Kerala Court February 1965 Judgments
Secretary, Indian Naval Canteen Control Board, New Delhi Vs. Industria ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-25-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ker94; [1965(11)FLR25]
1. This is an appeal by the petitioner in O. P. No. 347 of 1962--The Secretary, Indian Naval Canteen Control Board, New Delhi against the dismissal of that petition. The petition challenged the validity of a preliminary award of the Industrial Tribunal, Calicut and Ernakulam, in Industrial Dispute No. 33 of 1960.2. The reference to the Tribunal was by the State Government; and the contention of the appellant which has been negatived both in the preliminary award and the judgment under appeal was that the appropriate Government competent to make the reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was not the State Government but the Central Government. The expression 'appropriate Government' is defined in Section 2 of the Act. According to that definition the appropriate Government in relation to any industrial dispute concerning any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government is the Central Government and not the State Government.3. The sole question for ...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Karthikeyan Vs. Regional Transport Authority, Trichur Represented ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-22-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ker137
Raghavan, J.1. The writ petition has been referred to a Division Bench to consider the question whether the fare-table is a condition of the permit issued to a bus operator, Though there are other grounds as well in this case to support our Conclusion, still, since there is a difference of opinion between two learned Judges of this Court regarding the question whether the time-table given to a bus operator is a condition of the permit (and it is claimed that a fare-table is on the same footing), we propose to express our opinion on this question.2. The controversy relates to the route between Kandassankadavu and Trichur; and the petitioner is a stage carriage operator on this route. The distance from Kandassankadavu to Trichur is 10 miles and 2 furlongs; but from Trichur to Kandassankadavu the distance is only 9 miles and 5 furlongs, the difference being the result of restrictions regarding one-way- traffic under the Police Act The buses on this route were collecting 50p for the whole ...
Tag this Judgment!M.N. Adhikari and anr. Vs. Food Inspector, Kunnamkulam Municipality an ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-19-1965
Reported in: AIR1965Ker295; 1965CriLJ775
ORDERP. Govinda Menon, J.1. The petitioners Sri M. N. Adhikari, Manager, M/s. Rashid Jamshed Sons & Co., Madurai and P. P. Pappachan, partner, P. V. Poulose Sons, Kunnamkulam were found guilty and convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kunnamkulam for an offence under Section 18(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The first petitioner was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 8 months and the second petitioner was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks. Their appeal to the Sessions Judge of Trichur having proved unsuccessful they have come up in revision to this Couit.2. The facts that led up to the prosecution may be briefly stated : On 20-3-62 at about 6.30 p. m., P.W. 1 the Food Inspector of Kunnamkulam Municipality visited the shop of P. V. Poulose Sons, General Merchants, Kunnamkulam and found sealed tins of...
Tag this Judgment!Sankaran Nair Chellappen Nair and ors. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-12-1965
Reported in: AIR1965Ker248; 1965CriLJ647
Govlnda Menon, J. 1. These four appeals arise out of the Judgment of the Sessions Judge of Alleppcy in Sessions Case 9 of 1984. Criminal Appeal 155 of 1964 is by the first accused; Criminal Appeal 184 of 1964 is by the second accused; Criminal Appeal 174 of 1964 is by the third accused and Criminal Appeal 154 of 1984 is by the fourth accused. The charge against them was that in furtherance of their common intention to murder Mathen Chacko alias Chimian and to cause hurt to P. Ws. 1 and 2 these four accused attacked them on the Edathwa -- Thiruvalla public road in front of the Edathua telephone exchange office, that the second accused beat deceased Chiunan on his head with a lathi, that the first accused stabbed him, the third accused caused hurt to PwSection 1 and 2 by stabbing them with a knife and accused 2 and 4 beat Pws. 1 and 2 with lathies.2. Accused 1 and 3 are Head Constables attached to the Edathua police station. Accused 2 and 4 are police constables of the same station. Acco...
Tag this Judgment!Narayanan Sankaran Mooss Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-01-1965
Reported in: AIR1965Ker253
Vaidialingam, J.1. In this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, Mr. K. V. Surianarayana Iyer, learned counsel for the petitioner, who is the proprietor of the Kottayam Electric Supply Agency, Kottayam, challenges the legality and validity of a notice and two orders passed by the State Government under the Indian Electricity Act (Act IX of 1910), hereinafter to be referred to as the Act The notice is Ext. P1 and the orders arc Exts. P2 and P3.2. Ext. P1 is a notice dated 17-8-1962 issued by the 1st respondent, the State of Kerala, under Section 4(3) of the Act, calling upon the petitioner, for the various grounds mentioned therein, as to why the license granted in his favour should not be revoked under Section 4(1)(a) of the Act. The petitioner sent an explanation dated 5-11-1962, Ext. P19; and the State Government passed the order Ext. P2 dated 17-5-1963 revoking the license under Section 5(1)(a) of the Act and fining 1st August 1983 as the date on which the said revoca...
Tag this Judgment!M. Madhavan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-01-1965
Reported in: AIR1965Ker301
ORDERK.K. Mathew, J. 1. The petitioner was conducting a school known as the Madhava Vilasam Middle School at Thundathil in Trivandrum Taluk. In the year 1953 it was upgraded inbo a High School. It is claimed by the petitioner that there are accommodations for 40 divisions in the school. By their order dated 20th April 1984 the Government sanctioned the opening of new schools and the upgrading of existing ones (or the year 1984-65. That order was published in the Kerala Gazette dated 28th April 1984. By that order, the 3rd respondent was given permission to open a High School and an Upper Primary School in Chempazhanthi area. The petitioner's case is that the order sanctioning the opening of the schools in favour of the 3rd respondent was made in disregard of the rules framed under the Kerala Education Act. The petitioner questions the order on several grounds. It was stated by him that there was no recommendation for the opening of the new schools in the area by any of the subordinate ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›