Kerala Court December 1965 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.
Food Inspector of Calicut Corporation Vs. Kandagouri Hemathlal Chowdga ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-15-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ker190; 1966CriLJ760
P. Govinda Menon, J.1. This appeal is by the Food Inspector of the Calicut Corporation against the order of acquittal of accused 2 and 3 who along with the first accused were prosecuted in Calendar Case 221 of 1963 for sale of adulte rated milk fruits, an offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (shortly stated the Act).2. On the morning of 31-5-1963, P. W. 1 the Corporation Food Inspector visited the Ujay Ice Fruit Works, Gujarathy street, Calient and purchased 30 milk fruits from the first accused paying its price. They were duly sampled and sent for analysis. The report of the public analyst Ext. P-4 showed that the sample was adulterated as it contained non-permitted coaltar dye. When the accused were questioned the first accused admitted the sale but put forward the plea of warranty Learned Magistrate negatived the plea of warranty and found the first accused guilty of the offence charged and sentenced him to pay a fi...
Paramu Vs. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-15-1965
Reported in: [1967]19STC138(Ker)
Govindan Nair, J.1. The petitioner was assessed to sales tax. He appealed. During the pendency of the appeal, the General Sales Tax Act, 1125, was repealed by the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. That Act came into force on 1st April, 1963. Thereafter the appeal was disposed of on 28th August, 1963, and the order was received by the petitioner on 25th October, 1963. On the 15th December of that year he applied to the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax for revising the appellate order, presumably invoking Section 15 of the General Sales Tax Act, 1125. The relevant part of Section 15(1) is in these terms :15. Authorities competent to pass orders in revision.-(1) The Deputy Commissioner may-(i) suo motu, or(ii) on application,call for and examine the record of any order passed or proceeding recorded under the provisions of this Act by any officer subordinate to him, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of such order, or as to the regularity of such procee...
Neelacanda Iyer Vs. V. Gopala Pillai and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-14-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ker192
Velu Pillai, J.1. In view of the question arising for decision, it is not necessary to relate all the facts of this ancient litigation. The appeal arises in execution of a decree which was obtained by the appellant, mortgagee of certain properties, on the basis of a lease back to the mortgagor, for recovery of possession with arrears of rent and future rent. The decree was passed on the 10th March, 1928 under the Travancore Civil Procedure Code. The question which arises for decision is whether the appellant can recover future interest, that is interest subsequent to the date of the decree, without any limit as under Section 34(1) of the Indian Civil Procedure Code or only subject to the limit imposed by Section 31(8) of the Travancore Civil Procedure Code. Section 81(1), (2) and (3) of the latter may be usefully quoted and are as follows:(1) In suits for money, no Court shall, in respect of the period antecedent to the insti-tution of the suit, allow in its decree a higher rate of int...
Chinna Kunji, Kadukayil Vilakathu Veedu and ors. Vs. Kesavan Kochukris ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-13-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ker260
M. Madhavan Nair, J. 1. This second appeal is in a suit to enforce pre-emption. 2. The suit property is a part of a non-residential building that belonged to the tarwad of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendants 1 and 3 before it was partitioned under Ext. P-1 dated October 15, 1949. There is a covenant in the partition deed that if any sharer of the building, who took under the partition, were to sell his share at any time, it must be offered to the other parties to that deed for a fair price and only after they have refused in writing to purchase can it be assigned to a stranger The 4th defendant instituted a suit O. S. No, 1447, of 1950 on November 25, 1950 on certain promissory-notes executed by defendants 4 and 2, got a decree on January 22, 1952, charged on the suit property, and, executing the same, purchased it on October 14, 1954, for Rs. 775 As. 2. That sale has been confirmed on July 14, 1955. The 4th defendant has assigned his title to the 5th defendant. This suit has been instit...
Nair Service Society, Changanacherry Vs. R.M. Palat and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-13-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ker311
Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J.1. The second defendant is the appellant. The appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondent for specific performance of the contract contained in the compromise petition Ext. A-1 or Ext. B-2 dated 19-11-1964 and for recovery of Rs. 1,500 as damages for the removal of some trees from the property by the appellant.2. The facts relevant to this appeal are stated below. Ext. B-1 dated 4-12-1943 is a permanent lease executed by the respondent and others in favour of the appellant for 1000 acres of land. The respondent filed O. S. No. 398 of 1952 on the fde of the Munsiff's Court, Walluvanad, against the appellant for an order of injunction to restrain the appellant from entering into the property scheduled in that case on the ground that the appellant violated the terms of Ext. B-1 and was trying to trespass into the properties which lie adjacent to those included in Ext. B-1. The parties to the suit fifed Ext. A-1 or B-2 compromise petition in pursuance of whic...
Chandu Nair (P.) Vs. Superintendent of Police and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-13-1965
Reported in: (1967)ILLJ346Ker
P. Govindan Nair, J.1. The petitioner who was a sub-inspector of police in the service of the State was dismissed by the State Government from service by Ex. P. 13 order. It is this order that is impugned in this writ application.2. The first contention that has been raised is that the procedure adopted of directing the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings to conduct an enquiry against the alleged misconduct of the petitioner is against the rules applicable. According to counsel for the petitioner, the enquiry against the petitioner can be conducted only in accordance with the provisions in the Kerala Police Departmental Inquiries, Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1958. It is urged that the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, I960, apply only to such services as are enumerated in Schs. I and II thereto. The Kerala police personnel are not included therein. So it is urged that an enquiry has to be conducted by an officer appointed in accordance with Rule 8(1)(...
Dhanlakshmi Weaving Works Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-13-1965
Reported in: (1967)IILLJ517Ker
P. Govindan Nair, J.1. The prayers in this writ application are:to declare that(1) the Employees' Provident Funds Act (19 of 1952) is ultra vires of the Constitution ;(2) to quash the order passed by respondent 1 marked as Ex. P. 4;(3) to Issue a writ of mandamus against respondent 2 restraining him from enforcing the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds Act to the petitioner;(4) such other reliefs which the Court may deem fit and proper In the circumstances of the case.2. There has been for some time a controversy as to whether the establishment of the partnership-firm of which the petitioner is the managing partner is an establishment that will be governed by the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section 1(3)(a) of the Act states that the Act will apply to every establishment which is a factory engaged In any Industry specified In Sen. I and In which twenty or more persona are employed.3. It is admitted that the firm of which the petit...
Narayana Pillai Parameswaran Pillai and ors. Vs. Kudamaloor Regional S ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-10-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Ker51
ORDERP. Govindan Nair, J. 1. The five writ applicants executed a document dated 16-7-1961 in favour of the first respondent, Society. To enfroce this document there was an arbitration reference, No. 704 of 1961 on the file of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the 2nd respondent to this writ application. He passed an award Ext. P-1 in favour of the first respondent that the first respondent shall recover a sum of Rs. 15,281.53 with interest thereon at 7 and half per cent per annum from 30-8-1961 till the date of realisation and costs from the writ applicants and their properties as well as from others who were defendants. There was a revision, from this award before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The revision was dismissed by Ext. P-2 older 2. It appears that the document on the basis of which Ext. P-1 award was passed came to be executed because a close relation of the executants of the bond who was the Secretary of the Society had suddenly disappeared wit...
Ouseph Thomman Vs. Devasia Ouseph and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-07-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Ker48
Velu Pillal, J. 1. This second appeal which has been referred to a division bench raises the question whether petition dated the 29th September, 1959, for the execution of a decree dated the 16th July 1954, is barred by limitation or not. The two Courts below have held that it is barred. They have done so on the footing, that the debt under the decree is a debt as defined by the Travancore-Cochin Indebted Agriculturists Relief Act, 1956, Act 3 of 1956, and the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act- 1958, Act 31 of 1958. We shall decide the point raised on the same footing, but shall leave it to the execution Court in decide, whether the respondents are agriculturists and the debt is a debt as defined in the two Acts.2. Section 3 of Act 3 of 1956 placed an embargo on the making of an application for the execution of decree, for a period of six months from the commencement of that Act. The appellant had a right to execute the decree within a period of three years and six months of the da...
Smt. Jayanthi Bai and ors. Vs. Popular Bank Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-06-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ker296; [1966]36CompCas854(Ker)
Velu Pillai, J.1. These are four appeals against the order of the learned single Judge allowing C. M. P. 144 of 1958, a petition by the liquidator of the Popular Bank Ltd., under Section 531 of the Companies Act, 1956. That petition was made in B. C. P. 8 of 1956 (E), upon which the Popular Bank Ltd., which may be referred to hereafter as the bank, was ordered to be wound up and in pursuance of which, the liquidation proceedings are now in progress. C. M. P. 144 of 1958 was filed for a declaration, that certain entries as to payments or adjustments in the books of the bank were made by way of fraudulent preferences in favour of some of the creditors of the bank and for ancillary reliefs. The appellants are some of the respondents in C. M. P. 144 of 1958, who as creditors, were found by the learned Judge to have been preferred by the bank. Others like the appellants, who were also found by the same judgment to have been similarly preferred, have submitted to the judgment and have not ap...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »