Kerala Court June 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.
Lekshmi Amma and ors. Vs. Krishna Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-03-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ker41
T.C. Raghavan, J.1. I think the decision of the District Judge reversing the decision of the Mun-sif holding that the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Bhagavathi Pillai v. Par-vathi Pillai Ammukutty Pillai, 1958 Ker LT 869 (AIR 1958 Kerala 230) applied to the case is correct.2. There were three sisters belonging to the Kurukkal community to whom the Marumak-kathayam law applied; to be more precise, the Nair Act did not apply to them. One of the sisters was the first plaintiff, another a Sathya-bhama, the mother of a Sarasamma, and the third a Rugmini, under whom the first defendant-respondent claims. Sathyabhama died; and a partition of the properties belonging to thethree sisters was effected by the first plaintiff and Rugmini, whereby Sarasamma, who was then a minor, was given a third share. Sarasamma also died childless subsequently; and the dispute in the second appeal relates to the properties left by her. The respondent, as already stated, represents Rugmini; and t...
Ernakulam Radio Company Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-03-1966
Reported in: [1966]18STC445(Ker)
K.K. Mathew, J.1. The petitioner is a dealer in radios and electrical goods. It was assessed to sales tax for the year 1963-64 by exhibit P1 order and the sales tax payable by it was fixed at Rs. 64,546.97 and on this a surcharge at 5% was levied. It is admitted that the turnover of the petitioner exceeded Rs. 30,000 and the question for consideration is whether the levy of surcharge is valid. Petitioner's counsel contended that the Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act, 1957 (Act 11 of 1957), hereinafter called the Act, is invalid for the reason that the State Legislature had no power to enact the same and therefore the imposition of surcharge in pursuance of the provisions of the Act is unauthorised.2. The only question for consideration, therefore, is whether the State Legislature had power to enact the Act. Petitioner's counsel contended that the only entry which may possibly justify this legislation is Entry 54 in List II in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution but that that entry wou...
T.K. Menon and Co., Calicut Vs. District Labour Officer, Kozhikode and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-02-1966
Reported in: (1966)IILLJ613Ker
Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J.1. The short but difficult question that falls to be decided in this appeal filed against the decision of Mr. Justice Mathew dismissing the petition of the appellant filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is whether the appellant a partnership firm which carries on the work of Chartered Accountants in Calicut can be said to constitute an industry under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act.2. Messrs. T. K. Menon and Co., the appellant before us is a partnership firm doing the work of Chartered Accountants in Calicut. The firm consists of three partners Shri T. K. Menon and his two sons Shri P. R. Menon and Shri P. V. Menon. All of them are Chartered Accountants. The firm had employed some subordinate staff in their office at Calicut. The services of eight members of the subordinate staff were discharged by the appellant after giving them due notice. Thereupon the appellant received Ext, P-l not...
ibrahim Kunhi (Dr. K.), Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre Vs. Dir ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-02-1966
Reported in: (1967)ILLJ507Ker
P.T. Raman Nayar, J.1. The petitioner is an Assistant Surgeon appointed temporarily under Rule 9 of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. Whether or not he is a member of a service, he holds a civil post under the Kerala Government and is, therefore, a Government servant within the definition in Rule 2(d) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and is, therefore, subject to disciplinary action under Rule 11. Admittedly he applied for regular appointment as an Assistant Surgeon, and one of the conditions of the notification issued by the Service Commission when calling for applications was that only candidates willing to join the defence services need apply. This condition was inserted as directed by Government by their order Ex. P. 4 dated 2 March 1965 to serve as an incentive for joining the defence services where there was a shortage of men in technical categories such as engineers and doctors. Thus, by his very application, the p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›