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.
Valia Veettil Komappan Vs. Elamakandy Kinnattumkara Karthiyayini and o ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-05-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ker203
ORDERK. Sadasivan, J.1. The question arising in this revision is whether the court-fee paid on a plaint presented in the wrong Court could be given credit to when the plaint is re-presented in the proper Court. The suit was originally filed in the Munsiff's Court of Quilandy. It was found on a preliminary enquiry that the plaint claim was undervalued with a view to bring it within the jurisdiction of the Munsiffs Court. The plaint was accordingly returned. From that order the plaintiff appealed to the District Judge and the learned District Judge in dismissing the appeal pointed out that the plaint could be re-presented after deleting the prayer for recovery, thereby bringing it within the jurisdiction of the Munsiff Court. From that order a revision was preferred to this Court in C. R. P. 16/64 and in dismissing that petition this Court observed:--'The learned Judge has pointed out that the plaintiff can re-present the plaintwith the prayer for recovery of the buildings deleted. In vi...
Workmen of Harrison and Crosfield Ltd. (by CochIn Commercial Employees ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-03-1968
Reported in: (1969)ILLJ61Ker
M.U. Isaac, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by the Cochin Commercial Employees' Association, Cochin, representing the workmen of the Cochin branch office of Harrisons & Crosfield, Ltd., Quilon. The petitioner seeks to quash an award, Ex. P. 4, dated 10 September 1966, passed by respondent 4, the industrial tribunal, Alleppey, in Industrial Dispute No. 14 of 1962, in so far as the award provides for the scaling down of gratuity payable to the workmen. Respondent 1 is the employer :and respondents 2 and 3 are two trade unions representing other workmen employed in the office of respondent 1 under the Quilon branch.2. In 1961, the petitioner placed a charter of demands before respondent 1. The dispute was settled between the parties as per an agreement, Ex. P. 1, dated 25 July 1931. Two issues were left open, one relating to revision of basic salary and fitment, and the other relating to gratuity. It was agreed that these issues would be settled by further co...
City Corporation of Calicut Vs. Thachambalath Sadasivan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-02-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ker99
Sadasivan, J. 1. These appeals have been preferred by the City Corporation of Calicut against the judgment of Gopalan Nambiyar, J., in Original Petition Nos. 2962 & 3037 of 1965. The petitioners challenged the validity of the levy by the Corporation, of licence fee for soaking coconut husks in soaking pits in their property. The Corporation would justify the impost under Section 299 read with Section 387 and Schedule IV of the Calicut City Municipal Act, (Act 30 of 1961) renamed as the Kerala Municipal Corporation Act (Act 13 of 1964). The case of the petitioners is that as a fee the levy is not justified by the provisions of the statute and as a tax it is beyondthe power of taxation conferred on the Corporation. The stand taken by the Corporation on the other hand is that the levy is a tax. Alternatively it is also contended by the Corporation that it is a 'fee for licence'. The learned Single Judge has held in his judgment dated 8-2-1967 that as a fee the levy is unsustainable since ...
Parameswara Moothar Vs. Balameenakshi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-02-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ker108; 1969CriLJ484
ORDERT.C. Raghavan, J.1. A short question devoid of many precedents under Section 489 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is raised in this case. The question is whether an enhancement of the maintenance allowance can be made to take effect from the date of the application for enhancement instead of from the date of the order.2. Mr. T. Chandrasekhara Menon, the Counsel of the petitioner (the husband),Invites my attention to the decision of the Calcutta High Court in J. H. Amroon v. Miss R. Sasoon, AIR 1949 Cal 584 by Blank, J. That was a case where the maintenance allowance was raised from Rs. 12/- to Rs. 50/- per month; and Blank, J., held that the enhancement could not be made retrospective from the date of the application, in other words, the enhancement could be only from the date of the order. An old decision in Parvatham v. Muthu Pillai, 2 Weir 650 was cited before Blank, J. That was a case where the maintenance allowance was reduced; and the learned Chief Justice held that since t...
State of Kerala Vs. C.K. Assainar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-02-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ker151; 1969CriLJ731
ORDERT.C. Raghavan, J.1. The respondent, the accused in a crime before Perintalmanna Police Station, applied before the Munsif-Magistrate, Pattambi for an order directing the Collector to produce before Court the nice seized from him. The Taluk Supply Officer filed objections claiming that the Collector was not bound to produce the rice before the Munsif-Magistrate. The Munsif-Magistrate overruled the objection and passed an order directing the Collector to produce the rice. The State of Kerala has filed the revision petition against that order.2. A lorry belonging to the respondent carrying 100 bags of rice capsized on 3rd March, 1968, at about 5 p. m. The police reached the scene and seized the rice and the lorry. The respondent and the lorry were produced before the Munsif-Magistrate the next day; and the 100 bags ofrice were retained by the police to be produced before the Collector. The respondent was also charged under Section 279 of the Penal Code. The grounds on which the Munsi...
Ponnamma Pillai Indira Pillai and anr. Vs. Padmanabhan Channar Kesavan ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-01-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ker163
Mathew, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. In this appeal we are concerned only with plaint Items 1 to 5 of A Schedule properties. These items belonged to the Marumakkathayam joint family of the plaintiffs. They were originally allotted to the tavazhl of their mother Ponnamma in a partition in their tarwad. Ponnamma died sometime in 1941, leaving the two plaintiffs, both minors, as the sole surviving members of the joint family. On 9-6-1943, when the plaintiffs were minors, their father the 4th defendant, purporting to act as their guardian, and their maternal grandparents, sold the properties to the 1st defendant by Ext. P-1 and put him in possession. The suit was for recovery of possession of the properties after setting aside the sale deed for the reason that the executants were incompetent in law to alienate the properties, and it was filed in forma pauperis on 1-2-1954.2. The 1st defendant gifted the properties to his children, defendants 5 and 6, by Ext. D-6 dated 7-10-1949....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›