Kerala Court February 1961 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.
In Re: an Advocate
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-08-1961
Reported in: AIR1961Ker209
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This is a complaint by the decree-holder in O.S. No. 50 of 1955 on the file of the Changanacherry Munsiff's Court against the advocate engaged by him for that case, on the allegation that the Advocate had withdrawn Rs. 270/- deposited by the judgment-debtor in the case for payment to the complainant-decree-holder as per the Debt Relief Act, but has not paid the same to the complainant in spite of repeated demands and a registered notice through counsel. The complaint was referred to the learned District Judge of Quiton for inquiry, and his report concludes thus :'The counter-petitioner is thus guilty of misappropriation of his client's money even though the misappropriation was only temporary. 'The fact that the misappropriation is only temporary does not lessen the offence or the gravity of the misconduct'. (In the matter of S. an advocate, 1937 Mad WN 1322 (FB). I am of the view therefore that the counter-petitioner ......... is guilty of professional misconduct i...
iyyappan Mills Ltd. Vs. Iyyappan Mills Workers Union and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-07-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Ker11; (1962)IILLJ84Ker
Haghavan, J.1. The Management of the I. I. Iyyappan Mills (Private) Ltd., has filed this Writt Petition for the issue of an appropriate writ in the nature of certioari to quash the findings and the directions given by the Industrial Tribunal, Kozhikode, the 2nd respondent before us, on the ground that such findings and directions are ultra vires the powers of the Tribunal and since they constitute errors apparent on the face of the record. The 1st respondent is the Union of the Workers of the Iyyappan Mills and the 3rd respondent is the Chief Secretary to the Government of Kerala.2 We would narrate the relevant facts necessary for the appreciation of the questions raised in this writ petition. The petitioner-Mills were started in 1954 with three separate industries or at least with three separate sections; the three sections being the Oil Mills, the Foundry and Engineering Works and lastly the Soap Works. Later on the Management resolved, for industrial and trade reasons, to close down...
South India Corporation (Private) Ltd. Vs. Secretary, Board of Revenue ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-03-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Ker72; [1961]12STC344(Ker)
Ansari. C.J. 1. These four petitions challenge the constitutionality of such parts of the General Sales. Tax Act, XI of 1125, hereafter referred to as the Act, and of the Rules under it as authorise levy and collection of the sales tax on transfer of goods in works contracts. The Act was published in the Gazette on January 17, 1950, as the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act, hut came into force on May 30, 1950, by notification S. R. 1-353-A/49/RD, which is dated May 29, 1950, and so repealed the Travancore General Sales Tax Act, No, XVIII of 1124, the Cochin Sales Tax Act, No. XV of 1121 and the United States of Travancore-Cochin Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, No. III of 1125. There have since been several amendments but we are not concerned with these modifications of the Act, because the provisions whose constitutionality is impugned by the petitions had not been altered, and remain as originally enacted. These are firstly the following parts of the definition by Section 2. *****'2(...
Macki Fernandez Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-01-1961
Reported in: (1961)IILLJ486Ker
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, Sri T.N. Subramania Iyer, learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to have the order of respondent 1, Ex.P. 1, dated 20 October 1960 quashed by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order. 2. The order Ex.P. 1 itself is to the effect that investigations conducted into allegations against the three officers mentioned therein, one of whom is the petitioner, have disclosed prima facie that the officers have committed the two irregularities stated therein. Ex.P. 1 also states that the allegations referred to therein, for which there is prima facie evidence are of a serious nature warranting disciplinary action and the Government consider that the case against the three officers mentioned therein should be proceeded with and enquired into under the Kerala Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1960 and the Government order accordingly. 3. Ex.P. 1 is also...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›