Kerala Court November 1971 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.
Dr. Chathukutty Vs. Janaki Amma and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-04-1971
Reported in: 1972CriLJ696
ORDERK. Sadasivan, J.1. This revision is against an order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate Alwaye under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Dr. Chathukutty the revision Petitioner's is an Ezhava aged 72. After retirement from the Cochin State Service he started a private clinic at Cranganore. Respondent No. 1, Janaki Amma is a Nair whom the revision petitioner came into contact within his clinic, where she used to go for treatment. The revision petitioner's wife was at the time, say by about 1960, had lost her health and was physically incapable of functioning as wife. This situation led the revision petitioner to form an intimacy with Janaki Amma and the intimacy resulted finally in the birth of the 2nd respondent. Sunil Kumar in the revision petitioner's clinic on 17-11-1963, Even after the birth of the child the intimacy continued between the petitioner and the 1st respondent : but by 1967 after death of the revision petitioner's wife his attitude changed he began ...
Seva Samaj Sanchalak Govardhandas Kalidas Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-03-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ker184
ORDERP. Unnikrishna Kurup, J.1. This revision petition is filed against an order of the District Judge of Ernakulam, whereby I. A. No. 47 of 1969 for condoning the delay in the presentation of G. M. A. No. 3 of 1969 before the District Court, was dismissed. The petitioner filed O. P. No. 7 of 1965 for permission to sue in forma pauperis in the Munsif's court of Cochin. That petition was dismissed by the order of the court dated 18-8-1967. The petitioner filed a C. R. P. in the High Court against the order, which was dismissed on the ground that no C. R. P. was maintainable as the proper remedy was to file an appeal. The petitioner then filed C. M. A. No. 3 of 1969 and along with it filed I. A. No. 47 of 1969 for condoning the delay. The ground alleged by the petitioner for the delay was that his legal adviser had, under a mistaken, impression, advised him to file the C.R.P. and that he did so bona fide and came to know that no revision petition lay only when it was dismissed by the Hig...
A.J. George and anr. Vs. Coffee Board and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-03-1971
Reported in: (1972)IILLJ276Ker
P. Govindan Nair, J.1. The short question in this petition is whether in all the circumstances of the case, This Court will be justified in giving a direction to the 1st respondent, the Coffee Board, constituted under the Coffee Act, 1942, to dispose of the representations Ext. P3 and P4 made by the two petitioners against a list of the employees of the Coffee Board appended to an order Ext. P2 as well as against the confirmation of respondents 2 to 7 as Chief Coffee Inspectors by an order Ext. P7, dated 11-10-1966, be heard and disposed of by orders as also a direction that the representations made by some respondents be heard and disposed of by orders.2. I shall presently refer to the facts in so far as they are necessary for the disposal of the case but I must first deal with the arguments advanced on behalf of the Coffee Board by counsel that no application under Article 226 of the Constitution would lie as the Coffee Board at best can only be said to be a statutory authority and t...
K.P. Mathai Vs. the Principal, Regional Engineering College and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-03-1971
Reported in: (1972)IILLJ283Ker
P. Govindan Nair, J.1. The petitioner was an employee of the Regional Engineering College, Calicut. The first respondent to this petition is the Principal of the College. The petitioner was dismissed from service and that dismissal is challenged in this petition.2. A preliminary objection has been raised by counsel for the respondents that this petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution as the relationship between the petitioner and the first respondent is purely that of master and servant. It is further urged that the college is not a statutory body, is not created by a statute and does not discharge any sovereign powers. It has no power to give directions. There are no statutory rules which have been infringed and which may give rise to a complaint justiciable under Article 226 of the Constitution. All these contentions of the first respondent, I consider, are well-founded. The college is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It does...
The Bank of Deccan Ltd. (In Liquidation) Represented by P.S. Anwar, Of ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-03-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ker215
ORDERP. Unnikrishna Kurup, J.1. The revision petitioner is the official liquidator. High Court of Kerala, and this petition is directed against an order of the District Court of Alleppey overruling a preliminary objec-tion raised by the petitioner regarding the jurisdiction of that court to entertain an appeal. The question that arises for consideration relates to the interpretation of Section 45-B of the Banking Companies Act, 1949. After the liquidation proceedings relating to the petitioner-Bank commenced, a report was filed bv the court-liquidator before the High Court under Section 45-C (2) of the Banking Companies Act. The High Court by its order dated 8-7-1966 allowed the proceedings then pending before the Subordinate Judge's Court, to continue in that court. Accordingly, the Subordinate Judge proceeded with the case on its file and disposed it bv the judgment dated 23rd July 1968. Thereupon, the present appeal was filed before the District Court and the question mooted is whet...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›