Kerala Court December 1966 Judgments
Cherian Lukose Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-23-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Ker60; 1968CriLJ168
K. Sadasivan, J.1. This appeal is by one Cherian Lukose who was a staff nurse attached to the Taluk Headquarters hospital, Karunagapally He has been convicted by the Special Judge Trivandrum under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.2. The appellant was prosecuted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, X-Branch, Quilon under the Act on the allegation that while functioning as the Staff Nurse of the above said hospital he demanded a bribe of Rs. 5 from one Raghavan for providing him a bed in the hospital. The demand is stated to have been made at 9.45 a.m. on 26-9-64. Raghavan was being treated as an out-patient for stomach disorder; but later when he was examined by the doctor it was found that he required further treatment and for that he had to be admitted as an inpatient. Accordingly he was provi...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: New Era Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-22-1966
Reported in: [1967]37CompCas796(Ker)
P.T. Raman Nair, J. 1. The main, and, to my mind, the sole question in this winding-up petition is whether the petitioners are, as they claim to be, but is denied by the company which vehemently oppose the petition, creditors of the company whose winding-up they seek. Or, rather, since the winding-up court, jealous that its process should not be abused as a means of enforcing doubtful claims will not ordinarily adjudicate on such a question when there is a bona fide dispute, whether the dispute by the company is a bona fide dispute. If the; petitioners are, in truth, creditors, I think a winding-up order should follow as a matter of course. For, they would, in that case, be creditors to whom more than Rs. 500 is presently due by the company and whose demand under exhibit P-1 dated 1st February, 1965, remained unsatisfied when this petition was brought on 10th March, 1965, and still remains unsatisfied. It is no doubt said in the counter-affidavit filed by the company that exhibit P-1 d...
Tag this Judgment!C.B. Xavier CochIn Vs. Food Inspector, Mattancherry Municipality, Matt ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-20-1966
Reported in: 1968CriLJ348
ORDER1. Accused 1 in C. C. 10 of 1964 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate of Ernakulam is the revision petitioner. He was convicted by the learned Magistrate under Sections 7(i), 2(i). and 16(1) (a. (if. of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (shortly stated the Act. read with Rule 44 (b. of the Rules framed under the Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-; in default of payment of fine he is to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months,2. The case against him is that on 17-10-1963 at about 7 a.m. he had sent some cow's milk for sale through his employee the second accused. In front of the house bearing door No. 5/299 Mattancherry, the second accused was caught with the milk by the Food Inspector, Mattancherry. He purchased from him some sample for analysis and bottled the same in three clean dry bottles, one of which was handed over to the accused as required by the rules. A mahazar was then drawn up by the Foo...
Tag this Judgment!Devaki and anr. Vs. Kitta
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-13-1966
Reported in: 1967CriLJ1640
Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. This Revision Petition, arising from the proceedings under Section 488 Crl. P. C., has been referred to a Division Bench in view of the preliminary objection raised to its maintainability on the ground that the Sessions Judge having concuurrent revisional jurisdiction had not been moved first; and in order to settle the practice to he followed in this Court in such matters. That the Sessions Judge has concurrent revisional jurisdiction under Section 435, Crl. P. C. in respect of the order now under revision before us, cannot be disputed. That this would not preclude the High Court from invoking or exercising its revisional powers, is also beyond dispute. But what is contended by the counsel for the petitioner is that the Sessions Judge cannot pass an effective order in revision, but must refer the case to the High Court under Section 438 of the Code to be dealt with under Section 439.Even so, the question arises whether as a matter of salutary practice, and in th...
Tag this Judgment!Raman Raghavan Vs. the State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-12-1966
Reported in: 1968CriLJ255
K. Sadasivan, J.1. The appellant Raman Raghavan stands convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge of Quilon under Section 304, I.P.C., and sentenced to R.I. for 7 years. He was charged with, having committed the murder of one Joshuva alias Thangachan by stabbing him in front of a bunk shop conducted by the accused. Deceased Joshuva at about 7 p.m. on 18.2.1966 had gone to the accused's shop and purchased therefrom a matchbox and some bee-dies worth in all 10 pies. He had no cash with him, but the accused wanted the price to be paid then and there. Joshua said that he would pay the amount the next day. But the accused was not amenable. He demanded the matchbox and the bee-dies back, which Joshuva considered as an insult offered to him. Thereupon, a wordy altercation ensued between them which ultimately culminated in the stabbing of Joshuva by the accused with a knife which was available in the shop for cutting arecanuts. Three stabs were inflicted on him with the knife and after the sta...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Khader Vs. Regional Deputy Director of Public Instruction
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-12-1966
Reported in: (1967)IILLJ643Ker
K.K. Mathew, J.1. Petitioner was appointed as a primary department teacher in the former State of Cochin by, the Staff Selection Board in 1122 M.E. Petitioner has been working in the Sree Rama Varma High School since 1954 and in the Sree Rama Varma Upper Primary School since 1961, after the bifurcation of upper primary and lower primary schools. On 13 October 1966, the respondent, the Regional Deputy Director of Public Instruction, received a copy of a letter dated 11 October 1966 from the Assistant Educational Officer, Ernakulam, addressed to the District Educational Officer, Ernakulam, stating inter alia that the Assistant Educational Officer has received a report from the headmaster of the Sree Rama Varma Upper Primary School, Ernakulam, where the petitioner was working as a primary department teacher, that the petitioner is not writing his notes of lessons in spite of specific Instructions Issued to him by the headmaster of the school in this regard, that the petitioner is refusing...
Tag this Judgment!V. Ananthanarayana Iyer and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-1966
Reported in: [1967]19STC282(Ker)
ORDER1. The controversy in these petitions relates to the validity of the Kerala Sales Tax (Levy and Validation) Act, 1965. It is common ground that but for that Act no tax is attracted on the purchase of copra and cashewnut kernel during the period from 1-4-1958 to 31-3 1963.2. The non-liability to tax on the purchase of copra and cashewnut kernel during the period from 1-4-1958 to 31-3-196.3 arose as a result of the decisions of this Court in K.A. Karim v. Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, (1963) 14 STC 36 (Ker). Poulose Bros. v State of Kerala, (1963) 14 STC 40 (Ker) and K. C. Antony v. Sales Tax Officer, (1964) 15 STC 620. The correctness of these decisions is not challenged before us.3. The Kerala Sales Tax (Levy and Validation) Act, 1965, was passed in order to abrogate the non-liability that arose as a result of the three decisions mentioned above. Section 3 of the Act--which in view of Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Act should be deemed to have come into force on 1-4-1958--is ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›