Kerala Court September 1963 Judgments
Lukka Varghese Vs. Devasia Varkey
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-24-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Ker47
S. Velu Pillai, J.1. In execution of a decree, the appellant judgment-creditor, attached a debt due to the judgment-debtor, a bank, from the respondent. On the motion of the appellant, notice under Order XXI, Rule 46-A was served on the respondent on the 10th February, 1955. The respondent entered appearance, and at his instance the case-was adjourned to the 4th March, 1955; on that day, the respondent's prayer for a period of six months being allowed to him to deposit the amount of the debt, was disallowed. On the 1st April 1955, the Court passed an ordei under Order XXI, Rule 46-B and directed warrant to issue to the respondent. Upon this, the respondent made an application on the 6th October, 1955, for exemption from personal execution. While this was pending, the bank was ordered to be wound upon the 7th November, 1956, upon a petition pre-sented on the 17th September, 1956. The respondent then applied for stay of proceedings purporting to be under Section 446 of the Companies Act,...
Tag this Judgment!A.K. Narayanan Nambiar Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-19-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ker158; 1964CriLJ668
Govinda Menon, J. 1. The petitioner was tried before the Sub Magistrate of Cannanore on a complaint preferred by P. W. 1, a process server of the Munsiff court of Tellichery for offences punishable under Sections 225-B and 353 I. P. C. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused of the offence under Section 353, but convicted him under Section 225B and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. 2. The facts that led up to the case are as follows: The father of P. W. 4 obtained a decree against the petitioner in O. S. 531/50 on the file of the munsiff's court of Tellichery. By assignment P. W. 4 got the right of the decree-holder and as the petitioner did not pay the decree amount he filed an execution application for the arrest and detention of the petitioner in the Civil Jail. The District Munsiff ordered notice and arrest warrant to be issued simultaneously. The warrant was signed by the Head Cleric under an authorisation by the District Munsiff. The warrant was (hen sent to P. W. 3,...
Tag this Judgment!Chacko T. Marattukulam Vs. Catholic Bank of India Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-18-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ker181
Madhavan Nair, J.1. In A. S. No. 544 of 1961, we have held that the court-fee payable on appeals from orders under the Companies Act was under Article VI, Sch. II of the T. C. Court-fees Act. 1125, corresponding to Article XI, Schedule II of the Indian Court-fees Act. Raman Nayar, J., in a note to the Registrar, pointed out that that ruling does not apply to appeals under the Banking Companies Act- Finding that on this appeal 'under Section 45N of the Banking Companies Act, 1949, Court-fee of Rs. 2/- only has been paid, as ii under Article VI aforesaid, the office has made this reference.2. Article VI, Schedule II of the T. C. Court-fees Act, 1125, reads thus:VI. Memorandum of appeal, when the appeal is notfrom a decree or an order having the force of a decree and is presented. (a) to any Civil Court other than the High Court,or to any Revenue Court or Executive Officer subordinate to the Govern-ment :One rupee. (b) to the High Court or the Government : Two rupeesObviously, this Artic...
Tag this Judgment!Madhavi Vs. the District Collector and Executive District Magistrate, ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-13-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ker29; 1964CriLJ190
C.A. Vaidialingam, J. 1. In this writ petition, Mr. K. V. Surianarayana Iyer learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks the issue of a writ of mandamus, or any other writ, order, or direction, to respondents 1, 2 and 3, directing them to take adequate steps, under law, to prevent, the 4th respondent or any other person from burying any dead body in the properties taken in by Survey Nos. 290/2, 290/18, and 290/3 in the Vayalar Mekku Village.2. Respondents 1, 2 and 3 to this writ petition, are the District Collector and Executive Magistrate, Alleppey, the District Superintendent of Police, Alleppey, and the Health Inspector and Taluk Health Officer, Shertallai, respectively. The 4th respondent was the Parish Priest of the Church, in question, at the time when the writ petition was filed in this Court; and there is no controversy that the Church in question is now represented by the 5th respondent, who is the Vicar of the particular Parish and who has been brought on record as an additiona...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammathu Pathummal Nabia Yathu Ummal Vs. Abdul Kasian Muhammed Mythe ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-12-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ker225
K.K. Mathew, J.1. The 6th additional plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was for redemption. It was dismissed by both the lower Courts. Hence the appeal.2. The plaint property is 32 cents of land within the limits of the Trivandrum corporation. It belonged to the 1st plaintiff. He and his father Bhagavathi Asari mortgaged it to defendants 1 to 6 for 10500 fs. on 13-9-1090 under Ext. B. The term of the mortgage was for 25 years. 79 fs. were paid in cash to the mortgagors and the rest of the consideration was recited to be paid to third parties, and the mortgagors. There was a recital to pay P. W. 3, Parameswaran Pillai Raman Pillai, 798 fs. and another recital to pay 1568 fs. to one Narayana Pillai. The amount due to Narayana Pillai was a charge on the plaint property. 2100 fs. were reserved with the mortgagees to be paid on the registered receipt of the mortgagors on a later date. The other recitals are not material for this case. Raman Pillai instituted a suit in O. S. 63/1091 and ob...
Tag this Judgment!C.V. Muthuvelas Velappan Vs. K.V. Narayanan Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-09-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Ker252; 1964CriLJ417
ORDERP.T. Raman Nayar, J.1. The complaint of the respondent, a lower riparian owner, was that the petitioner, a higher riparian owner, had, by putting up a masonry dam across the river, cut off the flow of water and deprived his lands of the water they had 3 right to enjoy. This interference with the rights of the respondent and other lower riparian owners was the basis of the learned Magistrate's conditional order under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code requiring the petitioner to remove the bund or to show causa against the removal, as of his order under Section 137(3) making the conditional order absolute. It seems to me obvious that this dispute does not come within Chapter 10 of the Code and that the learned Magistrate acted altogether without jurisdiction. Section 133, (in so far as is relevant for the present purpose) empowers a Magistrate to take action thereunder when he considers 'that any unlawful obstruction or nuisance should be removed from any way, river or chan...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›