Kerala Court August 1969 Judgments
Mathai Ouseph Panackal Vs. Joseph and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-21-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Ker261
ORDERV.R. Krishna Iyer, J. 1. At the end of this Order, what I say at the beginning, induced by the number of rulings cited at the bar, will be better understood. The revision relates to the soundness of the lower Court's finding on aprehiminary issue. But before going into it let me quote a passage from Paton (Jurisprudence): 'The community must be ruled by law and not by men, for then all are equally treated. But should we carry our natural love of! equality as an attribute of justice so far as to treat twenty plaintiffs unjustly becauseone binding case laid down an unjust rule Is it better to be ultimately right or consistently and persistently wrong Isaac, J., in Aust. Agric. Co. v. Federated Engineer-Drivers Assocn., (1913) 17 CLR 261 at p. 278: 'It is not in my opinion better that the Court should be persistently wrong than that it should be ultimately right.' Beverence for precedents in a country ofmany courts, as in India or America, may often defeat the very object of certaint...
Tag this Judgment!P. Ittoop Vs. Calicut-wynad Motor Service Private Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-21-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Ker279
1. On 7-6-1966 the 1st respondent employer decided to dismiss the appellant workman with immediate effect. But, presumably because approval was necessary under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, there being then an industrial dispute pending, the dismissal was actually effected only on 8-12-1966. Until then, it is not disputed, the workman was on duty and was being paid his wages. On the same day, namely, 8-12-1966, a money order for Rs. 105 was sent by the employer to the workman, and, although it was stated therein that the payment was of one month's salary in lieu of notice, it is beyond dispute that that was a misstatement and that the payment was in relation to and for the purpose of the dismissal. The money order was, however, refused by the workman. Meanwhile, the employer had, on 15-7-1966, applied to the Industrial Tribunal concerned for the necessary approval. The application came on for hearing on 30-8-1967 and it was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground tha...
Tag this Judgment!Spadigam (J.) Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-21-1969
Reported in: (1970)ILLJ718Ker
K.K. Mathew, J.1. The petitioner was a lower division clerk in the Land Revenue Department. From 1946 to 1953 he was working as head clerk in the office of the Administrative Officer, Wynad Land Colonization Scheme, Ambalavayal. In 1966 the police took up a case against him for certain irregularities alleged to have been committed by him in the discharge of his official duties. He was charged with offences punishable under Sections 409 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code. He was convicted of the offences by the Magistrate, Kalpetta; but was acquitted in appeal. In view of the pendency of the criminal case, the petitioner was suspended by the Collector of Malabar by Ex. P. 1 order. Although the petitioner was acquitted in appeal no order was passed reinstating him in service. Thereafter, for irregularities alleged to have been committed by him in keeping the accounts of the Office from 21 March 1950 to 21 March 1951, four criminal cases were filed against him by the police before the Muns...
Tag this Judgment!Kookkil Kelu Nair Vs. Kottammal Thanduparakkal Kunhi Mohammed Haji and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-19-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Ker20; 1971CriLJ218
ORDERK. Sadasivan, J. 1. The A party in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has come up in revision against the modified order pissed by the Magistrate on 26-5-1909 directing the receiver not to attach 200 acres of clear-felled area comprised in the entire extent which was already directed to be attached. In respect of this 200 acres, the B party is seen to have put forward the claim that he is in possession and some documents were also produced in support of the claim. Certain documents were filed by the A party also in support of the contrary position. The learned Magistrate after hearing both parties has passed the order under revision which reads:'The Court receiver is hereby directed not to attach those 200 acres of clear felled area (as shown in Ext. B-2). He is to attach the rest of the land. The proceedings are modified accordingly.' Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contends that this is an order passed without jurisdiction, as according ...
Tag this Judgment!Moideen and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-12-1969
Reported in: 1970CriLJ920
ORDER1. By a notification issued on the 6th June, 1969, under the Madras Districts Limits Act, 1865, the State Government constituted (with effect from the 16th June, 1969) a new revenue district, called the district of Malappuram, taking in the southern portion of the old revenue district of Kozhikode and the northern portion of the old revenue district of Palghat. And, by notifications issued on the 16th June, under Sections 10 and 12 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the State Government purported to appoint the Collector of this new district and his Personal Assistant as first class Magistrates and Additional District Magistrates therein. There was, however, no appointment of a District Magistrate and no order made under Section 7 of the Code altering the number or the limits of the Sessions divisions or districts-the notification issued on the 22nd December, 1956 under that section constituting the area covered by the old revenue districts of Kozhikode and Palghat as the Sessions di...
Tag this Judgment!Dy. Accountant General (Admn) Office of the Accountant General, Kerala ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-06-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Ker158; 1970CriLJ966
ORDER1. In August 1968, various unions of employees of the Central Government gave notice of a one-day strike on the 19th September to press some demands of theirs, a token strike as it is called, being in token or earnest of what they could and would do if the demand was not met. The Central Government, it would appear, chose to meet the threat rather than the demand. On the 13th September, the President promulgated the Essential Services Maintenance Ordinance, 1968, Section 3 whereof empowered the Central Government to prohibit strikes in any essential service as defined in Section 2, and sections 4, 5 and 6 whereof provided for penalties for persons participating in any such prohibited strike as well as for persons instigating and financing such strikes. On the same day the Central Government issued an order under Section 3 of the Ordinance, in effect prohibiting strikes in any service in connection with the affairs of the Union, although some services, like the postal, telegraph or...
Tag this Judgment!Alex Beets Vs. M.A. Urmese and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-05-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Ker312
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This petition has been moved by a medical graduate against an Honorary Medical Officer, and is for the reliefs:'..... to issue a writ of quo warranto against the 1st respondent, and(i) Declare that the post that the first respondent now claims to occupy in the General Hospital at Ernakulam is vacant;(ii) Order the ouster of the first respondent from such office and restrain him from exercising any functions or duties relating to such office;(iii) .....(iv) all such other consequential or ancillary reliefs as may be deemed just and necessary in the circumstances of the case; and allow this writ petition with costs'. Belief No. (iii) has been withdrawn and the State of Kerala, who was originally impleaded as the 2nd respondent to this motion, has been removed from the party array by the petitioner as per C. M. P. No. 46 of 1969, which was allowed by the Court on January 8, 1969. However, we have heard the learned Advocate-General as amicus curiae in the matter.2. The ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›