Kerala Court February 1961 Judgments
Abdulrahiman Beary Vs. Abdulkhadar Beary
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-22-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Ker56
M. Madhavan Nair, J.1. The suit is to recover a sunk of Rs. 1500/- being the value of goods entrusted for transport to Bombay with defendants 1 and 2 who were public carriers. Admittedly the goods were not delivered to the consignee, nor returned to the consignor. The defence, which found acceptance in the courts below, was of limitation under Article 31 of the Limitation Act.2. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that Article 31 is not applicable to the instant case for two reasons firstly, that the Article applies only to suits by consignees, and not by consignors; and secondly, the Article' applies only to suits In tort and not to those based on breach of contract. Reliance was placed on the observations of Chatterjee, J. in Radha Shyam Basak v. Secretary of State, ILR 44 Cal 16 : (AIR 1917 Cal 640), to the effect that the 'Article contemplates a suit by the party who is entitled to the delivery, viz., the consignee.'3. This dictum came up for consideration in Vally Moham...
Tag this Judgment!Food Inspector Vs. Parameswaran Chettiar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-21-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ152
P.T. Raman Nayar, J.1. The accused in this case was convicted by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Kozhikode of an offence punishable under Section 18(1)(a)(ii) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (referred to hereafter as the Act) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. On appeal he wag acquitted by the sessions court and the complainant, a food inspector, has brought this appeal against acquittal by special leave under Section 417(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. On 8.10.19S9 P. W. 1, a Food Inspector, stopped the accused when he was entering a coffee hotel with a vessel containing about four bottles of milk. He obtained one bottle of this milk from the accused following the procedure prescribed by Sections 10 and 11 of the Act. On analysis this milk was found to contain 14 per cent of added water.3. The prosecution case is that the milk was being taken by the accused to the coffee hotel for sale while the defence was tha...
Tag this Judgment!Haji K.K. Moidu and ors. Vs. Food Inspector
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-17-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ647
ORDERT.C. Raghavan, J.1. A short but interesting question of law regarding the validity of a prosecution under Section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Central Act 37 of 1954) and the scope and effect of a notification issued by the Government of Madras under Section 20(1) of the same Act before the States Reorganisation Act comes up to adjudication in these cases. The fact, of the cases are not in dispute and they lie within a narrow compass.2. The petitioners in Cri. R.P. Nos. 194 and 348 of 1958 are dealers in tea. In the former case the two accused persons bad been prosecuted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act for selling adulterated tea and the 1st accused had been convicted and sentenced to pay a She of Rs. 250 and the 2nd accused to pay a line of Rs. 400; in appeal the conviction and sentence had been confirmed and the 2nd accused has filed the revision petition. In the other case namely, Cri R.P. No. 348 of 1958, the two accused persons had been convict...
Tag this Judgment!Mary Chacko Vs. Ouseph and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-17-1961
Reported in: (1961)IILLJ368Ker
T.C. Raghavan, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition seeks to quash by a writ of certiorari the decision of the Authority appointed under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, for Ernakulam and Trichur Revenue Districts in P.W.C. No. III of 1959. The petitioner was the opposite party in the aforesaid P. W. case, the respondents before us along with nine others being the petitioners before the Payment of Wages Authority. The petitioner before the aforesaid authority, claiming to be workers in the Nidhiri estate belonging to the opposite party, claimed wages and compensation from 12 August 1958 to 13 January 1959. The opposite party contended inter alia that the petition was not maintainable on the ground that the workers were not in service in the estate during the relevant period. Her case was that the workers were retrenched from 12 August 1958 in pursuance to a notice of retrenchment, dated 12 July 1958. However, she expressed her willingness before the authority to pay arrears of wage...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanalakshmi Vilas Cashew Co. and ors. Vs. President, Cashew Industrie ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-16-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Ker1
Raghavan, J. 1. These are applications for certificates under Article 133 of the Constitution, for leave to appeal to the Supreme' Court. C. M. P. No. 3314 of 1958 is in O.P. No. 8 of 1958, which was to quash the award of an Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the writ was dismissed by this Court; C. M. P. No. 5767 of 1960 is in O.P. No. 97 of 1958, which was for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash certain notices issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Trivandrum requiring the petitionersto make contributions to the Employees' Provident Fund. The said O. P. was also dismissed by a Full Bench of this Court. The last of the petitions, namely, G. M. P. No. 5919 of 1960, is for a certificate for leave to appeal against the judgment in A. S. No. 111 of 1959, the appeal itself being against O. P. No. 489 of 1957, which was to quash a portion o the award of an Industrial Tribunal. In this last case a learned Judge of this Court dismissed the wri...
Tag this Judgment!The District Transport Officer, Alleppey Vs. State Transport Appellate ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-15-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Ker335
ORDER1. Common questions arise for decision in both these Original petitions and they relate to the proper interpretation to be placed upon the expression 'route' referred to in the provisions relating to State Transport undertaking contained in Chapter TV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act -- Act IV of 1939.2. As facts are slightly different, I may mention the circumstances under which the two writ petitions have come to be filed.3. In O. P. 885/60, the third respondent was the holder of a Stage Carriage permit in respect of Motor Vehicle K. L. Q. 1642 plying between Alleppey and Kalavoor. In the usual course, the third respondent applied to the Regional Transport Authority, Alleppey, the second respondent herein for renewal of the permit. The Rule T. A. by its order dated 20-11-59 Ext. PI rejected that application of the third respondent for renewal on the main ground that the route has been taken up for notification under section 68-D of the Act, and especially because the District Transpo...
Tag this Judgment!Skaria Vs. Narayanan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-15-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ649
P. Govinda Menon, J.1. The complainant in C.C. 59 of 1959 has filed this appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the Munsiff-Magistrate of Thodu-puzha.2. The case against the accused was that on 28.6.1956 he executed a hypothecation bond Ext. P-1 in respect of the property in Section No. 795/5B in Kodiculam Village for Rs-. 350/- representing that the property belongs to him and that there were no encumbrances on the property. Believing the representation the complainant parted with money.3. Later it was found out that the accused had no rights in the property, that on 30.1.1956 about 5 months before Ext. P-1 he had already gifted his rights in the property to his wife and that prior to the gift deed he had assigned and sold away his half rights in the property to the wife.4. Thus on the day the accused offered the property as security and made the representations to the complainant he knew that he had absolutely no rights in the property and that what he was representing was f...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Abdul Kader Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-14-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Ker38
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This is a reference under Section 8 (5) of the Travancore Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1124.2. The assesses way a dealer in empty tins, gunnies and tapioca starch. For the assessment year 1118 ME. (1942-43) he was first assessed for a total income of Rs. 37,004/- by an order dated 16-11-1118 of the Deputy Commissioner of Incomo-tax, Trivandrum, who, however, scon iniated proceedings to assess his escaped income for the year, and re-assessed him on a total income of Rs. 57,927/- by his order dated 32-10-1120. For the year 1119 ME (1943-44) the Deputy Commissioner assessed him on a total income of Rs. 1,50,462/- by another order dated 32-10-1120. The asseesee's appeals before the Commissioner of Income-tax against the above-said assessments proved unsuccessful. But on further appeal the Chief Revenue Authority of Travancore, by his order dated 7-10-1947, reduced the assessed incomes to Rs. 37,004/- and Rs. 84,921/- respectively for the above said...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Madhavan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-10-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Ker50; (1961)IILLJ484Ker
P. Govinda Menon, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the State against the order passed by the Special Judge, Trivandrum in C. C. 13/59 acquitting the accused who had been charged under Section 5(1) (d) and Section 5(2) of the Act II of 1947 read with Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, on the ground that the sanction of the competent authority under Section 6 of the Act for his criminal prosecution had not been obtained and that the trial is therefore invalid and vitiated. That a defect of this kind if it really exists is fatal and cannot be cured is well settled- Therefore if it is found in this case that the prior sanction of the competent authority as laid down in Section 6 read with Article 311 of the Constitution is not obtained the trial would be abinitio void though a fresh trial would be possible after obtaining proper sanction and a charge-sheet is submitted afresh.2. The question therefore for consideration is whether the sanction order Ext. P-20 is valid and proper. Secti...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Alikoya and Co. Vs. the State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-10-1961
Reported in: [1961]12STC567(Ker)
M.A. Ansari, C.J. 1. The revision petitioner is a firm dealing in copra, pepper and other commodities, which had, for the assessment year 1957-58, furnished returns showing a net turnover of Rs. 13,241-84, and claimed exemption on Rs. 2,85,700-23, representing local sales covered by the licence. The Sales Tax Officer has rejected the returns, and has made assessment on the basis of the report by the Intelligence Officer, who had inspected the dealer's shop on 13th January, 1958. On that day the officer had recovered account sheets marked 'A', 'B', vouchers marked 'C' to 'J', and torn, pieces of vouchers marked 1 to 127. It is admitted that the dealer's account books do not show the purchase of copra, evidenced by discarded account books and the torn vouchers; and on the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the taxing authorities have made the following addition to the copra account of the revision petitioner.Copra sales from April 1, 1957 to September 30, 1957. Rs. 12,965-00Addition on bas...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »