Kerala Court November 1962 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.
A. Mahalinga Bhatta S/O Sankaranarayana Bhatta Vs. Venkataramana Bhatt ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-16-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker215; 1963CriLJ160
Anna Chandy, J.1. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether a petition under Section 476 Criminal Procedure Code for holding an enquiry regarding perjury, alleged to have been committed during a trial, is competent when the trial Judge himself had taken no action in the matter under Section 479-A. The petitioner was one ot the accused persons in Sessions Case No. 31 of 1959 on the file of the Additinoal Sessions Judge of Tellicherry. The case was initiated by a private complaint and the cnargo against the accused was that they set fire 'to the two sheds belonging to the complainant. The accused were acquitted. After the order of acquittal was confirmed in appeal the present petition was filed against the com. plainant and some of the prosecution witnesses. This petition was dismissed and the petitioner has come up in appeal.2. The arguments placed before me were confined solely to the scope of Section 479A, that is whether Section 479A will act as a bar to ac...
Padmanabharu Govindaru Namboodiripad and ors. Vs. the State of Kerala ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-13-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker86
Joseph, J. 1. The petitioners in these writ petitions challenge the validity of the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, IV of 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) mainly on the following grounds :(i) The Bill which became the Act had lapsed beforeit was assented to by the President and the Assent ofthe President was of no avail to turn it into law. (ii) The Act violates the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 14, 19 and 31 ofthe Constitution. (iii) The properties of the petitioners are not Estates within the meaning of the expression in Article 31A of the Constitution. (iv) The manner in which ceiling is fixed results in discrimination. (v) Compensation payable Is quite illusory and re-suits in discrimination. (vi) The classification of land for the purposes of the Act as well as the exemption of certain types, of plantations is discriminatory. 2. The broad ground on which the petitions are opposed by the respondent, the State of Kerala, is that the lands i...
Mannarkatt Union Motor Service, Mannarkatt Vs. Regional Transport Auth ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-09-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker357
M.S. Menon, C.J.1. The petitioner in O. P. No. 1188 of 1960 is the appellant before us. That petition sought, without success, a writ quashing Ext. P-3, an order of the Regional Transport Authority, Pal-ghat, granting a stage carriage, permit to the 3rd respondent in preference to the appellant, and Ext. P-4, a judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam, affirming the grant to the 3rd respondent.2. In the evaluation by the Regional Transport Authority the appellant secured four marks and the 3rd respondent four and a half marks. In the appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal the appellant's marks were reduced to three and a half and the 3rd respondent's were maintained at four and a half.3. The evaluation was in pursuance of the principles embodied in an order of the Government of Madras in the Home Department, G. O. M. S. No. 1298 dated 28-4-1956. This Court has already upheld the validity of that G. O. in (Malabar Motor Transport Co-operative Societies...
State of Kerala Vs. Kakku Bhai and Co.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-09-1962
Reported in: [1963]14STC487(Ker)
S. Velu Pillai, J.1. This appeal is by the State Government, and is directed against a decree for the refund of sales tax said to have been collected illegally from the plaintiff, a registered dealer, pursuant to exhibit P-1, the assessment order for the year 1950-51. The assessment was made partly on what was referred to in exhibit P-1 as the 'net turnover' representing the aggregate of the sale price of goods sold and partly on the aggregate of the amounts collected by way of sales tax from customers, by the plaintiff. That sales tax so collected is not turnover as defined in Section 2(k) of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act, 1125, had been held by a Division Bench in Agricultural Income-tax and Rural Sales Tax Officer, Perumbavoor v. C.E. Velayudhan [1954] 5 S.T.C. 285. As stated in the judgment therein, the Bench was not concerned 'with a registered dealer charging a composite or 'tax included' price'. This decision is authority for holding that turnover as defined did no...
Kochu Cherukka Panicker and anr. Vs. the State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-09-1962
Reported in: 1964CriLJ375
P. Govinda Menon, J.1. Accused 1 and 2 in Sessions Case 15 of 1962 on the file of the Second Additional Sessions Judge of Trivandrum are the appellants. The appellants along with their sister the third accused who was acquitted stood charged with offences Under Sections 302, 452, 324, and 323 read with Section 114, IPC Deceased Kuttan is a brother of accused 1 to 3. Their mother Chinna executed a settlement deed Ext. P-16 in the name of the deceased in respect of 42 cents of property. It is the prosecution case that after the execution of the document the relationship between deceased Kuttan and his brothers became strained.2. On the date of the incident, namely, 14-12-1961 the third accused had some cadjan leaves cut from some coconut trees near the house of the second accused which belonged to Pw. 12. Pw. 12 came and objected and the cadjan leaves so cut were entrusted to the deceased Kuttan who had them removed to bis courtyard and spread for drying. The stem portion of the fronds c...
A.S. Ananthasubramoniam Vs. the State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-08-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker151; (1963)ILLJ359Ker
1. This is an appeal by the peti-tioner in O. P. No. 209 of 1959 against the (sic) missal of that petition. The petition was beard along with O. P. No. 205 of 1959. That petition was allowed.2. The appellant was a Sub Divisional Officer in the Forest Department. The petitioner in O. P. No. 205 of 1959 was a Divisional Officer in that Department. There was an inquiry as against both of them and a Range Officer under the Tiavancors Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1122.3. There were six articles of charge against the appellant. The Inquiry Coinmissioner (sic) him guilty under Articles 1 and 6 and not guilty as regards the other articles of charge. The judgment under appeal docs not endorse the conclusion as far as Article 6 is concerned.4. By a common order, Ext. P-7 dated 1-2-1958, the Government directed the dismissal of all the three officers. The appellant and the Divisional Officer appealed to the Governor. The Governor modified the punishment to one of removal from service in all t...
Samanthan Karakkattidathil Unnamman Nayanar Vs. theyakkandi Edathil Ku ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-08-1962
Reported in: AIR1964Ker204
M. Madhavan Nair, J. 1. The suit properties belong to Pulimpidavn Devaswom of which the plaintiff and the 1st defendant are the hereditary trustees- The 1st defendant's tarwad having been in management of the Devaswom in 1042 M. E. leased the suit properties to Thavarool Puthiyedath tarwad on rent of 1750 seers of paddy per annum. In (X S. No. 297 of 1923 the tenant's rights were brought to sale and purchased by one Qthenan Nambiar, who assigned the same to the plaintiff's tarwad. Treating the plaintiff as the lessee of the property under him the 1st defendant obtained decrees for rent in O. S. Nos. 307 of 1951, 312 of 1954, 992 of 1955 and 266 of 1956 and had realised the amounts under the first two decrees. The latter two decrees remain to be executed. In the present suit the plaintiff seeks declaration that he is now the managing trustee of the Devaswom entitled to collect the rent of the suit properties and that the 1st defendant has no 'saswatham' right in the properties as claime...
Nageliamma Narayaniamma and ors. Vs. Raman Pillai and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-05-1962
Reported in: AIR1964Ker101
P. Govindan Nair, J.1. This is an appeal arising from an order passed in execution purporting to apply the second proviso to Rule 16 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure,2. The appellants are the heirs of one Govinda Pillai and one of the judgment-debtors is his wife the seventh defendant in the case. This Govinda Pillai had taken an assignment of the decree. The decree was on the basis of a hypothecation bond and directed the payment of money by defendants 3 to 21 and was also charged on the hypotheca which was scheduled to the plaint. When the said Govinda Pillai took out execution, it was contended by some of the judgment-debtors that the assignment of the decree taken by Govinda Pillai was benami for his wife the 7th defendant in the case and that in view of the second proviso to Rule 16 of Order 21, the decree has become incapable of execution. It is this contention that has been accepted by the Court below which by its order under appeal dismissed the Execution Petition.3. ...
Sukapuram Sabhayogam Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-05-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker101
Vaidialingam, J.1. In this writ petition, on behalf of the petitioner, his learned counsel, Mr. K. V. Surianara-yana Iyer, seeks a declaration that the Kerala Ag-rarian Relations Act, 1960, Kerala Act 4 of 1961, is ultra vires, unconstitutional and void and is not binding on the petitioner and his lands situated in the area commonly known as the Maiabar area, which once formed part of the State of Madras, and is now part of the Kerala State, after the States' Reorganisation in 1950.2. The petitioner also prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the notification, G. O. (P) No. 147 dated 15-2-1961 issued by tho first respondent, the State, appointing the 15th clay of February, 1961, as the date on which Sections 1 to 40, 57, 58, 70, 74 to 79 and 81 to 95 of Kerala Act 4 of 1961 are to come into force, as that notification is unconstitutional and illegal. There is a further prayer for the issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents, which include the Land Tribunals ...
N.S. Parameswara Lyer Vs. Appavu Panickel Mrithunjaya Panicker and ors ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-02-1962
Reported in: 1963CriLJ215
ORDERAnna Chandy, J.1. This appeal filed by the complain-ant against the acquittal of the accused in a case charge-sheeted by the police was allowed to be treated as a revision on the motion of the complainant.2. The charge against the accused was that they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of taking forcible possession of a property in the complainant's possession and put up a shed. Accused 2 and 7 pleaded that they were in possession of the property and had filed a suit for establishing their claims.- The other accused are their friends and associates.3. The complainant got delivery of the property through Court as early as ' 1958 in execution of the decree in O. Section 369 of 1952. Subsequent to the delivery the defendants in that case trespassed into the buildings in the property and that necessitated another suit for demolishing the buildings at his cost and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into the property. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›