Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1962Ker190
M.S. Menon, Ag. C.J.1. The question referred for decision by the Division Bench hearing the Election Appeal relates to the finality of the electoral roll before an Election Tribunal. The question in -the words of the order of reference -- is whether in the-case of a person whose name appears in the electoral roll and who has exercised his vote, the Election Tribunal can go into the question whether or not who had attained the age of twenty-one on the qualifying date, and, on the finding Shat he had not. exclude his vote from the count, or whether under the scheme underlying the relevant provisions of the Constitution, of the Representation of the People Act, J.950, and of the Representation of the People Act 1951, the ques-tion of age is to be finally decided at the regis-tration so that capacity or incapacity on that account is conclusively determined by inclusion in or exclusion from the roll.2. The answer to the question depends essentially on the true scope and meaning of Article 3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2000Ker15
Usha, J.1. Petitioner in O.P. No.22359/ 99 is the appellant. The petitioner is a candidate for election to the Lok Sabha (1999) from No. 2 Cannanore Parliamentary Constituency scheduled to be held on 11-9-1999. The challenge in the original petition was against Ext. P5 proceedings issued by the 1st respondent rejecting petitioner's request to show his name in the ballot paper as 'Mullappally Ramachandrail. He had also prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to show his name as 'Mullappally Ramachandran in the ballot paper. The learned single Judge before whom the original petition came up for admission dismissed the same in limine. Aggrieved by the above, the petitioner has come up in appeal.2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had submitted his nomination paper in the prescribed form before the 1st respondent wherein his name was shown as 'Mullappally Ramachandran'. After scrutiny his nomination was accepted on 20-8-1999. The na...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2007(1)KLT228
ORDERThottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner, a candidate in the election held on 22-4-2006 to the Kerala Legislative Assembly from No. 94 Pala Assembly constituency challenges the election of the respondent, the successful candidate.2. The allegation against the respondent is that he filed a false affidavit along with his nomination paper suppressing material facts and omitting to mention the dues he allegedly owes to the Tourism Department. It is alleged that the affidavit filed by the respondent is not in conformity with the directions of the Election Commission of India contained in its Order No:3/ER/2993/JS-II dated 27-3-2003 ('EC Order', for short). Hence, it is contended that there is non-compliance of Sections 33, 33A and 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ('Act', for short) and Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 ('CE Rules', for short) and therefore, the election of the respondent is liable to be declared void under Sub-sections (1)(d)(i) a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1950Ker5; 1950CriLJ569
Govinda Menon, J.1. The first accused in Sessions Case No. 14 of 1123 on the file of the Nagercoil Sessions Court has been convicted for the offences falling Under Sections 469 and 473, Travancore Penal Oode, and he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. This appeal is directed against the said convic tion and sentence. One Boothathan Padmana-bhan was the complainant in this case. He did not live to give evidence at the trial. His evidence before the Committing Magistrate'9 Court as P.W. 3 has been proved as Ex. 9. His son was examined as P.W. 9. Kali Booths-than waa the father of the complainant and to him belonged a sixth share in survey no, 5475 of Nattalam Pakuthy and it stood included in Ex. J, a joint patta, issued to him and Subra-manian Narayanan who owned a third of the property between them. Kali Soothathan left six sons and eaoh of them had an equal share in the one-sixth of the property owned by him. The complainant bad therefore l/36th share i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1950Ker83; 1950CriLJ1536
ORDERKrishna Pillai, C.J.1. The reference arises under Section 9, Travancore Newspapers Act (V [5] of 1101) upon a petition presented by the printer and publisher of the newspaper called the Malayans questioning the legality of an order passed by Government whereby the license granted to the said newspaper wan cancelled. The notice given Under Section 6 of tha Act indicated fourteen different articles of several dates, which were said to be seditious and lively (i) to excite disaffection against, and to bring into hatred and contempt, the Government of Travancore, (ii) to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between the several classes of the people in Travancore, (iii) to involve habitual publication of defamatory matter punishable Under Section 603, Travancore Penal Code, (iv) dissemination of false information, and (v) publication of matter which is obsoene in character These, if correct, would bring the publications within the miachief Section 5 of Sub-section (i)(a), (i)(a), (ii)(...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1952CriLJ1387
Kunhi Raman, C.J.1. The appeal is presented on behalf of the six accused persons who were tried in Sessions Case No. 4 of 1951 in the Sessions Court at Anjikaimal. The learned Judge after hearing the evidence for the prosecution found that all the six persons were guilty under Sections 129, 346 and 456 of the Cochin Penal Code. Section 129 corresponds to Section 143 of the Indian Penal Code Which refers to an unlawful assembly consisting of five or more members. Section 346 corresponds to Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code which provides punishment for abducting a woman to Compel her to illicit intercourse. Section 356 of the Cochin Penal Code corresponds to Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code which provides punishment for rape.After convicting them under these sections, the learned Judge has sentenced accused 1, 2 and 4 to 6 to rigorous imprisonment for five years and to a fine of Rs. 100/- with a direction that in default of payment of fine they should undergo rigorous imprisonmen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1957)IILLJ501Ker
ORDERN. Varadaraja Ayyangar, J.1. This is a petition filed by the South India Corporation (Travancore), Ltd., under Article 226 of the Constitution in the matter, of the grant of a licence under the Factories Act.2. The respondent 3 Sundareswaran was the owner of a cashewnut factory at Adichanalloor. The petitioner company took from him a lease of the factory commencing from 20 March 1953 and on such footing obtained transfer in their name of licence No. 175, originally issued to the owner under the Indian Factories Act, 1948, by the respondent 1 Chief Inspector of Factories. This licence was in due course renewed for the years 1954 and 1955. Before the expiry of the licence the petitioner company applied for renewal for the year 1956, But in this they were opposed by the respondent 3 who had in the meanwhile sold the factory to the respondent 2, National Nut Company, on 15 December 1955 and wanted the assignee to get the transfer of the licence instead. In support of their claim for r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1958Ker169
M.S. Menon, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The appellant was the 1st respondent in Election Petition No. 277 of 1957 and the appeal is against the order of the Election Tribunal, Trichur, declaring his election to the Legislative Assembly of the Kerala Slate from the Chalakudi Constituency No. 64, to be void under Section 100(1)(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.2. Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, details the grounds for declaring an election to be void. There are two sub-sections to that section and Sub-section (1) is subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2). According to Sub-section (1) (a) of that section, if the Tribunal is of opinion :'that an the date of his election a returned candidate was not qualified, or was disqualified to be chosen to fill the seat under the Constitution or this Act',the Tribunal shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void.3. Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1958Ker154
Raman Nayar, J.1. At the last General Election held in March 1957, the appellant was declared duly elected to the Legislative Assembly of this State from the General Seat of the Devicolam Constituency. In April the 1st respondent, a candidate whose nomination had been rejected by the Returning Officer, filed the present petition for a declaration that the election of the appellant was void on the ground mentioned in Section 100(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petition has been allowed by the Election Tribunal, Kottayam, and hence this appeal.2. The 2nd respondent was returned from the reserved seat, and against him no relief has been claimed. He may be ignored altogether and we shall hereafter refer to the 1st respondent (namely, the petitioner before the Tribunal) as merely the respondent.3. The only question is whether the rejection of the respondent's nomination was improper. If it was, it is not disputed that in view of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1959Ker120
M.S. Menon, J. 1. This is an appeal by the petitioner in Election Petition No. 242 of 1957. His petition to set aside the election of the respondent to the Kerala State Assembly from the Manalur Constituency (No. 66) was dismissed by the Election Tribunal, Ernakulam, by its order dated the 11th November, 1957. It is the correctness of that order that is challenged by this appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.2. There were three contesting candidates, the petitioner (Congress), the respondent (Communist) and one Govindankutty Nair (P. S. P.) who has not been impleaded either in the petition or in this appeal before us. The polling was on the 11th March, 1957. The respondent secured 23,350 votes, the petitioner 21,355 votes and Govindankutty Nair, 2,486 votes. The result of the election was declared on the 14th March, 1957.3. Section 117 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, provides :'The petitioner shall enclose with the petition a Government...
Tag this Judgment!