Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1978Ker131; 1978CriLJ743
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J. 1. This matter has been placed before a Full Bench to consider the correctness of two Division Bench Rulings of this Court in Abraham v. Thankamma (1975 Ker LT 451) and Raman Pillai v. Dakshayani (1975 Ker LT 739). Both the decisions were by a Division Bench consisting of Khalid and Janaki Amma JJ. Khalid J. who made the order of reference in the first instance noticed the conflict of judicial opinion on the question, expressed his misgiving as to the correctness of the prior rulings, and his embarrassment in the matter, and felt that the matter had to be decided by a Full Bench. It was accordingly referred by a Division Bench of two of us to a Full Bench. 2. The two Division Bench rulings referred to earlier took the view that the introduction of Section 399 in the new Criminal Procedure Code alters the practice settled for this Court in Narayanan v. Kannamma Bhargavi 1968 Ker. LT 495 : (AIR 1969 Ker 126) (FB). The Division Bench noticed that the Sessions J...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1986Ker15
P.C. Balakrishna Menon, J.1. By this writ petition the petitioner seeks a declaration that the Pulaya caste in Kerala falls under Entry 54 in the list of Scheduled Castes in Kerala appended to the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, as amended by Central Act 108 of 1976.2. The petitioner is a member of the Pulaya Community belonging to the erstwhile Travancore-Cochin area of the Kerala State. He is presently working as Supervisor in the Posts and Telegraphs Department in the Cochin Foreign Post Office. He is also the Vice President of the Kerala Harijan Federation and the President of the All India Scheduled Castes/Tribes Federation of Post and Telegraph Employees, Kerala Circle.3. After the amendment of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 by Act 108 of 1976, the 4th respondent issued a circular letter requiring all officials belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, working in the Department to produce caste certificates. As per orders issued by the Stat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1962Ker267
ORDERC.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In both these writ petitions, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the vires of Section 49-A of the Banking Companies Act, 1949 are challenged. Section 49-A which was added to the original Act by the Banking Companies (Amendment) Ac; 1959 -- Act 33/1959 is as follows:'Section 49-A: No person other than a banking company, the Reserve Bank, the State Bank of India, or any other banking institution notified by the Central Government in this behalf. shall accept from the public deposits of money withdrawable by cheque;Provided that nothing contained in the section shall apply to any Savings Bank scheme run by the Government.'2. The petitioner in O. P. 1371/59 claims to be an individual, doing banking business, by receiving deposits from the public for the Purpose of lending to others and that the deposit is repayable by cheque or otherwise. The petitioner therein claims to have been doing this business from 1952.3. The petitioner further alleges_ that b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1961)IILLJ486Ker
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, Sri T.N. Subramania Iyer, learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to have the order of respondent 1, Ex.P. 1, dated 20 October 1960 quashed by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order. 2. The order Ex.P. 1 itself is to the effect that investigations conducted into allegations against the three officers mentioned therein, one of whom is the petitioner, have disclosed prima facie that the officers have committed the two irregularities stated therein. Ex.P. 1 also states that the allegations referred to therein, for which there is prima facie evidence are of a serious nature warranting disciplinary action and the Government consider that the case against the three officers mentioned therein should be proceeded with and enquired into under the Kerala Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1960 and the Government order accordingly. 3. Ex.P. 1 is also...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1963Ker155
ORDERC.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In all these writ petitions, though the petitioners are different, the various provisions in the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961, Act 13 of 1961, are attacked on the ground that they violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution.2. The exact grounds of attach raised by the petitioners wilt be adverted to later; but the background for the passing of the Act, which is under severe attack in these proceedings may be briefly indicated.3. Prior to the formation of the Kerala State on 1-11-1955, the Travancore-Cochin legislature had passed the Travancore-Cochin Land Tax Act, 1955, Act XV of 1955, purporting to provide for the levy of a low and uniform rate of basic tax on all lands in the State of Travancore-Cochin. That Act came into force on 1st day or April 1956, in accordance with the Notification issued by the Travancore-Cochin Government, under Section 1(3) of the said Act. Broadly, the Act purported to provide tor lev...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1963Ker270
K.K. Mathew, J.1. The defendant is the appellant. The decree from which this appeal arises is for recovery of Rs. 7,000/- with interest from the defendant for the loss sustained by the plaintiff in respect of a car Insured with the defendant. The plaintiff was owner of a car registered as T. C. Q. I in the Travancore-Cochin State. It was an Austin 16 H. P. Car. The car was insured with the defendant against loss of damage and a policy was issued by the defendant to the plaintiff covering all accidents from 1-3-1952 to 28-2-1953. The car met with an accident on the night of 21-12-1952 as a result of which it stood in need of repair. The accident was covered by the terms of the Policy and 'therefore the defendant was to repair, reinstate or replace the car or the part thereof and its accessories or pay in cash the amount of the loss or damage not exceeding the actual value of the parts damaged or lost plus a reasonable cost of fitting, such costs not exceeding in any case the estimate of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1965Ker253
Vaidialingam, J.1. In this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, Mr. K. V. Surianarayana Iyer, learned counsel for the petitioner, who is the proprietor of the Kottayam Electric Supply Agency, Kottayam, challenges the legality and validity of a notice and two orders passed by the State Government under the Indian Electricity Act (Act IX of 1910), hereinafter to be referred to as the Act The notice is Ext. P1 and the orders arc Exts. P2 and P3.2. Ext. P1 is a notice dated 17-8-1962 issued by the 1st respondent, the State of Kerala, under Section 4(3) of the Act, calling upon the petitioner, for the various grounds mentioned therein, as to why the license granted in his favour should not be revoked under Section 4(1)(a) of the Act. The petitioner sent an explanation dated 5-11-1962, Ext. P19; and the State Government passed the order Ext. P2 dated 17-5-1963 revoking the license under Section 5(1)(a) of the Act and fining 1st August 1983 as the date on which the said revoca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1968Ker182; [1968]68ITR863(Ker)
ORDERM.U. Isaac, J. 1. The petitioner is a business man engaged in motor lorry transport. In respect of the assessment year 1958-59, he made a return of his income to the Income-tax Officer, Kottayam who is the respondent in this case. His return showed the income from property as Rs. 465 and the income from business as Rs. 9,302 the total income being Rs. 9,767. The respondent rejected the petitioner's return, and made an assessment to the best of his judgment fixing the income as Rs. 715 from property Rs. 50,579 from business and Rupees 30,000 from other sources. He thus fixed the total income as Rs 81,294. The sum of Rs. 30,000 according to the order of assessment consisted of Rs 8,000 paid for purchase of a parkins Engine, Rs. 15,000 paid for the purchase of a new lorry and Rs. 7,000 invested on building. The petitioner filed an appeal from the order of assessment to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, TrivRndrum who allowed the appeal in part. The Appellate Assista...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1970Ker120
1. The Popular Bank Ltd., now in liquidation was incorporated in 1944 with head-office in Alleppey. It established three branch offices at Vaikom, Shertalai and Kuthiathode respectively. The Bank suspended business on the 16th August 1956. A petition for winding up the Bank was presented in this Court and was ordered on the 19th December 1956. Thereafter, two applications were made by the Official Liquidator of the Bank. Application No. 1 of 1959 from which these appeals arise, was under Section 542(1) of the Companies Act 1956, read with Rules 260 to 262 of the Companies Court Rules 1959. Application 2 of 1959 from which the connected appeals heard along with these arise, was under section 543 of the Companies Act, read with section 45H of the Banking Companies Act 1949. These were disposed of by our learned brother Raghavan J.2. Except where expressly indicated, reference hereinafter would be to the ranks of the parties as in application No. 1 of 1959 which appears to have been treat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1976)IILLJ28Ker
T. Chandrasekaran Menon, J.1. The petitioner who is a Development Officer, Grade I, in the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Quilon Branch, Quilon, seeks a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction, to quash Ext. P5 order passed by the Divisional Manager of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Trivandrum-4, transferring him to the administrative side in the cadre of record clerk, and for a writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to treat the petitioner as Grade I Development Officer and to give him all attendant benefits. The respondents in the OP. are (1) The Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay-1, represented by its Chairman, (2) The Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Trivandrum and (3) The Senior Branch Manager of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Quilon.2. The facts giving rise to this case are as follows: The petitioner was appointed as Inspector under the Empire of India Life Assurance Company Ltd., which wa...
Tag this Judgment!