Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1971Ker1
Raman Nayar, Ag. C.J.1. The payment of Rs. 9250/- which the petitioner seeks to recall was an entirely voluntary payment. It was made to the 1st respondent, Registrar of Companies for the fee payable under Section 611 of the Companies Act read with item 2 of Schedule X thereof, for the registration of a company which the petitioner and respondents 4 to 9 were promoting. (A small portion, Rs. 240/-, was for some other fee, but since the petitioner does not want that to be treated on a different footing that may be ignored). There was no question of the Registrar using his official authority either then or at any future time for compelling the payment. There was no refusal on his part to perform the services for which the fee was paid. Indeed it was the petitioner who, after the papers had been returned to him after senitiny for the rectification of certain defects, that decided not to proceed with the matter, whether for reasons within or beyond his control is of no consequence. There i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1970Ker98; 1970CriLJ688
Raman Nayar, Ag. C.J. 1. The accused person in this case, Sreedharan aged 42 was tried by the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Kottayam. on charges under Sections 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code The charge under Section 307 related to an assault with a knife on one Balakrishnan, who has been examined as Pw. 1 at the trial, and that under section 324 to an assault on Balakrishnan's brother, Karunakaran, who has been examined as Pw. 2. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that the mens rea necessary for an offence under Section 307 had not been made out -- he seems to have thought that a clear intention to cause death was necessary and, in doing so, he relied on two decisions by a Single Judge of this court in Moidu v. State of Kerala, 1967 Ker LT 223 and Isaac v. State of Kerala, 1967 Ker LT 689, a third more or less on the same lines Krishnan v. Abdulla, 1968 Ker LT 929 has been brought to our notice in the course of the hearing. He found the accused guilty under Section 3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1971Ker18; 1971CriLJ57
Raman Nayar, AG.C.J.1. The three accused persons in this case -- we are here concerned only with the first two -- were tried by the Addl. First Class Magistrate, Nedumangad on charges under Sections 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate convicted the 1st and 2nd accused under Sections 323, 324 and 320 of the Code (presumably read with Section 34, although that was not expressly stated) and sentenced each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, awarding no separate sentences for the other offences. The 3rd accused he acquitted, and that acquittal is not questioned.On appeal, the Sessions Judge, Trivandrum, while confirming the conviction and sentence of the 1st accused, altered the conviction of the 2nd accused to one under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and reduced his sentence to a fine of Rs. 75/- with a default sentence of two months rigorous imprisonment. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1970Ker194; (1970)ILLJ453Ker
Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J. 1. These appeals filed under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (Act 34 of 1948) involve an interesting and important question relating to the interpretationof Section 2, Sub-section (9) of the said Act, which defines 'Employee' in the following manner. ''Employee' means any person employed for wages in or in connection with the work of a Factory or establishment to which this Act applies and- (i) who is directly employed by the principal employer on any work of, or incidental or preliminary to, or connected with the work of, the factory or establishment whether such work is done by the employee in the factory or establishment or elsewhere; or, (ii) who is employed by or through an immediate employer on the premises of the factory or establishment or under the supervision of the principal employer or his agent on work is ordinarily part of the work of the factory or establishment or which is preliminary to the work carried on in or incidenta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1970Ker165
Govindan Nair, J. 1. The petitioner la each of these Writ Petitions was a member of the Madras State Judicial Service on 31-10-1956 the day prior to the 'appointed day' for the purposes of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and they have all been allotted by orders passed by the Central Government under Sections 115(2) and 115(3) of the Act to the Kerala State. The petitions in one form or other challenge the principles adopted in the integration of the petitioners with their compeers in the former State of Travancore-Cochin, and these petitions were heard together. 2. The Act is a law passed by Parliament under the provisions of Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the Constitution of India and inter alia contains supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions relating to the integration of the personnel who are to form the members of the services in the newly formed States. Kerala is a new Part A State comprising the territories mentioned hi Section 5 ...
Tag this Judgment!