Kerala Court July 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.
Sankaranarayanan (C.) and ors. Vs. State of Kerala (by Chief Secretary ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-22-1968
Reported in: (1970)ILLJ263Ker
K.K. Mathew, J.1. The petitioner is Original Petition No. 1794 of 1968 is a teacher in an aided school and in Original Petition No. 1795 of 1968 a teacher in a Government school. They question the validity of Ex. P. 5 order passed by the Government on 4 May 1967 reducing the age of retirement of the teachers in Government and aided schools to 55. They contend that the Government is estopped from reducing the age of retirement of the teachers to 55. The petitioner in Original Petition No. 1794 of 1968 also contends that the relevant rule is the Kerala Education Act has not been amended to give effect to Ex. P. 5 order, and therefore, as the rule stands, he can be retired only at the age of 60.2. Exhibit P. 2 is a memorandum of the Private School Teachers' Association presented to the Adviser to the Governor in November 1955. In that., the association raised twelve demands, the eleventh being that the age of retirement of teachers be raised to 60. Exhibit P. 3 is a press release, dated 2...
E. Ramavarama Raja Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-18-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ker317; (1970)ILLJ526Ker
1. The short question arising for decision is whether the alteration by Ext. P 3 order of the date of birth of the petitioner entered in the Service Register, from 15-12-1912 (1-5-1089 M. E.) into 13-12-1911 (28-4-1087 M. E-) is illegal, justifying interference by this Court, in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The petitioner entered service on 17-7-1939 (1-12-1114 M. E.), Regulation 352F (c) of the Travancore Service Regulations which admittedly governed the petitioner is in these terms :--'352-F (c). The age of an officer whether gazetted or non-gazetted, can be recorded only on receipt of satisfactory proof. Once the date of birth has been accepted and recorded in the service register, it should form conclusive evidence of the same in respect of all future Government transactions. The entry in the service register should be full and it should indicate on what evidence the date of birth is accepted by the appointing officer or the Head of the office. The following...
K.O. Varkey Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by the Chief Secy. to Gov ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-17-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ker191
ORDERK.K. Mathew, J.1. This petition, filed on behalf of two aided schools, the C. N. I. Training School for Men and Women, Kotta-yam, and the B. I. Training School for Women, Pallom, Kottayam, is for the issue of an appropriate writ or direction restraining the respondent from enforcing Rules 6, 7 and 8 of Chapter XXV of the Kerala Education Rules as against these schools. Both the schools are owned by the Diocese of Madhya Kerala and the petitioner represents the same. The Madhya Kerala Diocese is part of the Church of South India. The Church represents a denomination among Christians and on the basis of the averment in the affidavit in support of the petition, I think that the denomination is a 'minority' within the meaning of Article 30.2. In A. M. Patroni v. E. C. Kesavan, AIR 1965 Ker 75 at p. 76 (FB), this Court said:'..................... The word 'minority' is not denned in the Constitution and in the absence of any special definition we must hold that any community, religious...
Ahamad Thomman Thodi Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-17-1968
Reported in: (1969)ILLJ215Ker
M.U. Isaac, J.1. In the Kerala Gazette, dated 25 February 1964, a notification, dated 20 February 1964, was published by the Public Service Commission, Kerala, who is respondent 2 in this case, inviting applications from qualified candidates for selection for recruitment for a few appointments in the Public Service. Item X in this notification related to appointment of ' Instructor in costume design and cutting.' The qualifications specified were the following :Qualifications-I. Minimum general educational qualification of S.S.L.C. standard.II. (a) Diploma in Dress-making, Designing and Tailoring i'rom the Women's Institute of Domestic Arts and Science, London, or(b) Group Certificate in Tailoring, K.G.T.E. or M.G.T.E. with three years' experience-practical or teaching-in Government or similar organizations or firms of repute.Desirable.-Experience as instructor in costume designing and cutting.Age-limit,-Not above 28 years on 1 July 1964, relaxable by three years in the case of backwar...
State Vs. Gopala Pillai Sadasivan Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-16-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ker250; 1969CriLJ1142
T.C. Raghavan, J. 1. respondent was acquitted of a charge under Section 409 of the Penal Code; and the State has filed the appeal The appeal has been admitted; and in spite of the best efforts of the State, notice in the appeal has not been served on the respondent; his where about are not known.2. The latter part of Section 422 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies to a case like this; and the appellate Court shall cause a notice to be given to the accused. This provision is mandatory, which appears from the language of the section itself; and the Supreme Court has also said so in Mohammed Dastagir v. State of Madras, AIR 1960 SC 756. In that case a counsel wrote to the Registrar of the Madras High Court that he had instructions to appear for the accused. Thereafter, the Registrar issued a notice to him when the appeal became ready and the Registrar also issued a notice to the accused. The counsel also appeared before the High Court at the time of the hearing of the appeal, nevert...
Commissioner, Municipal Council, Tellicherry and anr. Vs. Ramesh S.M. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-12-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ker109
Sadasivan, J.1. In this, as in Writ Appeals Nos. 107 and 108 of 1967 = (AIR 1960 Ker 99) (FB), which we have already disposed of, the questions are common. The present appellant is the Municipal Council, Tellicherry represented by its Commissioner. The Municipality demanded from one Ramesh S. M. Prabhu, Proprietor of Medical & Allied Supplies, Tellicherry. licence fee for running the medical shop. The demand was made under Section 284 of the Kerala Municipalities Act (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') which reads:--'284. Purposes for which places may not be used without licence. -- (1) The council may publish a notification in the Gazette and by beat of drum that no place within municipal limits shall be used for any cne or more of the purposes specified in Schedule III without the licence of the Commissioner and except In accordance with the conditions specified therein and where the licence is for keeping hostels, restaurants, eating houses, coffee houses, laundries or runn...
CochIn Malleables (Private) Ltd. Vs. Its workman (represented by CochI ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-12-1968
Reported in: (1969)ILLJ199Ker
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. This writ petition is directed against Ex. P. 7 award of the labour court, Quilon, in a dispute between the Cochin Malleables (Private), Ltd., Trichur, and their workmen. The dispute referred to, as stated in the award, was the termination of the services of 43 workers. The labour court found that two of the workmen covered by the reference were still in service and no adjudication was called for regarding them. Of the rest, it found that eight were probationers and the remaining 33 had to be treated as temporary workmen. It found that the services of the probationers had been terminated before the period of probation was over, and their discharge, stated to be for unsatisfactory conduct, without making out any basis for the same, was without bona fides and was arbitrary. In respect of the remaining temporary workmen, it found that the termination of services was a colourable exercise of power and that the employer had not discharged the burden of proving th...
Malabar Tile Works (Represented by Kerala Varma, Attorney) Vs. Industr ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-08-1968
Reported in: (1970)ILLJ79Ker
V. Balakrishna Eradi, J.1. This writ petition has been preferred by the management of the Malabar Tile Works, Feroke, seeking to quash the award of the industrial tribunal, Calicut, dated 28 December 1955, evidenced by Ex. P. 7 whereby the tribunal has directed the management to pay bonus to the workers concerned in the reference at the rate of 25 per cent of the total earnings on the ground that they are entitled to payment of bonus at the same rate as had been allowed by the management to the members of their clerical staff.2. The claim put forward by the petitioners before the tribunal who are daily-rated workers of the concern was that the bonus already paid to them by the management at 26 per cent of their basic wages for the year 1958 was inadequate, inasmuch as the 'profits of the company for that year Justified payment of bonus at 37 1/2 per cent and that, in any event, they had been discriminated against inasmuch as the company had paid for the identical period bonus to the cl...
Thoppil Sankaranarayana Panicker and ors. Vs. Achuthankutty Nair and o ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-08-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ker188; 1969CriLJ735
ORDERT.C. Raghavan, J.1. The first of these revision petitions is against a preliminary order passed by the Executive First Class Magistrate under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; and the second revision petition is against an order passed by the same Executive First Class Magistrate under Section 112 of the Code. The subject-matter of these revision petitions is the same,2. The first point argued by the counsel of the petitioners in Crl. R. P. No. 236 of 1968 is that the Magistrate has no power to appoint a receiver under Section 145(4) of the Code: he has power to appoint a receiver only under Section 146(2). There are no recent authorities on this question; and there is also difference of opinion among some of the High Courts. In Diwan Chand v. Emperor, AIR 1929 Lah 223 Dalip Singh, J., of the Lahore High Court following a decision of the Patna High Court and also an old decision of the Madras High Court held that the Magistrate had no power under Section 145(4) to app...
Thadikulangara Pylee's son Pathrose Vs. Ayyazhiveettil Lakshmi Amma's ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-05-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ker186
ORDERP.T. Raman Nayar, J.1. Despite apparent authority to the contrary in Liacat Husain v. Mo-hammad Razi, AIR 1944 Oudh 198 and NaUxsa Naicker v. Sambanda Chettiar, AIR 1941 Mad 918 I am inclined to the view that a subsequent binding authority (I emphasise the word, 'binding') taking a different view of the law (in this case the subsequent decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Kochukutty v. Abraham Tharakan. 1968 Ker LT 23 taking a different view of the law from what I took in the decision sought to be reviewed) is a good ground for review. For it seems to me that it would be the discovery of a new and important matter, and, in any case, an error apparent on the face of the record, within the meaning of Rule 1 of Order XLVI1 of the Code, To adopt the language of the Supreme Court in Thunsabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1372 at p. 1377 this would be a case Where, without any elaborate argument, one could point to an error regarding which there co...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »