Kerala Court June 1967 Judgments
BenjamIn (M.J.) Vs. Industrial Tribunal and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-28-1967
Reported in: (1967)IILLJ825Ker
M.U. Isaac, J.1. This is a petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, by a person formerly employed in Harrisons & Crosfield, Ltd., Cochin-3, who is respondent 2 in this case, to quash an award of the Industrial tribunal, Calicut, In Industrial Dispute No. 61 of 1965. Tula award Is dated 17 January 1996, and has been published In Part I of the Kerala Gazette No. 7 dated 15 February 1966. The industrial tribunal is respondent 1, and the copy of the award la marked as Ex. P. 2 in this case. This award was passed on an application filed by the petitioner before respondent 1 on 17 August 1965 under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), complaining of termination of his service in contravention of Section 33 of the Act, and praying for an award for his reinstatement. The application was opposed by respondent 2 on several grounds; and hence it was posted for evidence to 18 October 1065. On the application of the petitioner'...
Tag this Judgment!Navaneethalal P. Lalan, Son of Popat Lal Moolji Vs. Manilal Damji, Son ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-16-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Ker58
P.T. Raman Nayar, J.1. Where, as in this case, a plaint is rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 (b) of the Code there is no adjudication whatsoever regarding the subject matter of the suit. The only adjudication is as to whether or not the relief claimed is undervalued, and, in an appeal from the rejection, 'the subject matter of the appeal' within the meaning of Section 52 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, or 'the subject matter in dispute' within the meaning of Article 1 of Schedule I is the under valuation found, not the subject matter of the suit. Kalliappa v. Kandaswami. AIR 1938 Mad 498 and Apparao Sheshrao v. Mt. Bhagubai, AIR 1949 Nag 1 (FB) with which I am in respectful agreement. Where the order appealed against determines the amount of the undervaluation, court fee will doubtless be payable on that amount under Article 1 of Schedule I of the Court Fees Act, 1870 in cases to which that Act applies as held in the decisions referred to above since that would be the a...
Tag this Judgment!Kesavan Vadhyan Namboodri Vs. State of Kerala Represented by the Chief ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-16-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Ker279
ORDERM.U. Isaac, J. 1. The petitioner is said to be a karnavan of a very ancient and premier Namboodiri family in the erstwhile State of Cochin. This State was integrated with the erstwhile State of Travancore; and the United State of Travancore and Cochin was formed with effect from the first day of July, 1949 as per a covenant entered into between the Ruler of these two States. Subsequently this integrated State came to be known as the State of Travancore-Cochin, and became one of the States in Part B of the I Schedule to the Constitution. As result of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, the State of Travancore-Cochin ceased to exist; and the State of Kerala was formed consisting of a majorpart of the State of Travancore-Cochin and what was known as the Malabar District of the former State of Madras. Kerala State was formed with effect from 1-11-1956.The petitioner claims that the members of his Mana are traditionally erudite Scholars in the Rig Veda, and were the hereditary high pr...
Tag this Judgment!T.C. Balakrishnan Menon and ors. Vs. T.R. Subramanian and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-12-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Ker151
T.C. Raghavan, J. 1. Though this second appeal has been argued at some length and some decisions have also been cited. I donot find much force in the case. 2. The second appeal arises out of a suit for damages by the first respondent, a minor represented by his father, for injuries caused to him by the explosion of a minnal gundu at the Trichur Pooram in April 1959. The second respondent is the 20th defendant, the independent contractor who attended to the exhibition of fire works; and the appellants are some of the members of the Pooram Celebration Committee They were members of the Paramekkavu Devaswom Committee as well alone with some others who were also impleaded as defendants in the suit. I may add that the Paranwkkavu Devaswom itself was the first defendant. Both the lower courts have decreed the suit; and there is no dispute now regarding the quantum of damages or regarding the finding that the injury was caused by the negligence of the 20th defendant , The trial court made the...
Tag this Judgment!Joseph Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-09-1967
Reported in: [1967]20STC261(Ker)
M.S. Menon, C.J.1. It is common ground that the sole question for determination in this case is whether the 'prawn pulp' sold by the petitioner comes under the expression 'prawn' in Notification No. HI-17041/57/RD-1, dated 1st November, 1958. The notification appears on pages 3319 and 3320 of Part I of the Kerala Gazette dated 4th November, 1958.2. An article entitled 'Prawns, Shrimps and Lobsters' in the Seafood Trade Journal for January 1967 deals with them as follows :Prawns, shrimps and lobsters belong to the class of animals popularly known as 'Shell-fish'. Mussels, clams, oysters, chanks etc. are also shell-fish, but belong to an entirely different class known to zoologists as 'Mollusca' the former coming under the 'Crustacea'. With few exceptions they are aquatic (living in water). For convenience of study the Crustacea divided into several orders and the three groups forming the subject of this article come under the 'Decapoda' (having 10 legs) which also includes crabs and cra...
Tag this Judgment!Angadi Veettil Sreedharan Vs. Cheruvalli Illath Sreedharan Embrandiri ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-06-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Ker195
P.T. Raman Nayar, J.1. I think the true rule in the case of an appeal brought against a person who is dead is that, if an application for amending the memorandum of appeal by substituting his legal representatives in is place is brought within the time prescribed for instituting the appeal or within the time as extended under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the application should be allowed and the appeal entertained. Else the application should be dismissed, and, consequently, the appeal as a proceeding against a dead person -- See Bank of Commerce, Khulna v. Protap Chandra, 1946 FCR 32: (AIR 194R FC 13) and Santi Prasanna Mukherji v. Harendranath Ballabh, ILR (1948) 1 Cal 25.2. In these cases the respondent named in the memoranda of appeal admittedly died on 9-9-1966, but the appeals with the dead person alone shown as the respondent were instituted only on 24-10-1966. The last day for filing the appeals was 31-12-1966 but the applications for substituting the legal representatives ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›