Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1953CriLJ1670
Koshi, C.J.1. Pyli Yaccob, accused 2 in Sessions Case No. 1 of 1952 on the file of the Parur Sessions Court, has preferred this appeal against the conviction and sentence passed against him by that Court. One Raman Padmanabhan, accused 1 and the appellant were arraigned before the learned Sessions Judge with commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 394, 397 and 457, I.P.C. The charge for murder (302) against the appellant was one read with Section 34, I.P.C. the principal offender with respect thereof being accused 1. With reference to the offences under Sections 394 and 457 both accused were alleged to be principal offenders. Section 397 only prescribes the punishment for committing robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt. The learned Judge acquitted the appellant of the charge for murder read with Section 34 but convicted him of the offences under Sections 394 and 457. A sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment has been awarded with respect ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1958Ker53; [1957]8STC812(Ker)
M.S. Menon, J.1. This is a petition by the Sales Tax Commissioner (First Member, Board of Revenue), Trivandrum, for a certificate under Article 133 of the Constitution. The decision in respect of which the certificate is sought is our judgment in Sales Tax Reference No. 2 of 1954.2. Under Article 133 an appeal lies to the Supreme Court only 'from any judgment, decree or final order in a civil proceeding' and the questions that have to be determined at the very outset are:1. Does our judgment in Sales Tax Reference No. 2 of 1954 constitute 'a judgment, decree or final order'? and 2. even if it does, can it be considered a judgment, decree or final order 'in a civil proceeding'? 3. The Sales Tax Reference was under Sub-section (1) of Section 24 of the Cochin Sales Tax Act, XV of 1121. Sub-sections (1) (omitting the twoprovisos thereto), (2) and (5) of Section 24 read as follows:'(l) Within sixty days of the date on which he is served with notice of an order under Section 16, or of an or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1959Ker190; 1959CriLJ712
Raman Nayar, J. 1. On a complaint made by the Municipal Health Officer, Kozhikode, who in his capacity as a Food Inspector appointed under Section 9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, (Central Act 37 of 1954) has been authorised tinder Section 20(1) thereof to institute prosecutions, the accused, a wholesale merchant of Kozhikode, dealing in pepper among other merchandise, was tried by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Kozhikode, for an offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Act, the accusation against him being that he stored for sale 62 bags of pepper which was both adulterated and misbranded within the definitions in Section 2(i)(1) and (ix)(d) of the Act, He was acquitted by the learned Magistrate on the ground that it had not been proved that the pepper in question was stored for sale, and the complainant has brought this appeal against the acquittal by special leave under Section 417(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. (From the com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1960Ker135
Anna Chandy, J. This appeal is by the plaintiff in O. S. 46 of 1954 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Palghat.2. The plaintiff was the consignee of 173 bags of beedy tobacco sent from Cochin Harbour Terminus by wagon No. E.B. 15358 under invoice dated 7-7-53. When the wagon was opened at its destination on 9-7-1953 it was found that a portion of the goods was damaged by rain water. The damage was estimated at Rs. 7.201-9-0 and this suit was filed against the Union of India as represented by the General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras for recovery of damages. The suit notice Ext. B1 was dated 7-7-54 and it was served on the General Manager on the same day. The suit was filed on 7-9-1954. Thus it is seen that excluding the day on which the notice was actually served, the period of the notice was one day less than the statutory period of two months. The defendant contended inter alia that! the suit was premature for want of compliance with Section 80 C. P. C. That contention was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1960Ker103
Vaidialingam, J.1. This is an application by the Superintendent of the Nellikkai Estate, Vandiperiyar, under Article 226 of the Constitution, for quashing the award in Industrial Dispute No. 88/1957 of the Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam and published in the Kerala Gazette dated 28-4-1959. The first respondent is the workman of the Nellikkai Estate, Vandiperiyar, represented by this President, Peer-made Taluk Estate Labour Union, Vandiperiyar, the second respondent is the Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam and the third respondent herein is the State of Kerala. The Government notification, including the award is marked as Ex-Pi in these proceedings.2. The issue that was referred for adjudication of the Tribunal by the State Government was:'Whether the dismissal of the 5 workers named below from the Nellikkai Estate is justifiable? If not justifiable, to what reliefs are the dismissed workers entitled? Names of workers: (1) Rajendran (2) Thangavelu; (3) Rajiah (4) Bhaskaranathan and (5) Shan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1959)IILLJ751Ker
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. This is an application by the Superintendent of the Nellikkai estate, Vandiperiyar, under Article 226 of the Constitution, for quashing the award in industrial dispute No. 88 of 1957 of the Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam, and published in the Kerala Gassette dated 28 April 1959. The respondent 1 is the workman of the Nellikkai estate, Vandiperiyar, represented by the president, Peermade Taluk Estate Labour Union, Vandiperiyar ; respondent 2 is the Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam, and the respondents herein is the State of Kerala, The Government notification, including the award, is marked as Ex. P. 1 in these proceedings.2. The issue that was referred for adjudication of the tribunal by the State Government was:Whether the dismissal of the five workers named below from the Nellikkai estate is justifiable? If not justifiable, to what relief are the dismissed workers entitled ?Names of workers.-(1) Kajendran, (2) Thangavelu, (3) Rajiah, (4; Bhaskaranathan, and (5) ...
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 : (1961)IILLJ363Ker
P. Govinda Menon, J.1. This is an appeal against the decision of the learned single Judge of this Court refusing to quash the order of the industrial tribunal, Ernakulam, in an application under Section 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for approval of the appellant's action in dismissing from service an employee of theirs, F.M. Fernandez, respondent 2 in this appeal.2. Respondent 2 was a workman employed in the Munnar workshop of the appellant-company. He was charge sheeted under standing order 22 (ft) of the standing orders for the workmen in the company. The charge against him was that on 17 September 1959 at about 9-30 a.m. while on duty in the workshop he in conjunction with one Arogyaswami and Christy Jeyaraj quarrelled with motor mechanic M.C. Mathew and abused him in filthy language because of his having resigned his membership from the K.D.H.P. Company Engineering Employees' Union.3. Respondent 2 denied the charges levelled against...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1962]45ITR66(Ker)
VAIDIALINGAM J. - The common question that arises for decision in all these four original petitions is regarding the competency of Parliament to enact the Gift-tax Act, 1958, viz., Central Act 18 of 1958, levying tax on gifts of agricultural land. In O. P. Nos. 323 of 1959, 1339 of 1959 and 117 of 1960, the respective petitioners seek the issue of a writ of prohibition restraining the respective Gift-tax Officers from enforcing the provisions of the Gift-tax Act, in respect of certain gifts of agricultural land admittedly made by them. In O. P. No. 131 of 1961, there has been an actual order of assessment passed against the petitioner, levying gift-tax, by the Gift-tax Officer concerned, and the relief asked for is to have the order of assessment quashed. The petitioners have not challenged the competency of Parliament to levy gift-tax in respect of properties, movable or immovable, other than agricultural lands.According to the petitioner, in each of these writ petitions, the scheme o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1963Ker137
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This appeal raises two questions on which there is considerable divergence of opinion; and they are:(1) Whether time under Article 11 A, Limitation Act, runs from the date of the order of the executing Court on the claim petition or of the High Court on a petition for its revision; and(2) if the starting point be the former, can the time taken by the revision proceeding be excluded from computation under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.2. The suit property having been purchased by the plaintiff in Court sale was delivered to him by process of Court. The first defendant who had been in possession of the property as mortgagee under the purchaser in an earlier Court sale applied under Order 21 Rule 100 for restoration of possession to him and it was allowed by the executing Court on 18-3-1122. The plaintiff's petition for revision of that order was dismissed by the High Court on 25-4-1122. The present suit under Order 21 Rule 103 C. P. C. was instituted on 23-4-1123. ...
Tag this Judgment!