Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1960Ker361; [1960(1)FLR528]; (1960)ILLJ623Ker
S. Velu Pillai, J. 1. The petitioner, the employer, is a sub-agent of the Standard Vacuum Oil Company in Quilon, and he terminated the employment o three workmen on October 3, 1956. On October 19, 1956, they enrolled themselves as members of a labour Union called 'The Quilon Commercial Staff Association', hereafter referred to as the Union, which took up their cause and raised a dispute which was referred by the first respondent, the Government, of the State of Kerala, to the second respondent, the Industsial Tribunal, to be referred to as the Tribunal, as 'the Industrial Dispute between the management of Standard Vacuum Oil Company, Sub-Agency, Quilon, represented by tile Sub-Agent, and the workmen of the above concern represented by the Quilon Commercial Staff Association'. The reference concerned two issues, the first of which related to the termination o the employment of the three workmen and the second, to their claim for bonus, for the years 1953 to 1956. At an early stage of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1960Ker309
1. The Chartered Accountant in this reference that has been made under the Chartered Accountants Act, 38 of 1949. is Sreenivasa Iyer. He had audited the balance sheet of the United Bank of Travancore Ltd., for 1949, 1950 and 1951. The Act governing the Bank's annual statement for the first year was the Travancore Companies Act, 9 of 1114, and the balance sheet for the two succeeding years were prepared according to the Indian Banking Companies Act, No. 10 of 1949, that had become then operative in the then Travancore-Cochin State. Also the Chartered Accountants Act was extended in 1951 to part B States.2. The circumstances leading to the reference can be shortly stated. In the audited balance sheets for the years 1949 and 1950 the share capital of the company appear as under:--31st December 1949.31st December 1950.No. of shares.AmountNo. of Shares.Amount2,00,00020,00.000Authorised30,0003,00.0001,60,00015,00,000Issued30,0003,00.00093,5999,35,990Subscribed17,4031,74,03088,2895,29,734Call...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1960Ker335; 1960CriLJ1455
Ansari, J. 1. This petition seeks to vacate the conviction and sentence under Section 167 (81) of the Sea Customs Act, which the District Magistrate, Ernakulam, had passed against the accused, and which has with slight modification been sustained by the Sessions Judge. The petitioner and his wife were travelling from Colombo by the Italian Steamer 'M. V. Australia,' which they had boarded on October 4, 1958, and the tickets show the port of their disembarkation to be Genoa.A Voiles-Wagon car was also being carried in the same boat as part of the petitioner's luggage, and had been used by him while he and his wife stayed in Ceylon on their honeymoon. It had been booked through the Automobile Agency, Colombo, for disembarkation at Genoa. The ship that started from Colombo on December 4, 1958, called at the Port of Cochin on December 5, 1958 and on its arrival, the Customs Inspector, Pw. 1, who had some information, went on board, and interrogated the petitioner and his wife to ascertain ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1961Ker226
Sankaran, C.J. 1. This case has, come up before the Full Bench for an authoritative decision on the objections raised to the competency of a Single Judge to hear the appeal. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen, was valued at more than Rs. 1,000 and it was filed in the Munsiff's Court at Katunnagapally. An order passed by that court in execution of the decree in the suit, was the subject-matter of an appeal in the Sub-Court at Quilon, and it is against the appellate order of that court that the present second appeal has been filed on 5th February 1959 when the Travancore-Cochin High Court Act (Act V of 1125, as amended by Act I of 1952) was in force.Under that Act, a Single Judge of the High Court had the power to hear only such of _ the second appeals as would come within the limit prescribed by Clause (c) of Sub-section (4) of section 20 of that Act. 'Every appeal valued at Rs. 1,000 or less from an appellate decree and every appeal from an appellate order where the subject-m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1961Ker14; [1960]30CompCas501(Ker); 1961CriLJ75
Sankaran, C.J.1. All those appeals are directed against one and the same order. The order appealed against is the order passed by a learned Judge of this Court on 19-10-1959 directing a public examination of all these appellants under Section 478 of the Indian Companies Act and Section 45G of the Banking Companies Act. The order was passed in the course of liquidation proceedings carried on in Banking Company petition No. 8/1956 on the file of the High Court. These proceedings relate to a Banking Company known by the name, 'The Popular Bank Ltd., Alleppy'.The bank commenced its business on 3-9-1944 and owing to financial difficulty it had to suspend its business on 16-8-1956. The Court passed an order on 19-12-1956 directing a winding up of this Bank. On 10-1-1958, the Official Liquidator filed a petition C. M.P. No. 113/1958 in B. C. P. No. 8/1956 under Sections 478, 531. 539 and 541 - 545 of the Companies Act, I of 1956, and under Sections 45C, 45H and 45J of the Banking Companies Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1960Ker364
Ansari, C.J.1. The assessee, Sait Nagjee Purushotham and Co., is a firm, and has been carrying piece-goods, banking, manufacture and sale of soaps as well as umbrellas business in Calicut, with branches elsewhere. In proceedings for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50, the assessee has claimed relief under Section 25(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act; and the facts, on which the claim was made, may be briefly stated.2. On 6-12-1918, a partnership deed was executed between six persons, five being related, and the sixth being a stranger. The five partners, who were related, were Purushotham Amarsee Sait, Nagjee Amarsee Sait, Narayanjee Purushotham Sait, Krishnajee Purushotham Sait and Manacklal Purushotham Sait; and their relation can best be shown by the following pedigree: FATHER ___________________________|_________________________________ | | Purshotham Amarsee Salt Nagiee Amarsee Salt | | ___________|________________________ Jayanand Nagjee Sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1961Ker62
Ansari, C.J. 1. The two references had come to this Court under the Trivandrum City Municipal Act, No. IV of 1116, hereafter to be stated as the Act, and been referred to the Full Bench, because the two questions arising therein have been considered to be of importance, and likely to affect a number of persons. Before answering them it is necessary briefly to state the facts that have brought about the references, and the sections as well as the schedule to the Act, whose interpretation would answer the two questions. 2. It appears that one M. K. Harihara Iyer had been assessed for two years to pay the tax on his income from investment by the Commissioner of Trivandrum City Corporation under Section 107 of the Act, and the assessee had appealed to the Committee that heard appeals against such assessments. The Committee dismissed the appeals, whereupon appeals were filed before the District Judge, who is vested with the appellate jurisdiction over the appellate orders of the Committee. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1961Ker142
ORDERC.A. Vaidialingam, J. 1. The point that arises for consideration in this C. R. P. is as to whether the view of the learned Subordinate Judge of Trivandrum, that the present suit comes within the category contemplated under Section 3, Sub-section 4, Clause (e) of the Travancore-Cochin Court-fees Act, (Act 2 of 1125), is correct. 2. The suit Itself is for partition and separate possession of the shares claimed by the plaintiffs in the properties which, according to them, are held jointly as co-owners with definite shares. The plaintiffs claim partition and separate possession in the following manner : 59/216 th share in Items 1 and 2: 13/54th shares in Item 3; 1/3rd share in Item 4; 1/2 share in Items 5 to 10: 1/3 share in Item 11: and 1/2 share in Items 15 and 16. 3. The general allegations in the plaint arc to the effect that the plaintiffs are entitled to the shares mentioned above and that the properties are held bythe plaintiffs and the defendants as co-owners entitled to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1960Ker392; 1960CriLJ1603
Ansari, C. J. 1. These revision petitions seek to vacate the order by the Additional Sessions Judge of Kottayam, sustaining the accused's objection to the admissibility of the specimen of his handwriting, which was sought to be proved by a witness. The accused has been committed in Sessions Cases Nos. 99, 100 and 101 of 1958; and the aforesaid order covers all the cases, having been passed on February 3, 1959. The prosecution case is that, with a view to cause wrongful loss to the Transport Department and make unlawful gain, the accused got printed bogus warrant form, affixed false seal on the form purporting to be that of the Superintendent of Police, entered in his own handwriting the false names and numbers of three fictitious constables, made other entries, further forged the signature of one Plathanam a Sub-Inspector of Police who had retired, by false representation induced P. O. Titus a Conductor to hand him three bus tickets, and utilised these for making unlawful gain.Each Ses...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1961Ker155; (1961)ILLJ68Ker
M. Madhavan Nair, J. 1. This is a suit against the Union of India and the State of Travancore-Cochin instituted by an Ex-Military Officer for 'damage's and compensation for the wrongful termination of his employment' to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- and other reliefs. The main defence in the case is that the plaintiff, as a member of the Armed Forces, held office during the pleasure of the President by virtue of Article 310 of the Constitution and as such is not entitled to maintain a suit based on a wrongful termination of his employment. If this contention is accepted, the suit has to fail in limine; and I am of the view that the defence contention has to be accented.2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:--The plaintiff was a permanent employee of the rank of a Major in the State Forces of the erstwhile Travancore State when that State was integrated with the adjoining State of Cochin to form the State of Travancore-Cochin mentioned in Part B of the First Schedule to the Constituti...
Tag this Judgment!