Kerala Court October 1961 Judgments
Gopalan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-31-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ427
T.C. Raghavan, J.1. The appeal is by the 1st accused in S. C No. 47 of 1960 on the file of the Sessions Court of Trivandrurn. There were two accused persons in 'the case, the 1st accused being the younger brother and the 2nd accused the elder. The 1st accused was charged Under Sections 302 and 324 and. was also charged Under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. The 2nd accused was charged Under Section 324 and Sections 324 and 302 read with Section 34. The prosecution version of the case was briefly as follows :2. The deceased Parameswaran alias Pramu or Paramu Contractor and Pw. 1 were, living as husband and wife for the past 8 years and they had on : son aged 41 years by this connection. Pw. I had her first husband, who deserted her about 11 years ago and she had three children by the marriage, Pws. 2 and 8 being two of them. Paramu started visiting her as her second husband. About two weeks prior to the date of occurrence, Paramu was alleged to have seen the 1st accus...
Tag this Judgment!Areekkal Abdurahiman Musaliyar Vs. Neliyaparambath Ayissu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-30-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Ker234
ORDERP. Govinda Menon, J.1. This is a revision petition from the order of the Munsiff-Magistrate of Quilandy ordering the revision petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs. 15/- per mensem to his wife from the date of the petition till 11-11-1960, the date of expiry of the period of Iddat and Rs. 10/- per mensem to his child from the date of the petition.2. It is contended that the fact that he had divorced his wife prior to the filing of the petition deprived the Magistrate of jurisdiction under Section 488 Cr. P. C., to order maintenance to the wife. A reference to Section 488 would show that if on the date on which the application is made the relationship of husband and wife exists the Magistrate will have jurisdiction to pass an order. The proper date to be considered is the date on which the application is made. If the fact of divorce comes to the knowledge of the wife only after the filing of the petition, she may be entitled to file a petition.3. Here in this case the wife has clearl...
Tag this Judgment!K.C. Paipal Vs. the State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-30-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Ker242
ORDERAnna Chandy, J. 1. The common question that arises in these two revision petitions is as to which one of the two courts of Sessions is the proper appellate forum for a case tried and convicted by a First Class Magistrate having jurisdiction over both Sessions Divisions. The Industrial Tribunal, Kozhikode which has been invested with the powers of a 1st Class Magistrate for the trial of offences under the labour laws committed within the districts of Kozhikode, Cannanore and Palghat convicted the petitioner for an offence under Section 102(2) of the Factories Act. The Tribunal is located at Kozhikode within the territorial jurisdiction of the Kozhikode Sessions Judge while the offence was committed at Pay-yannur which lies within the territorial jurisdiction of Tellicherry Sessions Judge.Against the above conviction the revision petitioner filed an appeal before the Tellicherry Sessions Court which was returned on the ground that the proper appellate forum is the Sessions Court whi...
Tag this Judgment!Maney and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-30-1961
Reported in: [1963]47ITR434(Ker)
This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The questions referred are :'1. Whether a penalty under section 28(1) (c) of the Indian Income-tax Act can be levied on the partners of a firm which has ceased to be in existence 2. Whether there is any evidence that the assessee have concealed the particulars of their income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of such income which will justify the levy of a penalty under section 28(1) (c) of the Indian Income-tax Act 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 79,500 can be treated as the assesses concealed income for the purpose of imposing a penalty under section 28(1) (c) of the Indian Income-tax Act.'Question No. 1. - In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in C. A. Abraham v. Income-tax Officer, Kottayam, affirming the decision of this court in C. A. Abraham v. Income-tax Officer, Kottayam, it is agreed...
Tag this Judgment!Chellappan Pillai Vs. Karanjia
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-30-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ142
P. Govinda Menon, J.1. These two criminal appeals are aireded against the order of acquittal ptassed 'by the learned Additional Sessions Judige of Trivandrurn, Criminal Appeal 49 of 1961 is by the Sato and Criminal Appeal 33 of 1961 is filed by the complainant after obtaining special leave Under Section 417(3) Cr.PC2. The accused in the case Sri. R. K. Kararijia is the Editor and Publisher of a News Magazine called 'Bliz' published from Bombay. In the issue of the Magazine dated 11-7-1959 a photograph was published with a caption 'Soldiers of the Goonda War wait in the compound of Bishop's Palace fit Trivandrum for the church bells be toll,, the signal for attack'. The complainant Sri Chellappan Pillai, the Chief Correspondent of a Malayalam daily called 'Malayalam Rajyam' one of '.he persons in the photograph has filed the complaint alleging that the photograph with the false caption was. published with intent to harm his reputation and to lower him in the estimate of others.3. On 15-...
Tag this Judgment!Kolappa Pillai Vs. Krishna Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-26-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Ker144
1. Plaintiff is the appellant. 2. The plaint schedule property belonged to one Narayana Pillai, having been allotted to him in partition of his tarwad. It was then outstanding on a possessory mortgage. Narayana Pillai executed a hypothecation in respect of the equity of redemption which was put in action culminating in a court-sale in O. S. No. 47 of 1109 on the file of the District Munsitf of Trivandrum. Pending execution, hut before the court-sale, Narayana Pillai died; and Janki Amma, who was alleged to be his widow, was impleaded as his legal representative. The execution sale was held with her as his sole legal representative. The property was taken delivery of by the plaintiff, but on an application by the mortgagee it was redelivered to the latter. Plaintiff has therefore instituted this suit for redeeming the mortgage. The defendant contended that, subsequent to the decree in O. S. No. 47 of 1109, Narayana Pillai had sold the property to him 'whereupon he redeemed the mortgage ...
Tag this Judgment!Kottayam Plywood Workers Union, Kottayam, Represented by V.R. Kumaran ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-26-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Ker292; [1962(4)FLR531]; (1962)ILLJ344Ker
ORDERC.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In this Original Petition, Mr. M. M. Cherian, learned counsel for the petitioner Union, seeks the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the State Government, to refer the dispute between the petitioner and the management for adjudication, under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned counsel also seeks to have an order, Ext. P-3, issued by the State Government on 20-3-1961, declining to make a reference for adjudication, quashed.2. During the course of the hearing I felt a doubt as to whether the management, who may also be stated to be interested in these proceedings, should not be brought on record, so that I may have the benefit of their view points also, before I take a decision one way or the other. But the learned Government Pleader, appearing for the State has presented all the aspects that could be presented even by the management in such circumstances and therefore I did not think it necessary to issue separate notice to the management in th...
Tag this Judgment!Ben Corn Nilgiri Plantations Co. and ors. Vs. the Sales Tax Officer an ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-26-1961
Reported in: [1962]13STC309(Ker)
M.S. Menon, AG. C.J.1. These appeals are directed against the common judgment of Vaidialmgam, J., in O.P. Nos. 181, 179, 180, 242, 612, 243, 254, 585, 611, 629, 581, 583, 1107, 227, 226, 1324, 1175 and 1323 respectively of 1960. The sole question for decision is whether the sales of tea covered by the petitions were in the course of export out of the territory of India and thus exempt from taxation under Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution.2. The years concerned are 1956-57, 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60. Article 286 of the Constitution was amended by the Constitution (Sixth Amendment) Act, 1956, on 11th September, 1956. The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, with the exception of Sections 6 and 15, came into force on 5th January, 1957. Section 6, the charging section, came into force on 1st July, 1957. 3. Clause (1) of Article 286 provides :No law of a State shall impose, or authorise the imposition of, a tax on the sale or purchase of goods where such sale or purchase takes place-(a) outs...
Tag this Judgment!Puthumana Estate Vs. Poulose and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-24-1961
Reported in: (1962)IILLJ153Ker
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In this writ petition Mr. Manuel T. paikeday, learned Counsel for the petitioner, challenges the award of the industrial tribunal, Ernateulam, in I.D. No. 9 of 1960 and published in the State Gazette dated 18 October I960. The ultimate result of the directions given in the said award is that workman concerned should be reinstated and that he should also be given a compensation in the sum of Rs. 100 in view of the fact that back-wages were not being awarded in his favour.2. This award is attacked by Mr. Paikeday learned Counsel, on two grounds. The first ground of attack is that the order or communication issued by the management in this case, Ex. A dated 8 February 1960, to the workman concerned has been misinterpreted and misunderstood by the tribunal as amounting to one of discharge from service. On this aspect Mr. Faikeday urged that the management has not discharged the petitioner from service, but they have discharged him only from the service as a tapper w...
Tag this Judgment!Food Inspector Vs. Indian Medical Practitioners Co-operative Pharmacy ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-23-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ433
Anna Chandy, J.1. This is an appeal against acquittal. The appellant the Food Inspector, Kozhikode Municipality had filed' a complaint under (fie Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Central Act 37 of 1954) against e Secretary and Branch Manager of the Calicut Co-operative Stores Ud. The case against them was 'that they sold adulterated honey. As the honey was seen to nave been purchased by '''he Calicut Co-operative Society from the Indian Medical Practitioners Cooperative Pharmacy and Stores LW., Adayar, Madras .under a written warranty of purity a separate case was filed against that company t&-presented by its Secretary. Both the cases tried 'together by the District Magistrate, Kozhi-kodie, who while acquitting the accused in the first case (C.C. 332 of 1959) convicted the accused in the second (C, C, 333 of 1959) Under Section 16(g) read with Section 19 of .the Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- or in default ito undergo simple imprisonment for thr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »