Kerala Court June 1968 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.
Kunjamma Cicily Vs. Kasim Beevi Sulaikha Beevi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-28-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ker293
Balakrishna Ebadi, J. 1. The 1stdefendant in O. S. 709 of 1959 on the file of the Munsiff's Court. Trivandrum is the appellant before us.2. The plaintiff-respondent brought the aforesaid suit for partition and separate possession of her alleged 1/3 share in the plaint schedule property after redemption of a usufructuary mortgage dated 13-9-1918 evidenced by Ext. P-4 on payment of the proportionate mortgage amount to the 1st defendant. The courts below have upheld the plaintiff's right to 5/32 shares in the plaint schedule property and passed a preliminary decree for partition and redemption entitling the plaintiff to recover possession of her aforesaid share on deposit of the proportionate mortgage amount and value of improvements. In this second appeal the only contention raised before us on behalf of the appellant is that the plaintiff's right to recover possession of her share of the suit property had become extinguished by adverse possession and limitation and that the suit ought t...
S. Narayanan Vs. Kannamma Bhargavi and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-26-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ker126; 1969CriLJ611
Sadasivan, J. 1. The question referred for the decision of the Full Bench is whether a party invoking the revisional jurisdiction vested under Section 435 Code of Criminal Procedure can straightway move the High Court or that he should first move the Sessions Judge or the District Magistrate and then only the High Court. The aggrieved party comes to this Court normally under Section 439 read with Section 435 of the Code. Section 435 reads:-- 'The High Court or any Sessions Judge or District Magistrate, or any Sub-Divi-sional Magistrate empowered by the State Government in this behalf may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within the local limits of its or his jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court and may, when calling for such record, direct t...
Food Inspector (Health Officer), Calicut Corporation Vs. C. Gopalan an ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-26-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ker179; 1969CriLJ733
T.C. Raghavan, J.1. The respondents in these two appeals have been acquitted by the District Magistrate of the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The charge against them was that they sold sugar adulterated with saccharin to the Food Inspector. The respondents were owners of tea shops; and they did not sell sugar as such in their shops. The District Magistrate has acquitted them on the ground that the sugar they sold to the Food Inspector was not meant to be sold, in other words, the respondents were not dealers in sugar.2. Saccharin is not prohibited as an admixture in some articles of food. Rule 44 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules of 1955 prohibits the sale of certain mixtures. But, under Clause (g) of the rule, any article of food, which contains any official sweetener except saccharin, alone is prohibited. Rule 47 prescribes that saccharin may be added to any food, if the container of such food is labelled with an adhesive decl...
Assistant Educational Officer, Kuthuparamba Vs. P.R. Mammoo and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-17-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ker91
Madhavan Naik, J. 1. On the writpetitions, O. P. Nos. 1688 and 1903 of 1965, disposed of by a common judgment (reported in 1968 Ker LT 537), Mathew, J., has held Rule 67 (1) of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959, 'in so far as it authorises the various educational authorities and the Government to suspend a teacher' of an aided school to be 'repugnant to Section 12 (2)' of the Kerala Education Act, 1958; and that has been followed by the learned Judge in O. P. No. 1461 of 1966. The State challenges those decisions in Writ Appeals Nos. 206, 207 and 245 of 1966, and a Division Bench has referred them to a Full Bench. As the appeals awaited hearing, O. P. No. 1419 of 1967, in which a penalty of reduction-in-rank imposed by a Regional Deputy Director of Public Instruction on the headmaster of an aided school is challenged on ground of a like incompetency, has also been posted to be heard along with them. It is clarified at the bar that the particular rules relevant to the O. P. are Rules 75 ...
Smt. Devayaniamma Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-17-1968
Reported in: [1969]71ITR140(Ker)
In compliance with the directions of this court in O.P. No. 878 of 1966 the following question have been referred to this court for our decision by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the disallowance of salary of Rs. 6,000 and bonus of Rs. 2,500 was justified ?(2) Whether, r on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the addition of Rs. 18,685 on the ground of purchase inflation was sustainable ?'The year of assessment with which we are concerned is 1962-63, the corresponding accounting period having ended on the 30th of September, 1961. During that year of account one Sri P. Gopinathan Nair who is the husband of the assessee, was paid sum of Rs. 1,250 per mensem as salary. The salary fixed by the assessee for Sri P. Gopinathan Nair for the period before October 1, 1960, was Rs. 1,000 per month. That the business of the ass...
A.T. Union (Private) Ltd., (by Its President) Vs. Regional Provident F ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-14-1968
Reported in: (1968)IILLJ465Ker
V. Balakrishna Eradi, J.1. The petitioner-company which is engaged in the business of motor-transport was served with a notice of demand evidenced by Ex P.1 dated 15 November 1965 by the deputy tahsildar, Alwaye, calling upon it to remit an amount of Rs. 20,767.30 being arrears of employees' provident fund contribution due by the company. The petitioner was informed by the aforesaid notice that if the amount was not paid within seven days of the service thereof proceedings for realization of the same by attachment and sale of the petitioner's properties would be taken under the Revenue Recovery Act. Subsequently on 10 July 1966 the petitioner was served with another demand dated 4 July 1966 for a sum of Rs. 250,05 also stated to be due as arrear of employees' provident fund. This notice of demand was also issued by the deputy tahsildar purporting to act under the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Revenue Recovery Act. On 27 August 1966 a bus hearing registration No. K.L.E. 78 belongi...
Ernakulam Co-operative Milk Supply Union Ltd. Vs. Government of India ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-14-1968
Reported in: (1968)IILLJ666Ker
V. Balakrishna Eradi, J.1. This petition has been preferred by a co-operative society registered under the Traancore-Cochin Co-operative Societies Act which is engaged in the business of supply of milk and milk products tot he public, the requisite milk being collected from the members of the society.2. In December 1964, respondent 2 who is the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Kerala, informed the society that the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952, and the scheme framed thereunder had become applicable to the society with effect from 30 April 1962, inasmuch as the society came within the scope of entry 22 in appendix I wherein the classes of establishments to which the Act has been made applicable Under Section 1(8)(b) of the Act have been enumerated. Respondent 2 accordingly called upon the society to remit the contribution and to submit the returns with effect from 1 May, 1962.3. Entry 22 in appendix I which was introduced by a notification of Central Government dated 7 March...
Mohammed Kutti (K.M.) Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and ors ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-13-1968
Reported in: (1968)IILLJ466Ker
M.S. Menon, C.J.1. The Vencheri Rubber Estate belonged to the petitioner's father. It came within the ambit of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952, and the Scheme framed Section 5 thereof.2. The Estate was partitioned on the death of the father among the petitioner and his two sisters. The partition was on 1 July 1964 and is evidenced by Document No. 2267 of 1964 of the office of the Sub-Registrar, Chavayoor.3. According to the petitioner the portion of the estate allotted to him on partition should be treated as a separate establishment and when so treated will not come within the ambit of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952. The submission is based on Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Act which makes it clear that the Act will not apply to establishments in which twenty or more persons are not employed. The portion of the estate which the petitioner obtained on partition, it is stated, employs less than twenty persons and is hence outside the purview of the allotment.4. I...
Mytheen Pacha Rowther Masoodu Sahib and ors. Vs. Madhavan Pillai Kunju ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-13-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ker259
M.U. Isaac, J. 1. These Second Appeals arise out of three suits for redemption of three mortgages. The contesting parties are the same; and common questions arise for decision. Hence they were heard jointly, and are being disposed of by this single Judgment. The three suits are O. S. Nos. 245 of 1122, 430 of 1123 and 564 of 1124 on the file of the Munsifs Court, Adoor. The last suit was transferred to the Munsifs Court, Punalur, wherein it was filed as O. S. No. 565 of 1956. There are two plaintiffs in each suit; and they are the same. There is only one defendant in O. S. No. 245 of 1122; and he is the 5th defendant in O. S. No 430 of 1123, and the 1st defendant in O. S. No. 565 cf 1956. The plaintiffs' right to redeem was disputed only by this defendant; and he will be referred to in this judgment as the defendant. The 2nd defendant in O. S. No. 430 of 1123 claimed that she was entitled to a share in the mortgage right sought to be redeemed in that suit; but she subsequently faded out...
M.A. Thomas Vs. P.J. Abraham and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-11-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ker146; 1969CriLJ615
ORDERT.C. Raghavan, J. 1. The petitioner, the owner of a tea factory, has been convicted underSections 7(i) and 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 9 months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate; and the conviction and sentence have been confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge. The charge against the petitioner was that he sold tea adulterated by adding prohibited coal-tar dye. 2. The Food Inspector visited the tea factory on 28th January, 1967 and purchased 375 grams of tea dust from a stock stored and exposed for sale. The sample was divided into three parts and packed and sealed in three clean dry bottles; one bottle was handed over to the petitioner, another was sent to the Public Analyst the same day and the third was retained with the food Inspector. The report of the Public Analyst (Ex. P6) appears to have been signed on 7th May, 1967; and the prosecution was started on 4th July, 1967. The prosecut...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »