Kerala Court September 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.
Varkey Paily Madathikudiyil Pulinthanam and anr. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-09-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ker189; 1967CriLJ1152
ORDERP. Govinda Menon, J.1. The question that arises for decision in this revision petition is whether under Sections 496, 497 and 498, Cri. P. C., bail can be granted to a person who has not been arrested on any charge of any non-bailable offence or for whose apprehension a warrant has not been issued, but who appears and surrenders before the court stating that he is apprehending that he would be arrested as the person suspected of the commission of a cognizable offence. The petitioners through their advocate appeared before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Always and applied for bail alleging that a case has been registered against them and others for offences of rioting, causing hurt etc. Some of the offences complained against them, namely, offences under Sections 326 and 452 were non-bailable- Learned Magistrate dismissed the application on the ground that anticipatory bail cannot be granted.2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that after the amendment of Section 497 by ...
C.V.A. Hydross and Son (by Partner, Chenathu Valapil Abdul Azeez Hydro ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-06-1966
Reported in: (1967)ILLJ509Ker
K.K. Mathew, J.1. These are applications for issuing the appropriate writs or directions quashing Ex. A order passed by respondent 2, the labour court, Quilon, on 14 May 1964. Exhibit A order was passed on the basis of the applications made by the workmen concerned under Section 330 (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter called the Act, requesting the Court to determine the compensation and notice-pay payable to them for their past services with the petitioners. Their case was that they were permanent workmen under the petitioners, who are stevedores and that with the promulgation of the Cochin Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1959, under the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948, their services were terminated without payment of compensation or notice-pay as required by Section 25F and therefore they were entitled to have amounts payable to them to be computed under Section 33C (2) of the Act. Pursuant to the notices on the applications petiti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›