Kerala Court June 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.
Cannanore District Motor Transport Employees Cooperative Society Ltd. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-12-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Ker341
1. The petitioner in O. P. No. 1477 of 1960 is the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 8 of 1961 and the petitioner in 0. P. No. 1476 of 1960 is the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 9 of 1961. The two petitions were dismissed by Vaidialingam, J., by a common judgment dated the 4th January 1961.2. In paragraphs 1 to 22 of the judgment the learned Judge considered every aspect of the case presented before him and held :'The appellate tribunal has come to the conclusion that one permit each has to be granted to applicants Nos. 4 and 13. I am not satisfied that there is any error in law or any illegality committed by the appellate tribunal when it differed from the conclusion arrived at by the R. T. A. and granted permits in favour of applicants Nos. 4 and 13 and therefore, in my view, the applications will have to fail'.We entertain no doubt that 0. P. Nos. 1476 and 14/7 of 1960 were rightly dismissed, and we consider it unnecessary to cover afresh the grounds covered in paragraphs 1 to 22.3. The co...
C. Balakrishna Panicker Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernaku ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-11-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker1
1. This is an appeal by the petitioner in O. P. No. 429 of 1961 against the dismissal of that petition. The judgment under appeal has since been -reported: ILR 1961 (2) Kerala 262.2. Four stage carriage permits were granted by the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam, on the route Vypeen Pallipuram. One of them was to the appellant before us.3. Appeals were filed before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal by some of the applicants whose applications were refused by the Regional Transport Authority. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal sus tained two of the permits granted and set aside the other two. The permit granted to the appellant was one of the two sustained by the Tribunal.4. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal granted the two permits not sustained to applicant Nos. 4 and 31. Writ Petitions against the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal followed. This Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and directed a fresh consideration and disposal (Vypeen Transpo...
Mookan Ouseph Thomakutty Vs. Puramundekat Padinjare Madathil Nanu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-11-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ker193
T.C. Raghavan, J. 1. The short question in this case is whether an attachment effected prior to judgment is valid and subsisting. 2. In a suit pending before the Court of the Munsif of Cochin an attachment before judgment was sought. The properties sought to be attached lay within the jurisdiction of the Court of the Munsif of Ponani and therefore the warrant of attachment was sent to that court through the District Court at Ernakulam. The warrant was not sent through the District Court of Kozhikode as contemplated by Section 136 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The attachment was effected without any objection and it was also confirmed by the Cochin court without any objection. The suit was finally decreed and when proceedings in execution in pursuance of the attachment were started, objection was taken that the attachment was invalid, because the warrant of attachment was not sent by the Cochin court through the District Court of Kozhikode. This objection was overruled by the primary ...
State of Kerala Vs. C.E. Mohammed Kutty, Inspector of Co-operative Soc ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-08-1962
Reported in: 1963CriLJ360
P. Govinda Menon, J.1. This appeal is filed by the State against the judgment of the Special Judge of Trivandrum acquitting the respondent who was prosecuted under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Act II of 1947) hereinafter referred to as the Act.2. The accused Sri Mohammadkutty was an Inspector in the Audit Section of the Co-operative Department In Kerala State. In 1956 he was in charge of the Kanjirappaiiy circle. Among the societies in his charge there were two societies, the Kappad Co-operative Society No. 980 and Upputhura Co-operative Society No. 2985. Yearly audit had to be conducted of these societies by the Co-operative Inspector and the society had to pay to the Government the audit fees. Audits for the year 1953-54 and 1954-55 were conducted by the predecessors of the accused and audit fees for that period were in arrears. The accused conducted the audit for the year 1955-55. On 27-6-56 he brought to the notice of Pw. 1 Sri...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›