Kerala Court September 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.
Aypunni Mani Vs. Devassy Kochouseph and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-14-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ker203
Gopalan Nambiyar, J. 1. The appeal arises out of proceedings in execution. The appellant had obtained a money decree in O.S. No. 68 of 1122 on the file of the District Court. Trichur, against the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent filed A. S. No. 149 of 1955 in the Travancore Cochin High Court against the said decree, and pending appeal, applied for stay of execution A condition stay was granted, and the 1st respondent executed a surety-ship bond on 12-7-1955. the material part of which runs as follows: '' It is agreed that if the appeal preferred by the defendant from the above case is disposed of against the defendant. then I shall deposit the decree amount in whole due to the decree holder in the above first appeal without involving the defendant and in case of failure to do so it shall be realised from me and my properties in the same manner as it could be ealised from the defendant ' 2. The Kerala Act 91 of 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) came into force on 14 7-1958. Th...
V.K. Unni Nellikode Vs. M.K. Gopalan Nair and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-03-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ker239
1. The only agricultural or horticultural land in which the appellant hadan interest was sold in court auction and bought by the 1st respondent on 25-3-1967. The sale was confirmed on 24-5-11)57 and delivery was effected on 13-7-1957. All this was before Act It of 1958 came into force on 14-7-1958 and it is not the, case that the appellant has since acquired any interest in agricultural or horticultural land. It is therefore obvious that the appellant was not an agriculturist within the meaning of Section - (a) of the Act either when the Act came into force or when on 7-1-1959 he made his application under Section 22 (1) (b) of the Act. Even if the present tense of Section '2 (a), 'has an interest x x x x in any agricultural or horticultural laud' is to be regarded as the present tense of logic' so that the relevant point of lime is the time when the question has to he decided, the Tact remains that the appellant was not an agriculturist at that time. And what clinches the mailer is th...
Ameen Pillai Rawther Hassan Kari Rawther and anr. Vs. Asst. Controller ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-01-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Ker100
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ direction or order quashing Exts. P-l to P-8 and for restraining the respondents from taking any coercive steps, for collecting estate duty and penalty in pursuance of Exts. P-l to P-3.2. One Ameen Pillai (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) died in May 1059. It is admitted that he left two widows and eight children. One of the daughters died in 1962. The petitioners are two of the sons of the deceased. The estate of the deceased was assessed to estate duty under the provisions of the Estate Duty Act (Central Act XXXIV of 1953 -- hereinafter referred to as the Act). A copy of the assessment order has been produced as Ext. P-l dated 17-10-1962, The petitioners are not parties to the said assessment. It is seen that only the two widows and five children of the deceased were parties By proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 23-1-1963, a penalty of Rs. 1217 was imposed on ...
Vasudeva Menon (M.K.) Vs. State of Kerala (by Chief Secretary) and ors ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-01-1965
Reported in: (1966)ILLJ630Ker
P. Govindan Nair, J.1. The petitioner while he was serving in the substantive post of a sub-inspector in the Police Department of the State was promoted on 26 October 1963 as a circle inspector. By order, Ex. P. 2, dated 26 January 1964, the petitioner has been reverted to the post of a sub-inspector. It is this order, Ex. P. 2, that is challenged in this writ application.2. Counsel on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the order, Ex. P. 2, which is said to have been passed as a result of a selection made by the promotion committee constituted for selecting from the cadre of sub-inspectors those who are to be promoted as circle inspectors, is really against the terms of the rules that are applicable, namely, rules dated 17 May 1963 relating to the Public Services-Police Department- Appointments by promotion and transfer. He also contended that there has been violation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India in that the petitioner has really been reduced in rank by way of p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›