Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1957Ker65; 1957CriLJ751
Koshi, C.J.1. The Criminal Appeal and the connected Referred Trial arose from the judgment and order, dated October 9, 1956, of the learned Sessions Judge of South Malabar Division, at Kozhikode, in Sessions Case No. 55 of 1956 on the file of his Court, convicting the accused therein, Ghakkulli Ravunni Nair alias Appunni Nair (hereinafter referred to as the accused) for committing an offence of murder and sentencing him to the extreme penalty of the law. The accused was tried before the learned Sessions Judge for the murder of his mother-in-law's younger sister, Kinattun-kara Puthanveettil Kalliani Amma,The murder was alleged to have taken place during the night between 30-6-1956 and 1-7-1956. The learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty, convicted him of murder and sentenced him to death. The accused preferred Criminal Appeal-No. 637 of 1956 before the Madras High Court against his conviction and sentence. The learned Sessions Judge submitted the proceedings to the said High Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1957Ker102; 1957CriLJ852
Koshi, C.J.1. The appellant has been convicted by learned Addl. Sessions Judge of Quilon for three distinct offences of murder under Section 302 I. P. C. and for attempting to commit suicide, punishable under Section 309 I. P. C. For each offence of murder she has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and for that under Section 309 to undergo simple imprisonment for one year with the direction that all the four sentences shall run concurrently. The case against the appellant was that she caused the death of three of her children one aged 7, the second aged 5 and the third aged one by throwing them into a well and that afterwards she herself jumped into it with a view to commit suicide. She was, however, rescued by passers-by who heard her cries from the well, but by the time the bodies of the children were recovered the children were all dead. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found her guilty on all the four counts in the charge, convicted and sentenced her as stated abo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1958Ker251
K.T. Koshi, C.J. 1. These three appeals have been placed before us for orders as to whether their proper venue is this Court, or the respective District Courts to which the courts which passed the judgments and decrees appealed against are subordinate. The question has arisen on account of the provision in Section 13 of the Kerala Civil Courts Act, 1957 (President's Act No. 1 of 1957) that 'where the amount or value of the subject matter of the suit does not exceed seven thousand and five hundred Rupees, from the original decrees and orders of a Subordinate Judge's Court shall, when such appeals are allowed by law, lie to the District Court'.The Kerala Civil Courts Act repealed the Madras Civil Courts Act, 1873 (Madras Act 111 of 1873), as in force in the Malabar District referred to in Sub-Section (2) of Section 5 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (XXXVII of 1956), and the Travancore-Cochin Civil Courts Act, 1951 (XXII of 1951). The Kerala Civil Courts Act was enacted by the Pres...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1958Ker96
ORDERM.S. Menon, J.1. The petitioner challenges the validity of Ext. C, a notification of the Government of Kerala dated 14-6-1957 and published in the Kerala Government Gazette dated 18-6-1957, Part 1, page 1327. The opening words of the notification read as follows:'Under Section 120 of the States Reorganization-Act, 1956 the Government of Kerala hereby order that the undernoted notification is made applicable to the Districts of Kozhikode, Palghat, Can-nanore and other areas in the former Malabar District which have been transferred to the Tri-chur District with effect from 18-6-1957.'2. The 'undernoted' notification is a notification of the Government of Travancore-Cochin dated 20-3-1952 and published in the Travoncore-Cochin Government Gazette dated 25-3-1952, Part 1, page 315:'In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (Central Act XI or 1948), Government are hereby pleased to fix the minimum rates of wages pay...
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 : AIR1960Ker82
ORDERVaradaraja Iyengar, J.1. This is a petition under Article 228 of the Constitution. The petitioner is a servant of the Respondent Statn of Kerala. His complaint is that the service conditions which governed him while he was attached to the State of Madras before he came over to the service of the Respondent State as a result of the formation of Kerala have been altered to his detriment by various orders of the Respondent State. Reliance is placed by the petitioner on Section 115(7) of the States Reorganisation Act which prohibits such alteration except with the previous consent of the Government of India. The State in counter affidavit has repudiated that petitioner has any cause of action for complaint and contended that the petition is not maintainable under the writ jurisdiction of this court.2. Now there can be no doubt and it has been so held in numerons decisions that complaints as to service conditions by servants of the Central or State Governments are not amenable to judic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1958Ker188
P.T. Raman Nayar, J. 1. Up to and inclusive of the 31st October, 1956, judges of the High Court of Travancore-Cochin were sitting at Trivandrum and exercising in respect of cases arising in the district of Trivandrum the jurisdiction and powers of a single Judge or a Division Bench of two Judges as determined by the Chief justice. This was under the proviso added to Section 6 of the Travancore-Cochin High Court Act, V of 1125 by Central Act, 38 of 1953. The section with the proviso reads as follows:'Seat of the High Court. The High Court of Judicature of the State of Travancore-Cochin shall sit at Ernakulam: provided that such Judges of the High Court, not exceeding three in number, as may from time to time be nominated by the Chief Justice, shall sit at Trivandrum and exercise, in respect of cases arising in the district of Trivandrum, the jurisdiction and powers conferred by this Act on a Single Judge or a Division Bench of two Judges, as the Chief justice may determine.' A registry ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1959Ker182
Varadaraja Iyengar, J.1. These nine Original Petitions arise out of nine separate assessments of the respective Petitioners for the financial year 1957-58 under the Travancore-Cochin Agricultural Income-tax Act, 22 of 1950 as amended by Act 8 of 1957. By virtue of the amendment, the principal Act had been extended on 6-8-1957 to the whole of Kerala including the former Malabar District but with effect from. 1-4-1957. The Income-tax Officers concerned required the various Petitioners to include in their returns their agricultural income derived from land situated in Malabar and received by them during their previous year, i.e. the year ending on 31-3-1957 or on any day anterior to it but within that year as the case may be.Now the former Malabar District was dis-integrated from the Madras State and became part of Kerala only as and from 1-11-1956. The income of the 'previous year' directed to be returned as above and sought to be made liable comprised therefore to major extent or in who...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1959Ker67a; (1959)IILLJ610Ker
M.S. Menon, J. 1. These petitions wore heard together. They challenge the validity of a notification of the Government of Kerala dated 26-2-1958 under Section 3(1)(a)of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (Central Act XI of 1948). That notification was published in the Kerala Gazette on 4-3-1958 and (omitting the schedule thereto) reads as follows :'In exorcise of the powers conferred by cl. (a) of sub-sec. (1) of Section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (Central Act XI of 1948) Government are hereby pleased to fix the minimum rotes of wages payable to the employees in Agricultural Operations in the territories referred to in Section 5(2) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (Central Act XXXVII of 1956) as Malabar District, the same having been previously published as required by cl. (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the said Act. This notification shall come into force with effect from the date of this notification.' 2. The territories which constitute the Main-bar District in the Stat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1960Ker96
ORDERN. Varadaraja Iyengar, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution complaining against the acquisition by Government under the Land Acquisition Act, of 6 cents out of S. No. 56/2 in Badagara amsom in Kurumbranad Taluk belonging in jenm to the Kovilakarn of Kadathanat Valia Raja and outstanding on kanom Kuzhikanam with the petitioner.2. It appeared that Kannan, a Harijan was living in a hut inside the plot proposed to be acquired as lessee under the petitioner and on account of continuous non-payment of rent, proceedings by way of eviction had been taken against him on 11-8-1955. And because he still continued to occupy the premises, proceedings for trespass were started against him by the Police and he had to furnish security for good behaviour. Soon later the question of housing him was taken up by the Madras Government on the motion of the Director of Harijan Welfare and the decision was then taken of acquiring the plot here at Government expense, for the purpo...
Tag this Judgment!