Kerala Court June 1963 Judgments
Cheria Vasudevan Namboodiripad Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-27-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ker171
M.S. Menon, C.J. 1. This petition challenges the validity of the Jenmikaram Payment (Abolition) Act, 1960, on the ground that it violates Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. The question for determination are whether such an attack is permissible in view of Article 31A of the Constitution; and if permissible, whether the Act is as a matter of fact violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed by those two provisions of the Constitution.2. Clause (2) of Article 13 of the Constitution provides that, the State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the fundamental rightsconferred by the Constitution and that any law made in contravention of that clause shall, to the extent of the contravention be void. Clause (1) of Article 31A of the Constitution says that notwithstanding anything contained in Article 13, no law providing for the acquisition by the State of any estate or of any rights therein or the extinguishment or modification of any such rights shall be deemed...
Tag this Judgment!Subramoniam Vs. Deputy Inspector-general of Police and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-27-1963
Reported in: (1966)IILLJ659Ker
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In this writ petition Sri K. Chandrasekharan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, challenges the order passed by respondent 1, namely, the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Northern Range, Calicut, under Ex. P. 1, as also the order of respondent 2, namely, the Inspector-General of Police, Kerala State, under Ex. P. 2. It is enough to note at the moment that under Ex. P. 1, which takes In also the punishment roll issued as against the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police, the punishing authority, namely, respondent 1, holds the petitioner guilty of the charge for which he was tried, and ultimately inflicts a punishment by directing that the next increment which the officer is eligible for, will be withheld for one year, without having the effect of postponing the future increments. An appeal taken, as against this order by the petitioner, was disposed of by the appellate authority, namely, respondent 2, under Ex P. 2. Ultimately, the appellate authority a...
Tag this Judgment!Aroor Carpet Factories, Private Ltd. (In Liquidation) Vs. K.N. Henry a ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-20-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ker162
ORDERC.A. Vaidialingam, J. 1. In this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. M. U. Isaac, learned counsel, challenges the order Ext. P-5 passed by the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, (Central Act No. IV of 1936), as also the order of the learned District Judge, Alleppey, Ext. P-6, confirming the order Ext. P-5. 2. The petitioner was a private incorporated company, and it is seen that it has since been wound up by order of Court dated 17-11-1960. The said company was engaged in the manufacture of carpets and other coir products, intended for export out of India. According to the petitioner, due to failure of the foreign market and want of orders for its products, the company became unable to carry on its business by the beginning of 1960; and inasmuch as the company had a largo number of workers and a fairly big staff, it became impossible to maintain them without being able to give them work. In view of these circumstances, the management put up a notice, Ext. P-1 dat...
Tag this Judgment!The Bank of New India Ltd. Vs. G. Govinda Prabhu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-13-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ker267
S. Veku Pillai, J.1. These second appeals arise out of two suits instituted by the Adoor Bank Ltd., now represented by the second appellant, the State Bank of Travancore, Defendants 2 and 3 in one suit are also defendants 2 and 3 in the other, being the agent and a clerk of the Kayamkulam branch of the Adoor Bank Ltd. but the first defendant in each suit is not the same individual. They had contracted loans from the plaintiff and were indebted to it. The plaintiff later discovered that the loans were irregular, as having been advanced on promissory notes without the sanction of the plaintiff's Head Office. The plaintiff called upon defendants 2 and 3 to explain the irregularity when they executed an agreement Ext. F or Ext. C undertaking to see to re-payment being made within a month and also binding themselves personally. Relying on the original causes of action and on Ext. F, the plaintiff instituted the two suits against the two debtors and defendants 2 and 3. In these second appeal...
Tag this Judgment!S. Viswasom Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-13-1963
Reported in: [1963]50ITR503(Ker)
This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under section 66(1) of the Indian income-tax Act, 1922. The question referred are :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the settlement dated May 19, 1956, executed by the assessee in favour of his three minor sons admitted to be genuine is a transfer otherwise than for adequate consideration within the meaning of section 16(3)(a)(iv) ?(2) If the answer to the first question is in the negative, whether the inclusion of the income from the properties covered by the said settlement deed subsequent to May 19, 1956, in the assessees assessment for 1957-58 is valid ?'The department has no case that the document does not represent a genuine transaction or that the recitals therein are in any way false or incorrect. The only contention before us is that the transfer in favour of the three minor sons of the assessee was not a transfer for adequate consideration.Section 16(3)(a)(iv) of the Indian ...
Tag this Judgment!Ummachikannummal Mohammed Pathummal and ors. Vs. Bhargavan Rajan and o ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-11-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ker258
T.C. Raghavan, J.1. The sole question for consideration in the second appeal is whether the estate of deceased Padmanabhan Narayanan was sufficiently and effectively represented in O. S. No. 217 of 1123. A few facts may be stated.2. The suit properties belonged to the Arayan Vilakathu Valia Veedu, and these properties along with other were outstanding on a mortagage with Fadmanabhan Narayanan on a document of 1104. There were two additional charges also in his favour on the same properties. Narayanan executed a sub-mortgage in favour of the 1st defendant, whose heirs are the other defendants, and also put him in possession of suit item 5. Subsequently, Narayanan purchased the properties from the mortgagors, agreeing that he would discharge the sub-mortgage and put the mortgagors in possession of item 5 within a particular time. On the allegation that Narayanan did not comply with the condition, the mortgagors resold the properties to the 1st defendant.2a. Narayanan filed O.S. No. 40 of...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: V.K. Abdul Azeeze and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-04-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ker107; 1964CriLJ403
Anna Chandy, J. 1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge, Tellicherry recommending that the conviction and sentence entered against the accused for offences under the Food Adulteration Act be quashed as the main item of evidence against them namely the certificate of the Public Analyst that the item of food sold by the petitioners was adulterated is not pf a conclusive nature.2. The facts are not in dispute. The respondents are the Proprietor and the Salesman of a grocery shop in Cannanore. On 21-12-1960 the Food Inspector of the Cannanore Municipality bought some Thuvara dhall from the shop for purposes of analysis. The sample was analysed by the Public Analyst and certified to be adulterated. The petitioners were tried before the District Magistrate, Teilicherry who convicted them under Section 16(1)read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced them each to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 14 days. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Kolandiyil Ammad Vs. Changaran and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-04-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Ker344
T.C. Raghavan, J.1. The appellant filed the suit for partition and recovery of possession of his 28 out of 48 shares in the suit property, which is a tenancy right. The property belonged to the 1st defendant and a person named; Andarman; and the plaintiff's father, Avulla held the same on lease. Avulla died leaving the plaintiff and the 13th defendant, who were his minor children, and his widow, the 12th defendant. Thus on the death of Avulla, the plaintiff became entitled to 28 out of 48 shares, under the Mohamadan Law, being Avulla's son, the 13th defendant became entitled to 14 sham being the daughter and the 12th defendant, thewidow of Avulla, took the remaining 6 shares. The 12th defendant, acting for herself and as guardian of her minor children, surrendered the leasehold right to the 1st defendant and Andarman on 5th May 1934. Defendants 14 to 17 obtained leases from the owners of the property after the surrender by the 12th defendant. The 18th defendant claimed to be a donee fr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›