Kerala Court November 1974 Judgments
Superintendent, Lokhart Estate Vs. Kaliappan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-27-1974
Reported in: (1976)ILLJ354Ker
P. Subramonian Poti, J.1. These appeals are from two orders of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Ernakulam. A.S. Nos. 3 and 125 of 1974 are by the first opposite party and the second opposite party respectively in Workmen's Compensation Case No. 556 of 1969, while A.S. Nos. 5 and 124 of 1974 are by the first opposite party and the second opposite party respectively in Workmen's Compensation Case No. 486 of 1969. The short facts necessary for these appeals are these. The first opposite party, the Superintendent of the Lockhart Estate, Devicolam had engaged the second opposite party. Shri Vakko for the purpose of constructing cooli-lines in the estate. The said Vakko had engaged labourers to carry out the work of construction. In the course of such work, two workmen were injured by the blasting of stones. One died and another lost 4 fingers of his left palm. The injured workman and the heir of the deceased workman moved the two applications before the Workmen's Compensation Co...
Tag this Judgment!Fathima Beebi Vs. M.K. Ravindranathan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-27-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ1164
P. Govindan Nair, C.J.1. This is one in a series of petitions praying for the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, arising from the orders of detention passed under Section 3(1)(c) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, for short, the Act, as amended by the Maintenance of Internal Security (Amendment) Ordinance, 1974 (No. 11 of 1974), issued by the President under Article 123 of the Constitution, It is by the amending Ordinance that Section 3(1)(c) was enacted which is in these terms:3. Power to make orders detaining certain Persons : - (1) The Central Government or the State Government may-(a) ....(b) ....(c) if satisfied with respect to any person (including a foreigner) that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the conservation of foreign exchange or with a view to preventing him from-(i) smuggling goods, or(ii) abetting other persons to smuggle goods or(iii) dealing in smuggled goods it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that s...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Seetha and ors. Vs. Kayiyath Krishnan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Ker70
Balakrishna Eradi, J.1. The question arising for decision in this case is whether under the customary maru-makkathayam law which obtained in the Malabar area prior to the passing of the Madras Marumakkathayam Act there is a presumption that in the case of a gift, bequest or acquisition made by a person in the sole name of his marumakkathayee wife or in the joint names of the wife and one or more of her children to the exclusion of some others the benefit of such transaction is to enure to the tava-zhi consisting of the wife and all her children together with the lineal descendants in the female line. This case has been referred to a Full Bench because of an apparent conflict between the views expressed on the said question in two Division Bench rulings of this court. In Prabhakara Menon v. Gopala Menon, 1960 Ker LJ 161, a Division Bench consisting of M. S, Menon, J. (as he then was) and T. K. Joseph, J., while dealing with a case from the Malabar area observed that 'in the case of gift...
Tag this Judgment!Kollanchil Padinhakkara Abdulrahiman and anr. Vs. Kunhimohamad and ors ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Ker150
George Vadakkel, J. 1. In respect of the suit properties the plaintiff -- she was the sole plaintiff; plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3, her husband and one of her two sisters, came in on her death as her legal representatives -- executed Ext. B-l gift deed on 30-11-1960 in favour of her deceased brother's children, defendants- Nos. 1 to 3, and got it registered on 4-12-1960. Thereafter on 10-12-1960 she executed Ext. A-10 cancellation deed, and on 21-12-1960 filed the suit out of which this appeal arises for cancellation of Ext. B-l sift deed. Pending trial of the suit she died issue-less on 2-6-1961. The 4th defendant is her other sister- She is neither contesting the suit nor seeking any relief in respect of the suit properties. The trial Court decreed the suit but the lower appellate Court reversed the same. Plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 have come up in appeal.2. Admittedly, the plaintiff was not well at the time of the execution of Ext. B-l, and thereafter also. The evidence of P. W. 1, the son o...
Tag this Judgment!Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Smt. Suhara Beevi w/o. Late ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-1974
Reported in: (1975)IILLJ255Ker
G. Balagangadharan Nair, J.1. In this appeal under Section 82(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act (called hereunder merely as the Act) the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (which I will call the Corporation) challenges an order of the Employees' State Insurance Court giving: the respondent, a declaration that her husband Abdul Rahiman died of injuries caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment and that she is, there fore, entitled to the benefits under the Act. The brief facts are the following; Abdul Rahiman was an insured employee of the Indian Rare Earths Ltd., (for brief the company). He used to go to the company for work in public transport vehicle (bus) as authorised by the company. As the company had provided no vehicles it used to pay the employees travelling by buses for going to and from the company, a subsidy of 70% of the bus fare. On 23-3-1972 Abdul Rahiman was proceeding in a bus for reporting for work at 8 A.M. in the company and ...
Tag this Judgment!Kuniyil Parvathi Amma and ors. Vs. Vilangil Mani Amma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-14-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Ker139
Gopalan Nambiar, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants in this Second Appeal. The appeal was referred to a Division Bench by a learned Judge of this Court, as it was felt that the decision of the Travancore-Cochin High Court in Kunjaiyyappan v. Unnaman, AIR 1955 Trav-Co 279 is in conflict with an earlier ruling of the same court in Arokia v. Sowriyaru, AIR 1953 Trav-Co 305. The question to be considered in this case is as to the nature, of the acquisition made by a managing co-owner by making use of the funds of the co-ownership property; viz., whether the acquisition itself Is to be treated as enuring for the benefit of all the co-owners, or whether, the acquisition would enure only for the benefit of the acquirer, leaving the other co-owners only with a right to demand their share of the co-ownership funds which had gone into the acquisition.2. One Chathappan Nambiar died in 1943 leaving his wife who died in 1957 and five sons, viz., Rairu Kurup, Narayana Kurup, Chathu Kurup, Kanna ...
Tag this Judgment!Geevarghese Yohannan and anr. Vs. P.J. Abraham Kathanar and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-06-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ985
ORDERS.K. Kader, J.1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the B Party in M.C. No. 1 of 1974, for quashing a proceeding instituted under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, by the Executive First Class Magistrate Quilon2. The subject-matter of the case is the Jacobite Syrian Puftien Church, Kundara, 'Kurissuthotti'. cemetery and the Sunday School building situated in 'one acre and one cent of land comprised in Sy. No. 654/9A in Thrippalazhikom .Muri, in Ezhukon Village, within the jurisdiction of the Executive First Class ^Magistrate, Quilon. This proceeding was instituted on the basis of a report of the 'Circle Inspector of Police, Kottarakara, submitted after enquiry into a petition iiled by the A Party before the Superintendent of Police, and duly counter-signed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Adoor, A-Party consists of 4 persons while B-Party, 25 persons.3. In pursuance of the notice issued following the preli...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›