Kerala Court January 1979 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.
Thottuvarambath Velayudhan Vs. Pottayil Aboobacker Haji and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-12-1979
Reported in: 1980CriLJ181
ORDERKumari P. Janaki Amma, J.1. The petitioner is the complainant in C. C. 75 of 1977 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Tirur. The complaint was filed against the 1st respondent, who is the Circle Inspector of Police, Nilambur alleging acts of torture of the petitioner and another Harijan in the course of an incident which took place on the 25th of June, 1976. The 1st respondent filed C.M.P. 7 of 1978 under Section 410 of the Cr. P. C. for transfer of the case to some other court within the jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri. The reasons mentioned for transfer are not relevant for the disposal of this petition. Pending disposal of the petition, the 1st respondent filed C.M.P. 167 of 1978 for stay of proceedings in C. C. 75 of 1977 till the disposal of C.M.P. 7 of 1978. The Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed the petition. The present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr. p. C. for quashing the order of stay.2. The contention put forward on...
Govindan Prabhakaran Vs. Sukumaran Nair and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-11-1979
Reported in: 1979CriLJ1186
ORDERK. Bhaskaran, J.1. This criminal revision raises a short and interesting point in regard to the construction to be placed on Sub-section (2) of Section 250 of the Cr. P.C. 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).2. The first respondent was prosecuted by the revision petitioner for an offence under Section 418 of the I.P.C. In this revision we are not really concerned with the details of the prosecution case or the evidence adduced in support of it. The learned Magistrate, having found that the complainant (revision petitioner) had failed to make out a prima facie case of an offence under Section 418 I.P.C. passed an order discharging the accused (Ist respondent) under Section 245(1) of the Cr. P.C. Para 7 of the order of discharge ends as follows:I am of opinion that there is no reasonable ground for making the accusation - against the accused by the complainant and I find that this is a fit case for action, under Section 250 Crl. P.C. The complainant. is called upon to show cause why he should not ...
Joseph Vs. Joseph Annamma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-10-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Ker219; 1982CriLJ595
T. Chandrasekhara Menon, J. 1. The plaintiff is the appellant in the Second Appeal. He had filed the suit for an injunction to restrain the defendant-respondent herein from committing waste in the suit properties by cutting and removing valuable trees including yielding rubber trees and/or carry on slaughter tapping and lor other appropriate reliefs. The plaintiff is the son of the defendant and one Joseph. The defendant, the widow of Joseph has only a life interest in the suit properties, her rights being governed by Section 24 of the Travancore Christian Succession Act, The plaintiff being the only son of Joseph is entitled to the properties as his heir after the death of the defendant The defendant is not entitled to commit waste in the property or cut and remove the rubber trees which are yielding. The allegation is that the defendant is recklessly cutting and removing yielding rubber trees and other valuable trees and slaughter tapping rubber trees and that she, according to the p...
L. Robert D'Souza Vs. Executive Engineer, Southern Railway and Anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-09-1979
Reported in: (1979)ILLJ211Ker
Balakrishna Eradi, J.1. The principal question arising for determination in this case is whether the termination of service of a casual labourer employed under the railway administration brought about by the operation of Rule 2505 of the Railway Establishment Manual (hereinafter called the Manual) by reason of his having absented himself constitutes 'retrenchment' so as to attract the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act). A division Bench of this Court, of which one of us (Eradi, J.) was a member by its order of reference dated 29th September, 1978 referred the case to a Full Bench in view of the importance of the matter.2. The writ petitioner was working as a casual employee under the Southern Railway administration. According to the petitioner he had been continuously functioning as such from 1948 onwards but this is not admitted by the respondents. It is unnecessary to go into the details of the particulars furnished by the peti...
Mathevankochu Kunju Vs. Madhavan Chandrasekharan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-05-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Ker31
Kader, J.1. In a proceeding for assignment of the right, title and interest of the landlord in respect of certain items of properties which admittedly belonged to a tarwad the revision petitioner, one of the members of the said tarwad, filed an application under Section 72-F (4) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act 1 of 1964), hereinafter called the Act, to get himself impleaded on the ground that he is interested in the land. Although no objections are seen to have been filed to this application by the respondents, the Land Tribunal dismissed the application on the ground that there are no special circumstances entitling the petitioner to get himself impleaded. This order was challenged in appeal and the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms) Alleppey, dismissed the appeal on the ground that the order in question is not appealable under Section 102 of the Act. It is this order that is challenged in revision.2. The fact that the petitioner is a member of the tarwad to which the proper...
Antony Vs. Kumaran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-05-1979
Reported in: (1979)ILLJ406Ker
Kochu Thommen, J.1. The petitioner ran a grocery shop. He closed it down for the reason that he was a tuberculosis patient confined to a sanatorium. Dispute arose as to the amount of compensation payable to his workmen in terms of Section 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947. According to the petitioner the closure of the business was on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond his control and the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 25FFF applied, which meant that the workmen would get much less compensation than what they would otherwise get in case the main part of that sub-section applied. The workmen on the other hand contended that this was not a case coming within the scope of the proviso and they were, therefore, entitled to full compensation. The question was finally brought before the Labour Court by the workmen in terms of Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court held that the disease of the employer, however serious, was not a matter coming ...
Thomas Vs. Moram Mar Baselious Ougen I, Catholics Metropolitan, Malank ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-02-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Ker156
T. Chandrasekhara Menon, J.1. The first defendant in a suit for arrears of rent, for eviction and recovery of damages as well as for an injunction restraining the first defendant from constructing any unauthorised structures in the leased property is the appellant. The plaint schedule property and the workshop building therein belong to the plaintiff, Catholics and Metropolitan, Malankara Church. The workshop was entrusted on lease to the first defendant on 1-2-1969 on a monthly rent of Rs. 85/-The first defendant was conducting a Motor-workshop therein. A bus K. L. K. 7475 belonging to the second defendant was brought to the workshop on 5-7-1969 for repairs. According to the plaintiff, the brake and engine of the vehicle were in disorder which fact was well known to the defendants 1 and 2 and their servants. The plaintiff would allege that without taking necessary precautions, care or caution the vehicle when moved in the premises went out of control and hit against the workshop build...
Jose T. Mooken Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-02-1979
Reported in: [1979]117ITR921(Ker)
Chandrasekhara Menon, J. 1. In this application the petitioner prays for review of the judgment of this court in I.T.R. No. 84 of 1974. That reference application had been disposed of along with O.P, No. 5119 of 1974 : [1979]117ITR894(Ker) . We had answered the question referred to us in the I.T.R. in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the department and against the assessee--reported as Jose T.Mooken v. CIT : [1979]117ITR894(Ker) . We had pointed out therein that the Tribunal was right in holding that the proceedings taken against the legal representatives of the deceased, M.O. Thomakutty, were valid relying on the decision in Westminster Bank Ltd. v. Riches [1947] 28 TC 159 ; 15 ITR (Supp.) 86. In the application for review various contentions have been raised. Before adverting to these contentions we would have to consider whether an application which the petitioner has filed under Order 47, Rule 1 and Section 151, C.P.C., read with Section 260 of the I.T. Act, 1961, would lie. ...
State of Kerala Vs. Jayan Medical Store
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-01-1979
Reported in: [1980]45STC156(Ker)
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J. 1. The judgement of the learned Judge has to be affirmed. The learned Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed exhibit P-7 order imposing penalty on the writ petitioner on the ground that the penalty had been imposed beyond the time indicated by the provisions of Section 19 of the Act. We think that this conclusion of the learned Judge is correct. In view of this, we think it unnecessary to consider the other point debated before us, namely, whether the time-limit indicated by Section 19 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act for taking action is a period of limitation or a jurisdictional condition.2. The original assessment to sales tax for the assessment year 1967-68 was on 27th July, 1968. The assessment was reopened under Section 19(1) of the Act and a fresh order of assessment has been passed on 4th March, 1972, under, Section 19(1) of the Act. On the same day, an order imposing penalty was passed under Section 19(2) of the Act. The order imposing the p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›