Kerala Court October 1964 Judgments
Ramakrishnan Ezhuthachan Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-21-1964
Reported in: (1966)IILLJ412Ker
P. Govindan Nair, J.1. These writ applications have come before us by virtue of an order of reference, dated 26 November 1963.2. The two cases raise a common question and it will be sufficient to refer to the exhibits produced and marked in Original Petition No. 1715 of 1963 and to state the facts relating to the petitioner therein. Conclusions reached on those facts must necessarily apply to the petitioner in Original Petition No. 1716 of 1963.3. These are the facts. The petitioner in Original Petition No. 1715 was appointed as an Inspector of Local Fund Accounts on 4 December 1957 pursuant to Ex. P. 8 order, dated 27 November 1957. He continued in that post till he was reverted consequent on Ex. P. 9 order, dated 11 September 1959. He was again promoted by Ex. P. 10 order, dated 18 May 1962. This promotion is said to be under Rule 31 (a)(1) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules which had come into operation in the meantime. There was a proposal thereafter to revert the p...
Tag this Judgment!C.S. Ramakrishna Iyer Vs. Koolimuttam Karuppa Udayyar's son Suppayya U ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-20-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker77
M. Madhavan Nair, J. 1. The suit property belonged to the coparcenary of two Hindu brothers, defendants T and 2. The 3rd defendant obtained a money decree, Ext. B-6, against the 1st defendant as the manager of the family, proceeded against the suit property, which was the only property of the joint family at the time, purchased it in court sale for Rs. 215/- on August 17, 1953, and took possession thereof on April 9, 1954. Ext. B 1 is the relative sale certificate, and Ext. B 2 the delivery report. The plaintiff h^ obtained an assignment of the undivided moiety of the property from the and defendant under Ext. A 1 dated January 30, 1951. He asserts that the court-sale and delivery cannot affect his interests in the property, and claims partition of his moiety thereof. The Munsiff held Ext, A 1 affected by an attachment in execution and therefore not available against the decree-holder, the 3rd defendant, and dismissed the suit. The attachment in execution that subsisted on the date ofE...
Tag this Judgment!Enoch Pharma Vs. the State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-09-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker280
ORDERP. Govindan Nair, J.1. These writ applications are the after-math of my judgment in O. P. Nos. 891 and 1064 of 1963. The two petitioners in these original petitions, are respectively the petitioner in O. P. 1064 and O. P. 891/1963. Those writ applications were dismissed by me on the ground that they had become infructu-ous, I then made it clear that the petitioners, if so advised, may move this Court afresh in regard to the licenses for the year 1964-65. They have challenged those licenses in these petitions.2. It is alleged in the affidavit in support of the petitioners -- and this is not denied -- that the two petitioners have been engaged in the production of medicinal preparations for a number of years commencing from 1959. They used to apply for licenses in accordance with the provisions of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955, and the rules made thereunder for the production of the articles required by them and those applications used to be granted...
Tag this Judgment!thelapurath Kalyanikutty Amma Vs. M.K. Ravunni Nair and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-09-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker303
S. Velu Pillai, J. 1. Raghavan Nair, the original plaintiff, sued for declaration of title in respect of the suitproperty and of a right of way to the temple situated on it. After the suit was commenced, he made an application under Order 1, Rule 8, C. P. C. to sue in a representative capacity on behalf of his tarwad; this was granted. He died on the 18th September, 1958.Ravunni Nair, the first respondent, who is a member of the same tarwad applied more than three months alter the above date, but within three years of it, for permission to continue the salt as the legal representative of the original plaintiff. His application was dismissed on the 24th June, 1959, and the suit was held to have abated by judgment dated the 27th June 1959. Ravunni Nair appealed against the judgment tothe District Judge. Holding the appeal to be competent, he allowed the first respondent to prosecutethe suit in second appeal by the first defendant, it was contended that the declaration that the suit had a...
Tag this Judgment!Aldo Maria Patroni and anr. Vs. E.C. Kesavan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-01-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker75
1. This is a petition by the Bishop of Calicut and the Provincial of the Jesuit Province of Kerala. It invokes Article 226 of the Constitution and challenges the validity of Ext. P-7, an order of the Director of Public Instruction, Trivandrum, dated the 1st May 1963.2. The order allowed an appeal by the first respondent, a teacher in the St Joseph's Boys' High School, Calicut, under rule 44 in Part A of Chapter XIV of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959. That Part deals with theconditions of service of aided school teachers; and rule 44 provides that the appointment of headmasters by the managers of aided schools 'shall ordinarily be according to seniority', and that a teacher aggrieved by an appointment has a right of appeal to the Education Department of the State.3. In Wiit Appeal No. 43 of 1962 (Ket) This Court held--affirming the decision in O.P. No. 329 of 1362 (Ker) --that in the absence of any indication in the Rules as to which officer of the Education Department should hear and ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›