Kerala Court January 1967 Judgments
V. Hariharan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala Represented by Its Chief Secre ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-31-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Ker42; (1967)ILLJ766Ker
Govindan Nair, J. 1. The question is whether the equality of opportunity in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State guaranteed by Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India, has been denied to the petitioner, and whether the provision in Article 16(1) that there shall be no discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them in respect of any employment or office under the State, has been violated.2. The State Government by letter No. 42818/C3/63-2 Home dated 8-il-1963 requested the Public Service Commission to advise 24 candidates from the Bar for appointment as Munsiffs in the scale of Rs. 300-700 in the Judicial Service of the Kerala State. A Notification No. RII(20) 10612/63 dated 28th November, 1963, (Ext. PI) was then issued by the Public Service Commission and published in the Kerala Gazette dated 3rd December, 1963, inviting applications from qualified candidates for directrecruitmen...
Tag this Judgment!P.N. Kesavan and anr. Vs. Lekshmy Amma Madhavi Amma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-31-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Ker154
Raghavan, J. 1. The Official Receiver, Kottayam, who was the ninth defendant in the suit, is the appellant; and the contesting respondents are the legal representatives of the second defendant, the wife of the first defendant who was adjudicated insolvent. A suit was brought by the fourth respondent on a dishonoured cheque issued by the first defendant on 17th July 1944. The suit was decreed; and in execution of the decree the suit property, which stood in the name of the second defendant, was sought to be proceeded against when she laid claim to the property, which was allowed. The fourth respondent then brought the present suit for setting aside the claim order; and since the first defendant was adjudicated insolvent pending suit, the Official Receiver was im-pleaded as the ninth defendant. In the trial court the second defendant contested the suit claiming that the property was purchased by her with her own funds and therefore, the same should not be proceeded against to realise the...
Tag this Judgment!Sundaram Chettiar (S.) Vs. Gopalan (K.) and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-31-1967
Reported in: (1967)ILLJ522Ker
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. The only question argued is whether the appellate authority under Section 18 of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960, had Jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed before it and to decide whether there was, in fact, a termination of service of the employee.2. The petitioner la the employer, who, it has been alleged and found, terminated the services of respondent 1 on 10 March 1963. Respondent 1 filed an appeal under Section 18(2) of the Act before respondent 2 on 19 March 1963. Meanwhile, on 15 March 1963 the petitioner had issued a notice to respondent 1 to show cause against disciplinary proceedings, treating respondent 1 still, as an employee in service. On these facts it is argued that on the date when the appeal was filed, there was no termination of service of respondent 1 and that respondent 2 had no jurisdiction to decide the disputed question as to whether there was a termination of service or not. I am clear that respondent 2,...
Tag this Judgment!Kamalakshy and ors. Vs. Narayani and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-30-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Ker123
T.C. Raghavan, J. 1. An interesting question of law relating to the Makkathayee Ezhavas of erstwhile Cochin State is raised in this second appeal. The appellants are defendants 1 to 5, who lost in both the lower courts: and the contesting respondent is the plaintiff. 2. The one item of property involved in this litigation belonged to a Makkathayee Ezhava of Mukundapuram Taluk in erstwhile Cochin State by name Kunhappu, who died in 1096 Makaram leaving his widow Chakki. son Kochunni and three daughters, the sixth defendant, the plaintiff and deceased Kalyani, whose children are defendants 7 to 9. Kochunni died leaving his son Kesayan, who also died subsequently leaving his wife and children, the appellants. The suit which has given rise to the second appeal was filed by one of the daughters of Kunhappu claiming a share in the suit property left by Kunhappu. The claim of the plaintiff was that the law applicable to the Makkathayyee Ezhavas of Mukundapuram Taluk was customary law. and tha...
Tag this Judgment!Ammukutty Amma Ponnamma Vs. Narayana Panikkar Neelakantan Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-28-1967
Reported in: AIR1967Ker216; 1967CriLJ1334
ORDERM.U. Isaac, J. 1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Munsif-Magistrate, Ettnmanoor dismissing an application which the petitioner made under Section 488 Cr. P. C. for getting maintenance from the respondent.2. The respondent married the petitioner in April 1948, while he was in Military service. The petitioner's case is that, while this marriage remains in force, the respondent married another lady by a registration in December 1951, and thereafter he neglected to maintain the petitioner. She complained to the Military authorities as a result of which he began to send her some money. Subsequently, he was discharged from the Military and he had not been giving her any maintenance during the past one year.On these and other allegations which are not necessary to be stated here, she claimed a monthly maintenance of Rs. 60/- from the respondent. The respondent, while admitting the marriage, contended that the petitioner left his house contrary to his instructions soon after...
Tag this Judgment!Meppilacheri Kuningarath Kunhi Soopi Vs. Meppilacheri Kunhingarath Kun ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-27-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Ker242
1. The second defendant In O. S. No. 830 of 1953 of the court of the District Munsiff of Nadapuram was the appellant in A. S. No. 257 of 1957 of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Badagara. He is also the appellant in this Second Appeal.2. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 830 of 1953 was the first respondent in this second appeal. He is now no more. The fourth respondent was recorded as his legal representative by the order dated 31-5-1966 on C. M. P No. 2895 of 19663. O. S. No. 830 of 1953 sought a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to the tenancy right created under a marupat dated 31-5-1923 It was common ground that the second defendant had obtained the rights of the jenmi The question that arose for consideration was whether the plaintiff had obtained the tenancy right under the marupat by an assignment dated 14-8-1952 in the name of the first defendant benami for himself as contended by him.4. The suit was decreed by the trial court, and the appeal by the second defendant di...
Tag this Judgment!Manager, Valia Amma Thampuran Kovilakam Estate Vs. Agricultural Income ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-24-1967
Reported in: [1968]69ITR304(Ker)
This writ petition raises the question of assessability to agricultural income-tax under the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, of the properties of the Valiamma Thampuran Kovilakam Estate, known compendiously as the V.T.K. Estate. It is agreed that the properties of the V.T.K. Estate comprise the ancestral properties of the Cochin Royal Family as well as the amounts donated from time to time by the Maharaja of Cochin for the maintenance of the members. The petitioner is the manager of the V.T.K. Estate. The management of the estate is governed by the provision of the Cochin Proclamation 9 of 1124. the writ petition seeks a declaration that the V.T.K. Estate is not assessable to agricultural income-tax and a writ of certiorari to quash exhibit P-2 notice, and P-4 order, of the 1st respondent calling upon the petitioner to submit a return of the total agricultural income of the estate for the year 1962-63, and holding after objection that the estate was assessable.I may notice - only to...
Tag this Judgment!Workmen of Travancore Rayons Ltd. Vs. Manager, Travancore Rayons Ltd. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-18-1967
Reported in: (1967)ILLJ518Ker
ORDERV.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. This writ petition is to quash the order of the Industrial Tribunal, Kozhikode declining to set aside the decision passed ex parte by the Tribunal, on 6-5-1965 in Industrial Dispute No. 20 of 1965. The Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to set aside its ex parte decision dismissing the reference for non-prosecution, and that the remedy of the petitioner would appear to be to move the Government for a fresh reference. A copy of the Order is Ext. P-1. The petitioner also prays for a writ of mandamus directing the Tribunal to dispose of the application to set aside the ex parte decision in accordance with law.2. The order referring Industrial Dispute No. 20 of 1965 is dated 1-2-1965. The case was posted for the filing of the statement on behalf of the Union of Workers, successively to 18-3-1965, 31-3-1965, 23-4-1965 and 5-5-1965. It is enough to notice that no statement on behalf of the Union of Workers was filed, and that the Tribunal by its order ...
Tag this Judgment!T.A. Ouseph Vs. State of Kerala Represented by the Food Inspector, Tri ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-16-1967
Reported in: 1967CriLJ1430
ORDERM.U. Isaac, J.1. The petitioner was convicted by the District Magistrate of Trichur in C. C. No. 177 of 1965 for an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Section 7(1) thereof, and sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000. He filed Cri. Appeal No. 109 of 1985 before the Sessions Judge of Trichur who dismissed the appeal upholding the conviction, but reduced the sentence to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of R3. 500. The petitioner has filed this revision petition against the aforesaid conviction and sentence.2. The case against the petitioner was that the Pood Inspector, who is P. W. l in this case, purchased from the petitioner, who is a trader within the Trichur Municipality, toor dhall on 16-3-1965 along with other articles of food, and on analysis by the public analyst the toor dhall was found dyed with coal tar dyes and therefo...
Tag this Judgment!Cranganore Town Co-operative Bank, Ltd. (by Its Secretary) Vs. Sankara ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-16-1967
Reported in: (1967)IILLJ116Ker
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. The petitioner is the Cranganore Town Co-operative Bank, Ltd., No. 102, which seeks to quash the order of the appellate authority under Section 18 of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960, against an order of the bank, terminating services of respondent 2, one of Its employees, on the ground of old age and infirmity. The appellate authority found that the termination of service was legal and that respondent 2 was old and not in a position to get on with his work as peon in the bank. Having so held, it proceeded to award a certain compensation to the employee and directed that half-a-month's salary for every year of service would be a reasonable compensation. The amount awarded as compensation worked out on that basis came to Rs. 1.395. The tribunal further directed payment of Rs. 1,625.27 as provident fund, notice-pay, etc., due to respondent 2 and ordered that if the payments directed were not made on or before 16 December 1965, the amoun...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »