Kerala Court March 1967 Judgments
Vasudevan Namboodiri and anr. Vs. Sarojini Amma and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-30-1967
Reported in: (1968)ILLJ404Ker
ORDERS. Velu Pillai, J.1. Civil Revision Petition No. 234 of 1966 is directed against the decree of the Subordinate Judge passed in appeal allowing the claim of the respondent against the revision petitioner there in, the manager of an aided school, for arrears of salary for the period she worked as a teacher, end Civil Revision Petition No. 167 of 1866 is directed against the decree passed by the Additional Mansif in a small cause suit allowing the claim of the respondent against the revision petitioner therein, who is the manager of another aided school, fur arrears of salary for the period that he worked as a teacher in that school. Though arising between different parties, the civil revision petitions raise a common question and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The respondents in these petitions were appointed as teachers in the respective schools by the respective managers, the revision petitions. The appointment was under the provisions of the Kerala Education Act...
Tag this Judgment!ismail Aboobaker, Puthuparambil, Thodupuzha and ors. Vs. State of Kera ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-28-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Ker21; 1968CriLJ62
ORDERK.K. Mathew, J.1. The accused in C. C. No.13/1966 of the Sub Divisional Magistrate's Court, Ponkunnam, have filed the revision petition against the order convicting them for offences punishable under Sections 363, 379, 448, 451 and 34 of the I.P.C., and sentencing each of them to undergo four months' simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 363.2. The 2nd accused is the husband of Pw. 1, A-1 and A-3 are the relatives of the 2nd accused. The 4th accused is a stranger. Pw. 1 and A-2 have a male child, Sagar by name. At the relevant time he was aged 2 1/2 years. They were residing in the house of the 2nd accused Pw. 1 did not, however, like to live with the 2nd accused and so she along with the child went to her father's house and at the time of the occurrence she was residing in her father's house with the child. On 6-12-1965 at about 5 p.m. the 2nd accused along with the other accused came to the residence of Pw. 1 and got into the court-yard of the house. At that time Pw....
Tag this Judgment!The Catholic Bank of India Ltd., (In Liquidation) Vs. George Jacob
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-17-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Ker3
M.S. Menon, C.J. and P. Govindan Nair, J. 1. The main controversy in this case relates to the extent of the benefit to which the respondent is entitled under the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1958. The provisions of the Act to which our attention has been drawn are Clause (c) (xi) of Section 2, Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 4, and Sub-section (1) of Section 5. 2. The Act was passed in order to give relief to indebted agriculturists. The expression 'agriculturist' is defined in Section 2(a) of the Act. It is not disputed that the respondent comes within the ambit of that definition. 3. Section 2(c) of the Act defines the expression 'debt' The definition makes it clear that certain types of debts are not included within the ambit of that expression. One type of debt that is not included is specified in Section 2(c)(xi). That provision including its proviso reads as follows:-- 'Any debt exceeding one thousand five hundred rupees borrowed under a single transaction and due b...
Tag this Judgment!Mary Cheriyan and anr. Vs. Bhargavi Pillai Bhasura Devi and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-17-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Ker82
Raman Nayar, J. 1. The question before us is whether, under the Marumak-kathayam law, a subsequently conceived child gets a right by birth in the property obtained by its mother for her separate share in the partition of her tarwad, thus reducing her theretofore absolute powers of disposition to those of a joint family manager. In other words, whether, after such individual partition as it has been called, the property in the mother's hands continues to retain its character as tarwad property or becomes her individual property (I here use the expression, "tarwad property" not as meaning property still belonging to the tarwad but as meaning property with the incidents of tarwad property -- of. Section 38(2) of the Madras Marumakkathayam Act, 1932 before amendment by (Kerala) Act 26 of 1958 --and the expression, "individual property" to mean property bereft of these incidents and having instead the incidents of self-acquired property.) The expression, "separate property" within the meani...
Tag this Judgment!C.M. Hamsa Haji Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Tirur
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-17-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Ker193; [1967]20STC470(Ker)
M.U. Isaac, J. 1. The petitioner was assessed by the respondent, the Sales Tax Officer, Tirur under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter refered to as the State Act) for the year 1963-64, as per order Ext. P-5 dated 31-8-1965. Exts. P-6 and P-7 both dated 23-2-1966, are notices of final assessment and demand issued by the respondent to the petitioner for payment of sales-tax and surcharge payable under Ext. P-5. This Original Petition has been filed to quash Exts. P-5, P-6 and P-7 and for other incidental reliefs.2. The taxable turnover of the petitioner was fixed in Ext. P-5 at Rs. 5,41,541-80. This includes a sum of Rs. 57, 684-04, which represents the value of the closing stock of the petitioner's business on 9-2-1964 plus 10 per cent thereon. The petitioner was carrying on a trade at Tirur and Calicut; and it is common case that he carried on this business only till 9-2-1964. On 10-2-1965, he formed a partnership with another person; and the whole stock in trade of h...
Tag this Judgment!West Coast Employers' Federation, Willingdon Island, Cochin, represent ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-06-1967
Reported in: (1967)IILLJ523Ker
1. The petitioners in O.P No. 792 of 1965 are the appellants in this writ appeal. They challenged without success, the validity of Ext P1, a notification issued by the 1st respondent the State of Kerala under Section 3(1)(b) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, read with Section 5(2) of the said enactment and published in the Kerala Gazette dated the 16th March, 19652. Ext. P1 divided the State into three separate areas:(1) Quilon and Feroke area, consisting of Quilon. Trivandrum. Kozhikode and Cannanore Districts.(2) Alwaye area, consisting of Ernakulam, Alleppey and Kottavam Districts, and(3) Trichur area, consisting of Trichur and Palghat Districts and fixed the minimum wages for each of those areas. The earlier notification--the notification that Ext. P1 superseded--was dated the 12th May 19583. The minimum wages fixed for the Trichur area are lower than those fixed for the other two areas; and the contention of the appellants is that such a fixation is not warranted by the Minimum Wage...
Tag this Judgment!B. Party No. 2: Alingal Mohamed Kutty Vs. A. Party: Vaniyanthodi Pathu ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-06-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Ker70; 1968CriLJ351
ORDERK. Sadasivan, J. 1. B-Party No. 2 in M. C. 15 of 1966 on the file of the Executive First Class Magistrate of Malappuram is the revision petitioner. The dispute relates to 2 acres and 55 cents of pararaba in R S. 324/10 of Athavanad Village, Tirur Taluk. A-Party is the jenmi of the property. According to the B-Party, the property was taken on lease from A-party by B-party No. 1, from whom the lease-hold right was taken on assignment by B-Party No. 2. The rent payable to the A-party is stated to be 75 paras of paddy and Rs. 40 per annum. It is further alleged that A-party had admitted in the assignment deed No. 796/64 dated 16-6-1964, that a lease was given to B-party No. 1 in respect of 4 acres 83 cents of land belonging to them in R. S. 346. The A-party has also admitted the possession of the B-party in O. S. 202/64 which was a suit filed by the A-party and her son jointly with B-party No. 1. B-party No. 2 was later on impleaded in the suit as additional 4th plaintiff. The suit is...
Tag this Judgment!CochIn Dock Labour Union (by Its Secretary) and ors. Vs. CochIn Dock L ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-06-1967
Reported in: (1967)IILLJ108Ker
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. The petitioners are the secretary of the Cochin Dock Labour Union and five other individual workmen employed under the Cochin Dock Labour Board. Respondent 1 is the Cochin Dock Labour Board and respondent 2 is its administrative body, namely, the United Stevedore Association of Cochin (Private), Ltd., represented by its president. The reliefs sought in this writ petition are:(1) a declaration that Ex. P. 6 (a) resolution passed by respondent 1 board at its meeting dated 8 December 1968 is illegal, inoperative and void and all actions by the respondents under Ex. P. 6 (a) are also illegal and void;(2) a write of mandamus directing respondent 2 not to treat petitioners 2 to 6 and dock workers similarly situated as having abandoned service in pursuance of Ex. P. 6 (a) resolution ; and(3) a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ex. P. 6 (a) resolution or to grant; such other reliefs that are deemed fit and just in the circ...
Tag this Judgment!K.G. Varghese Vs. Annamma Mariamma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-01-1967
Reported in: 1967CriLJ1419
ORDERK.K. Mathew, J.1. In C. C. No. 151 of 1966 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate's Court, Pathanamthitta, the police charged the accused with offence under Section 447 of the Penal Code in that they trespassed upon a property in the possession of P. W. 1 with intent to intimidate .and annoy P. W. 1. 30 cents of land comprised in S. No. 220/1A belonged to the father of P. W. 1. He sold the property to the 1st accused under Ext. D.1 sale deed dated 26-5-1113. In the sale deed it is recited that possession is handed over to the 1st accused. The father of P. W. 1 died in 1124 M. E. The prosecution ease was that the father of P. W. 1 and after his death P. W. 1 continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the property notwithstanding the sale deed as the 1st accused was not in the station for well nigh 23 years and that they were effecting improvements in the property. 7 cents of property, adjoining the property sold, belonged to the Government. That property was obtai...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›