Kerala Court July 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.
Damodaran Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-12-1960
Reported in: 1961CriLJ102
ORDERP. Govinda Menon, J.1. The accused in C. C. No. 43 of 1958 who had been convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Trivandrum under Section 92 of the Act, XL III of 1948 and whose appeal to Judge of Trivandrum has been dismissal few Wed this revision.2. The Inspector of Factories filed a complaint against the accused under Section 105 of the Factories Act alleging that the accused had contravened Section 6, Clause 1 a of the Act and Rule 3 of the Factories Rules by conducting a manufacturing process with the aid of power and employing more than 9 workers without obtaining previous permission in writing of the Chief Inspector of Factories and also for having failed to apply for registration and obtaining licence, offences punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act.These facts were not denied and the only point that was raised in the case was that in view of Section 106 of the Act, the complaint is barred by limitation. Both the courts below found that there was no bar of lim...
Bank of New India Ltd. Vs. Sukumari Ponnamma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-08-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker105
Madhavan Nair, J. 1. The 'plaintiff having obtained a money decree against defendants 1 and 2 attached the second defendant's undivided one-third share in certainproperties belonging to her Thavazhi consisting of herself and her two children. The respondent, who is the daughter of the second defendant, preferred a claim under Order XXI, Rule 58, Civil P. C., objecting to that attachment on the groundthat, the Thavazhi being undivided the second defendant has no definite share in the properties liable to be attached in execution. The decree-holder, on the other hand, contended that with the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, every member of a Tarwad hns been conceded a heritable right in the Tarwad Properties and the same is liable to attachment.2. The learned Munsiff held:'........It is not disputed that the right of anundivided Hindu in a Hindu family whether Kshatriya or otherwise, will devolve on his heirs on his death. But, to say that the said right is now become...
State of Kerala Vs. Mulloth (V.M.)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-08-1960
Reported in: (1961)ILLJ184Ker
Raghavan, J.1. This appeal has been referred to a Division Bench by Raman Nayar, J. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The accused, who is the respondent before us, is the proprietor and manager of the Mulloth Industrial School in Trichur district, where handloom weaving of cloth and mat-weaving are demonstrated and instructions given in such weaving to pupils. P.W. 1, the factories inspector, visited the school on 24 June 1958, when he found 15 persons actually engaged in weaving cloth, apart from 26 students who were present and watching the demonstration. The accused was prosecuted for contravening Rule 3 of the Kerala Factories Rules, 1957, for running a factory without obtaining permission for the same in writing from the Chief Inspector of Factories. The accused raised several contentions before the lower Court and the lower Court held that the business conducted by the accused was not a factory as in its view the notification issued by the Kerala Government under Section ...
State of Kerala Vs. V.M. Mulloth
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-08-1960
Reported in: 1961CriLJ95
T.C. Raghavan, J.1. This appeal has been referred to a Division Bench by Raman Nayar, J, The facts of the case are not in dispute, The accused, who is the respondent before us, is the proprietor and manager of the Mulloth Industrial School in Trichur District, where handloom weaving of cloth and mat-Weaving are demonstrated and instructions given in such weaving to pupils. Pw. 1, the Factories Inspector, visited the school on June 24th, 1958, when he found 15 persons actually engaged in weaving cloth, apart from 26 students who were present and watching the demonstration. The accused was prosecuted for contravening Rule 3 of the Kerala Factories Rules, 1957, for running a Factory without obtaining permission for the same in writing from the Chief Inspector of Factories.The accused raised several contentions before the lower Court and the lower Court held that the business conducted by the accused was not a, factory as in its view the notification issued by the Kerala Government under S...
Kochan Velayudhan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-07-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker8; 1961CriLJ70
Govinda Menon, J.1. This revision is directed against the conviction and sentence of the accused in C. C. No. 324/59 on the file of the Second Class Magistrate, Neyyattinkara which had been confirmed by the District Magistrate of Trivandrum. The accused had been charged for offences punishable under Sections 8 (1) (a) and 8 (1) (g) read with Section 16 of Act XIII of 1950.2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as follows: -- On 4-3-1959 at 8 A. M. the flying squad Excise Inspector, Trivandrum and his patrol party got information that illicit manufacture of arrack was going on in the house No. K. P. 4-348 in Karumkulam Desom in the possession of the accused. Pw. 2 thereupon prepared a search memo Ext. P2 and proceeded to the house with two independent witnesses of the locality. When the party reached about 50 feet north of the house, the accused was found getling out from the western room of the house with a copper vessel M. O. 1. The accused ran towards the southern direction. The p...
Rice and Oil Mills Partnership Firm Vs. Dy. Superintendent of Central ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-07-1960
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT59(Ker)
S. Velu Pillai, J.1. O.P. 180 of 1959 as filed.originally, was by four petitioners jointly, for quashing four notices, Exts. P1 to P4 issued to them separately, by the respondent, the Deputy Superintendent of Central Excise, Trichur M O.R. On objection being taken to the form of the petition, it was split into four petitions and numbered as O.Ps. 180, 180(A), 180(B), 180(C) of 1959, The petitioners are four firms, which carry on business, in different names, of extracting vegetable non-essential oil. As per item 23 in Schedule I of the Central Excises and Salt Act of 1944, referred to hereafter as the 'Act', a duty at the rate of Rs, 112/- per ton, is imposed on such oil cleared by a manufacturer. But Section 37(2)(xvii) of the Act has provided, that rules may be enacted by the Central Government so as to 'exempt any goods from the whole or any part of the duty imposed' by the Act. Accordingly, by Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 the Central Government is authorised to exempt f...
Manavikrama ZamorIn Raja of Kozhikode Vs. Commissioner, H.R. and C. En ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-04-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker87
Ansari, C. J. 1. The petitioner claims the respondents' actions to be unconstitutional, and, failing the ground, to be otherwise without jurisdiction. He has consequently prayed for a writ of certiorari, or other appropriate writs, to protect him against the aforesaid acts. Before adjudicating on the legal grounds, we would state the facts, that have caused the writ petition.2. It is not denied that the petitioner, the Zamorin Rajah of Calicut had become the hereditary trustee of the Varakkal Devaswom in Katchery Amsom, Kozhikode Taluk, from May 2, 1958. The Devaswom owns vacant lands in T. S. Nos. 221, 242 and 251 in Katchery Amsom, and they were at one time taken on lease by the Collector of Malabar on annual rent of Rs. 26-13-6, when they were being used for military purposes. After the expiry of the lease, the trustee, who was the petitioner's immediate predecessor, was informed of the intention to surrender the lands to the Devaswom, and about his making arrangements to assume the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›