Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1967CriLJ1719
ORDERM.U. Isaac, J.1. The Petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively in C. C. No. 172 of 1965 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hosdrug. They were convicted by the learned Magistrate for the offence under Section 16(1)(a) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and Rule 44-A of the Rules made thereunder; and each of them was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000. They filed an appeal in the Sessions Court of Tellicherry as Cri. Appeal No. 93 of 1965. Their conviction and sentence were confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge. The petitioners have therefore, come in revision before this Court,2. Petitioner No. 1 is a dealer in provision articles within the Muliyar Panchayat. Second petitioner is a salesman in the provision shop. On 81.5-1965 at 10.45 A. M , P. W. 1 the Food Inspector of the Panchayat inspected the provision shop of the first petitioner; an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1968Ker197
Mathew, J.1. This is an appeal from in order dismissing an application filed by the petitioner before the court below stating that he is prepared to pay a price of Rs 30.000 for a building sold by the Official Liquidator appointed in Company Petition No. 1 of the 1964 of the Quilon District Court, for winding up of a company called 'Kundara Enamel Industries'. The Official Liquidator was directed by an order of the court to sell certain items of properties and the property with which we are concerned is a building sitnata in a land on which the company has a kuthakapattom right. The court authorised the Official Liquidator to sell the building fixing an upset price of Rs. 50,000. On 14-11-1966 the petitioner filed a petition stating that he was prepared to purchase the building if it is offered for a reasonable sum. When the property came up for sale, the Government Pleader on behalf of Government, the major creditor, stated that the building can easily be sold for a higher amount. As ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1967)IILLJ639Ker
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. The petitioner is the superintendent of Koodalmanickom devaswom, Irinjalakuda Respondent 1 was a pattamali under the devaswom, who was dismissed from service by the petitioner, for certain irregularities in connexion with the discharge of his duties as pattamali. Respondent 1 preferred an appeal under Section 18 (2) of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act 18 of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Shops Act) to respondent 2, the appellate authority. The appeal was allowed and the petitioner was directed within a specified time to reinstate respondent 1 with continuity of service and on payment of Rs. 1,000 in lieu of back-wages for the period for which he was kept out of employment; or, in the alternative to pay respondent 1, within the specified period, a sum of Rs. 3,000 as compensation in lieu of reinstatement, back-wages and all other claims. Exhibit P. 3 is a copy of the communication from the petitioner of gist of the order passed on appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1968Ker198; (1969)ILLJ201Ker
ORDERK.K. Mathew, J.1. The petitioners were Government servants and they held the posts mentioned in paragraph 1 of the affidavit in sup-port of the writ petition. They retired from service on the various dates mentioned in the same paragraph. By a series of orders passed by Government the age of compulsory retirement on superannuation of all categories of Government employees was raised to 58 years.2. The contention of the petitioners originally was that the said orders fixed different dates for their commencement and that on account of it the petitioners were denied the right to continue in service until they completed the age of 58 years. The first order passed by Government is dated 31-1-1966 and it is marked Ext. P-1. In that order Government said that in view of the scarcity of medical personnel, doctors will be given extension of service upto the age of 58 years as a matter of course until the scarcity of doctors abates, reserving the right to terminate the service with one mont...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1969)ILLJ640Ker
P. Govindan Nair, J.1. The question is whether the petitioner who was appointed as a probationer in the Indian Police Service by Ex. P. 1 order dated 20 February 1964 was discharged from service by Ex. R. 1 order (R. 1 produced along with the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent 1, the Government of India) dated 31 January 1966 or whether he has been punished in the manner stated in Article 311 of the Constitution of India.2. After the petitioner was appointed as a probationer with effect from 10 January 1964, he apparently continued as a probationer till the order Ex. R. 1 referred to was passed by the President of India and communicated to the petitioner. According to the petitioner what has been done is not merely to terminate the probation of the petitioner but for extraneous reasons to terminate his services in the Indian Police Service amounting to dismissal from service.3. It has not been disputed before me by counsel on behalf of the petitioner, who stated his case I...
Tag this Judgment!