Kerala Court October 1966 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.
Pareed Lubba Muhammed Lubba Vs. K.K. Neelambaran, Executive Officer, T ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-28-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ker155; 1967CriLJ891
M. Madhavan Niar, J.1. The petitioner had to pay a sum of Rs. 2532 as per his bid at an auction of the right to collect fees of the vegetable market in the Thodupuzha Panchayat, for the year 1959 60. Out of that sum a balance of Rs. 998 remains due to the Panchayat in spite of several demands made. The Executive Officer of the Panchayat finding recovery by distraint impracticable in his case, prosecuted him under Section 74 of the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960, read with Rule 26 of the Kerala Panchayals (Taxation and Appeal) Rules. 1963, and the Rule dated 7th November 1962 for Recovery of Costs, Damages etc. by Panchayats. He has been convicted and fined Rs. 50 by the Sub-Magistrate. Thodupuzha, and been directed to pay the arrears also. On appeal, the conviction and sentence have been affirmed by the District Magistrate. Ernakulam Hence this motion for revision.2. When the case was heard on October 18, counsel for the petitioner relied on Article 20 of the Constitution and pleaded that...
Leela Bai Vs. Reserve Bank of India (by Chief Accountant) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-28-1966
Reported in: (1970)ILLJ277Ker
K.K. Mathew, J.1.This is an application for the issue of the appropriate writ or direction quashing the orders of promotion of respondents 4 to 6 and 8 to the cadre of sub-accountants in the Reserve Bank of India, superseding the claims of the petitioner, and to issue the necessary writ or order directing respondents 1 to 3 to appoint the petitioner in the grade of sub accountant with effect from 14 December 1964 or in the alternative to direct respondents 1 to 3 to consider the claims of the petitioner for promotion to the grade of sub-accountants in accordance with the rules and with effect from 14 December 1964.2. The petitioner was appointed as a clerk, grade II, in the bank in 1955. After about five years she was promoted as a clerk in grade I. Petitioner says that she has passed Part I of the C.A.I.LB. examination conducted by the Indian Institute of Bankers, and was qualified for being selected to the next higher grade which is that of sub-accountant. There was a selection in Ap...
Chandukutty (M.P.) Vs. Administrative Officer, Government Medical Coll ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-28-1966
Reported in: (1967)ILLJ787Ker
P. Govindan Nair, J.1. The petitioner who was an attender in the Medical College at Calicut was dismissed from service by the administrative officer of the medical college by Ex. P. 9 order dated 22 December 1965.2. The order Ex. P. 9 is Impugned before me mainly on two grounds. The first is that the order has been passed by a person Incompetent to do so, as the administrative officer is not the appointing authority and the second is that the procedure adopted in finding the petitioner guilty of the misconduct alleged against him is not only violative of the rules framed and applicable but also violative of the principles of natural justice.3. The first of these points cannot stand, for Rule 9 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960, enables the Government by general or special orders and subject to conditions to delegate to any authority the power to make appointments in the State and Subordinate Service. The Government Pleader has brought to my n...
Kutti Vasu Vs. Chakky Nani and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-27-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ker147
ORDERP.T. Raman Nayar, J.1. The proceeding out of which this cross-objection arises was instituted before the commencement of (Kerala) Act 10 of 1960 on 1-2-1962. Therefore by reason of Section 87 (2) of that Act the court fee payable on the cross-objection is governed by T.C. Act II of 1125. (The word 'appeal' includes a cross-objection--see Section 8 (1) of Act 10 of 1960).The cross-objector wants the amount of compensation for improvements awarded to the appellant to be reduced. The relief he claims is capable of valuation and he must therefore value it and pay court fee thereon under Article I of Schedule 1 of T. C. Act II of 1125. It is true that the appeal in which the cross-objection is filed is not in a suit but is in an application under Section 11 of Act 31 of 1958, but then Article I of Schedule I is not confined to appeals or cross-objections in suits but applies to appeals and cross-objections in all proceedings where the subject matter in dispute can be valued in money.2....
M.K. Sreedhara Kurup Vs. the Central Banking Corporation of Travancore ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-27-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ker134
ORDERP.T. Raman Nayar, J.1. I accept the applicant's case that the cheque dated 13-2-1961 for Rs. 8,000 was handed over by him on 28-2-1961 to the Mavelikara branch of the bank for collection only (and payment of the proceeds to him in cash) and not for collection and credit to his current account with the branch. It is true that he had a current account opened on 25-1-1955 in which the only credits seem to me the proceeds of bills collected on his behalf, and that he used to draw from this account such amounts as he required--not the amount of the bill collected from time to time. Had matters rested there it might have been legitimate to infer that the cheque in question was also banded over for collection and credit to this account. But, if that were so, what the bank would have done would have been to give the applicant a credit slip by way of acknowledgment. What it actually did was, however, to pass him a letter of acknowledgment dated 28-1-1961 saying that the cheque would be dea...
Varghese (P.C.) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (by Secretary to Government i ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-27-1966
Reported in: (1968)ILLJ56Ker
P. Govindan Nair, J.1. The petitioner has approached this Court a second time in regard to his claim that he is entitled to the pay-scales applicable to the grade to which he had been equated with effect from 1 November 1966 consequent on the reorganization of States. The petitioner came from the Madras State and on 31 October 1956 he was holding the post of a District Panchayat Officer. This post, it is asserted by the petitioner, was interchangeable with the post held by the second-grade Municipal Commissioners in the Madras State. In fact he has asserted that he had functioned as a Municipal Commissioner is the Fort Cochin area. By Ex. P. 14 order the District Panchayat Officers of the Madras State as well as the second-grade Municipal Commissioners from the Madras State were equated with the Municipal Commissioners of the Travancore-Cochin who were in the third grade of Rs. 200-300, Representations were made by various persons against this equation and Exs. P. 2 and P. 3 orders pro...
State of Kerala Vs. Kerala Water Transport Corporation Ltd. (In Liquid ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-25-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ker150
ORDERP.T. Raman Nayar, J.1. I think the Liquidator was right in rejecting the State Government's claim to priority for its debts otherwise than under Section 530(1)(a) of the Companies Act and that this appeal against that rejection, by application made under Section 460(6) of the Act read with Rule 164 of the Companies (Court) Rules, must likewise he rejected.2. The claim is based on Section 64 (1) (a) of the (Kerala) Insolvency Act (Section61 (1) (a) of the Provincial Insolvency Act; which it is said is attracted by Section 529(1) of the Companies Act this company, it is not disputed, is an insolvent company. Some mention has also been made of the common law rule of priority for crown debts.3. The Companies Act, by Section 530, enacts its own scheme of priority. On its wording, this section is equally applicable to an insolvent as to a solvent company Subsection (6) of the section makes express and exclusive provision for an insolvent company and that scotches any attempt at the argu...
The Palai Central Bank Ltd. (In Liquidation) Represented by Its Offici ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-25-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ker149
ORDERP.T. Raman Nayar, J.1. The decree on which this claim is based had become barred by time even before the presentation of the winding up petition on 8-8-1960 and hence this claim must be dismissed. The decree was passed by the District Court, Kottayam on 23-10-1951, and, so far as the respondents are concerned it was confirmed in appeal on 3-2-1956. The latter date is therefore the starting point for limitation under Article 182 of the Act of 1908. The decree was transferred to the District Court, Parur for execution, and an application for a execution made to that court wasdismissed on 13-8-1956 for failure to prosecute. That was more than three years before the presentation of the winding up petition.The liquidator relies on an application for execution made to the sub-Court, Parur on 12-8-1969 and which was dismissed on 14-11-1969 to give him a fresh starting point, the District Court, Parur having been abolished on 1-11-1956. But the Sub-Court, Parur was neither the court which...
Rev. Father Sebastian Onamkulam Vs. K. Karunakaran and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-25-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ker177; 1967CriLJ1147
ORDER1. The petitioner in the Original Petition applies under Sections 3 and 4 of the Contempt of Courts Act 32 of 1952 for the committal of the first respondent Sri Kambissery Karvmakaran, Chief Editor, 'Janayugam' daily newspaper, Qnilon, and second respondent Sri M. Balakrishnan, Printer and Publisher, Janayugam Publication Ltd., Janayugam Press, Quilon, for alleged contempt of court. The petitioner in the original petition is the brother of Rev. Fr. Benedict Onakulam Athirampuzha who on the date of the filing of the original petition was an accused in Crime No. 88 of 1966 of the Ranni Police Station pending enquiry before the Sub Magistrate's Court at Pathanamthitta. The charges against respondents 1 and 2 are that they published in the issue of 'Janayugam' dated 11-8-1966 an article marked Ext. P-l under the following caption: ..... and that the entire article would give the impression to the readers that Rev. Fr. Benedict Onakulam committed the crime.It is alleged that certain ph...
Sheikriyammada Nalla Koya Vs. Administrator, Union Territory of Laccad ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-19-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ker259
K.K. Mathew, J. 1. This is an application for a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order quashing Ext. P-8 order passed by the Administrator, Union Territory of Laocadives, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands. Sheikriyammadath was an ancient family having its residence at Androth Island, forming part of the Laccadive Islands. The family was governed by the customary law of the island. There were two tavazhies in the family one tavazhi was represented by one Saudabl; the petitioner is her son, and represents the tavazhi now. The other tavazhi consisted of two brothers, Sheik Koya and Muthu Koya. Muthn Koya died and the tavazbi was being represented by Shiek Koya. He died sometime in 1963'and that tavazhi is now represented by respondents 2 to 7, the legal representatives of Sheik Koya. The two tavaznles agreed to divide the properties of the tarwao by a razi dated 8-12-1941 filed in the Amin's Katchery in the Island. According to the provisions of this razi, even after partition, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »