Kerala Court August 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.
Abdulla Haji Vs. Kunhamina
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-09-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker201
ORDERP.T. Raman Nayar, J. 1. This appeal, by the 2nd plaintiff and the 4th defendant in the suit, is against an order of remand passed by the lower appellate court on appeal by defendants 2 and 3 against a direction for sale made by the trial court under Section 2 of the Partition Act, 1893.2. By the preliminary decree the property in suit, a double-storied house standing in 22 cents of land, has to be divided between six groups of sharers. The 4th defendant, who stands by himself, is entitled to a 681/1008th share of the property, and he made an application for a sale of the property on the score that a division could not reasonably or conveniently be made. Of the several sharers, defendants 2 and 3 alone opposed the application.Both are individual sharers and while the 2nd defendant is entitled to a 142/1008th share, the 3rd defendant is entitled to a 71/1008th share. It was their contention that the house could be conveniently divided between the several groups, but their alternativ...
Kokkalai Rice and Oil Mills Foundry, Etc. Vs. Regional Provident Fund ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-08-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker57; (1960)IILLJ528Ker; (1960)IILLJ528Ker
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This case raises certain questions as to the scope of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The appellant is the owner of a factory at Kokkalai, Trichur, where several industries like rice and oil mills, foundry and engineering works, and soap works are carried on; and the respondent is the Regional Provident Funds Commissioner, Trivandrum.3. On 31-10-1952 the respondent issued a letter to the appellant requesting him to furnish the declaration and the list required by paragraphs 33 and 36 (1) of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme 1952 and intimating him that collection of contributions to the Fund would commence from the 1st November 1952. That letter is marked in this case as Ext. A. Subsequently on 10-3-1953, he sent another letter to the appellant, demanding deposit of the contributions to the Fund and the administrative charges as enjoined by the Act and the Scheme. That letter is produced as Ext. B. In it the respo...
Kumaran Vs. Ist Addl. Income-tax Officer, Kozhikode
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-08-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker182
Ansari, C.J. 1. The appellant's writ petition has been disallowed by a learned Judge of this Court. Before March 13, 1946, he was a member of the Hindu undivided family of Messrs. Mootharakutty and Sons and got half share in the business from April 1, 1946, when the partition in the family was recognised. He, therefore, became a new assessee from 1947-48 assessment year, On September 10, 1947 the appellant filed a voluntary return of his income, but he did not file an estimate of his total income and pay advance tax as required by Section 18A(3) of the Income-tax Act, hereafter to be referred as the Act. A default has then been committedand penal interest has become leviable under Section 18A (8) of the Act. 2. The Income-tax Officer by order of April 29, 1951, made provisional assessment under Section 23B and assessed the petitioner on a total income of Rs. 42,172/-. Thereafter, the Officer by order of March 30, 1952, completed the assessment under Section 23(3) on a total income o Rs...
C. Kuttimalu Amma and ors. Vs. C. Lakshmi and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-05-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker166
Velu Pillai, J. 1. These two appeals have arisen out of two suits for partition under the provisions of the Madras Marumakkathayam Act, 1932 and have been referred to a Full Bench for decision, and though they are between different parties, they raise similar questions and may be conveniently disposed of by this common judgment.2. The facts which pertain to A. S. 354 of 1953 (M) may first be stated. Meenakshi Amma deceased had two daughters, the plaintiff and Madhavi Amma deceased, and a son Saukunny Nair. The plaintiff has three sons, Narayanan Nair, Sivaraman Nair and Krishnan Nair. Madhavi Amma'sdaughter is the first defendant and defendants 2 to 7 are the latter's children. On a partition of their main tarwad which took place in the year 1941 evidenced by Ext. B-10, Sankunny Nair and the plaintiff's sons, each took his share separately, but the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 7 took theirs, as one group.In the year 1948, the plaintiff executed a deed of gift, Ext. B-7, for all her pr...
Madhusudanan Nair Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-05-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker203
Ansari, C.J.1. The petitioners in both the writ petitions challenge the constitutionality of G. O. (HS) 259 dated March 11, 1958, which has fixed their places in the seniority list. The relevant facts, giving rise to the complaint, may be shortly stated.2. The petitioner as well as the respondents, other than the State, in each writ petition, were members of the Travancore-Cochin State Forces, prior to the inauguration of the Constitution. When the integration of the State Forces with the Indian Army took place, they were rejected by the Indian Army Selection Board, on the ground of not being suitable.The policy of the then Government was to provide such persons, as far as practicable, with alternative employments in the State services; and both the writ petitioners as well as the respondents were employed, some in what was called the Palace Guards, and some in the Police Force. They were, therefore, separated into two groups; six officers being absorbed in the Palace Guards, and four ...
Thangal Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-04-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker331
Govinda Menon, J. 1. The petitioner was the 1st accused in C.C.67/59 on the file of the Sub-Magistrate of Ponnani. He was convicted by the learned Magistrate under Ss. 353 and 225B, I.P.C., and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 4 months under Section 353 and rigorous imprisonment for 2 months under Section 225B. On appeal the District Magistrate of palghat set aside the conviction Under Section 353 I.P.C., but confirmed the conviction under Section 225B and reduced the sentence to a fine of Rs. 300. This revision has been filed against the above said order. When the matter came up for hearing before our learned brother Velu Pillai, J., it was referred to a Division Bench on the ground that on one of the questions arising for decision in the case there was a conflict of opinion between the decisions reported in Fattu V. Emperor, AIR 1932 All 692 and Puna Mahton v. Emperor, AIR 1932 Pat.315. 2. The facts of the case necessary for the disposal of this petition are as follows:-- Pw. 7...
State of Kerala Vs. Arunachalam Reddiar and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-01-1960
Reported in: 1961CriLJ112
Anna Chandy, J.1. This is an application by the State under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution, that we certify as a tit case for appeal to the Supreme Court, the order of acquittal passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 417 of 1958. The appeal arises out of a prosecution instituted under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act XXXVII of 1954. The complainant in the case was the City Corporation of Trivandrum represented by the Corporation Food Inspector.The 1st accused is the owner of a shop and the 2nd accused is stated to have been conducting the sales in the shop for and on behalf of the 1st accused. The prosecution case is that on 30-7-1957 the Food Inspector of the Corporation went to the shop and purchased twelve ozs. of gingilly oil from the 2nd accused and sent a portion of it to the public analyst. It was found that the said gingilly oil contained a high percentage of groundnut oil and fatty acids.The accused were proceeded against un...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›