Kerala Court February 1974 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.
Balakrishna Reddiar Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-05-1974
Reported in: (1974)IILLJ534Ker
P. Subramonian Poti, J.1. Challenge is made in the original petitioner to Ext. P1 order passed by the Additional Deputy Labour Commissioner, Trivandrum functioning as the appellate authority under Section 18(2) of the Kerala Shops & Commercial Establishments Act, 1960. The appellant in the said appeal claimed to be an employee of the respondent who was having a shop at Alleppey of the name Messrs. Asia Sea Foods, Alleppey, carrying on the business of running a fishing boat to catch fish from the sea. The appellant was said to have been employed by the respondent as a driver in one of the mechanised fishing boats belonging to the respondent. Is remuneration was said to be Rs. 75 per mensem in addition to 5 per cent of the net catch and other incidental remuneration like special remuneration for repairing and overhauling the boat and for starting the engine by means of handle. The appellant's case was that he was denied employment on 24-2-1966 as he was not allowed to go as driver on the...
State of Kerala Vs. Neelakantan Damodaran and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-04-1974
Reported in: 1974CriLJ1107
E.K. Moidu, J.1. The respondent in each of the petitions has been convicted under Section 7(i) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Central Act 37 of 1954) -- hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' -- and the respondent in the first of the two petitions was released on admonition under Section 3, and the respondent in the other petition was released on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (Central Act 20 of 1958), without awarding any sentence. The State has filed these two revision petitions questioning the impropriety and illegality of the order.2. The Food Inspector in the first case purchased gingili oil from the respondent and it was found to be adulterated on analysis by the Public Analyst. The purchase of gingili oil, the procedure adopted by the Food Inspector in sampling and the final result of the analysis by the Public Analyst were not disputed, On analysis it was found that the standard of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›