found Rs. 70,508-6-5 to be the available surplus for 1955, and Rs. 5,382-...
Tag this Judgment!D. Elayunni Kaimal Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-22-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker52
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The appellant is an Upper Division Clerk in the Public Works Department, whose Original Petition (No. 726 of 1959) for quashing Exts. P-3 and P-4 circular orders of the Government of' Travancore-Cochin hits been dismissed by the learned Judge before whom it came up for admission. The matter relates to fixation of the rank of the petitioner in the integrated gradation list of the ministerial staff of the Public Works Department.It appears that the rule in Travancore before the integration of the Travancore and Cochin States on 1-7-1949 was that junior clerks, who were promoted to higher grade by virtue of their test qualifications, will retain seniority over their former seniors who subsequently pass the tests and secure promotion. On 7-5-1951 the Government of Travancore-Cochin modified this rule to the effect that, if the senior got the test before the vacancy became permanent, he will be allowed to supersede the junior who got an officiating promotion earlier by v...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnaswamy Iyer Vs. Ouseph Mathai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-22-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker110
ORDERP. Govinda Menon, J. 1. This revision petition is filed against the order passed by the Addl. District Judge of Kottavam in C. M. P. 395/58 in O. S. 3/57 allowing an amendment of the written statement fifed by the defendant under Order 6 Rule 17. 2. The suit is for recovery of a sum of Rs. 30,000/- reserved in a registered sale deed. The defendant contended that the price in the sale deed hapoened to be .fixed because, of the misrepresentation made by the vendor and that the vendor subsequently agreed to accept a lesser amount of Rs. 10,000/- in full satisfaction. 3. The court tried a preliminary issue whether the defendant could prove by means of oral evidence, the agreement set up in the written statement and it was held that the agreement set up cannot be proved by parole evidence. By a petition dated 17-2-1958 the defendant wanted to raise an issue as to whether he could resile from the contract and get the value of improvements and the amount paid by him. It was ordered that ...
Tag this Judgment!Devaki Amma Vs. Raghavan Unnithan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-21-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker224
M.S. Menon, J.1. The 1st defendant in O. S. No. 3 of 1123 of the District Court of Mavelikara is the appellant before us. The suit was by the 1st respondent for the partition of the assets of one Krishna Pillai who died, according to the finding of the court below, on 12-1-1104.2. The claim which has been decreed was for a three-fourth share in the assets of Krishna Pillai on the basis of Ext. A, a will alleged to have been executed by him on 9-1-1104. According to the 1st defendant the will was a fabrication and the whole of the properties devolved on her as per the direction in paragraph 9 of Ext. 1, the plaint of Krishna Pillai dated 8-1-1104 in pursuance of which the items concerned were allotted to his share in family partition.3. The first question for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled to attack the genuineness and, binding character of the will or whether she is barred from doing so by the rule of res judicata in view of the contentions and decision in the suit ...
Tag this Judgment!V.K.M. Abdulsalam Rowther Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-21-1960
Reported in: [1961]12STC98(Ker)
M.A. Ansari, C.J. 1. The revision petitioner is the dealer, whose gross turnover for the assessment year 1957-58 was Rs. 6,13,170-91, the net turnover of Rs. 2,68,794-07, and who claims for exemption on turnover of Rs. 3,44,376-84. The Sales Tax Officer, Ponkunnam, has disallowed exemption from tax on the turnover of Rs. 35,666, which is the stock value of pepper, ginger and turmeric, the assessee had on 31st March, 1958. The petitioner's claim for exemption rests on these stocks having been after that date sold to assessable dealers in the State. The appeal against the aforesaid claim being disallowed was filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Kottayam ; but the petitioner failed. The further appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal has also been disallowed. Therefore the legal issue raised in the revision petition is 'whether the taxing authorities have correctly disregarded sales beyond the assessment year when the notificat...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax Vs. M.D. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-21-1960
Reported in: [1961]12STC687(Ker)
M.A. Ansari, C.J. 1. For the assessment year 1951-52, the dealer had furnished returns, but the assessing officer has rejected them on the ground that the dealer had given in his application for registration, the turnover of Rs. 77,803-4-3, and that was far in excess of what had been mentioned in the returns for the aforesaid year. In the appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the dealer had taken the ground of his being liable under the notification to pay only the tax on the first and the last sales within the State, and the appellate authority had remanded the case for fresh disposal after setting aside the assessment. While so doing, the appellate authority had made the following observations:-There is also great disparity between the turnover disclosed as per the accounts and those given by him in the application for licence for the period 1952-53. These facts clearly show that the book produced before the officer was cooked up subsequently and cannot therefore be acc...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »