Kerala Court February 1985 Judgments
Mohammed Fasi Vs. Superintendent of Police and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-20-1985
Reported in: (1985)ILLJ463Ker
Balakrishna Menon, J.1. The petitioner a Head-constable in the Police Service of the State of Kerala, seeks the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P 2 proceedings of the 3rd respondent the Inspector General of Police, Kerala, declining his request for permission to grow beard on a permanent basis.2. The petitioner entered service as a Police constable on 1st April, 1963 and was promoted as Head-constable on 3rd April, 1974. From February 1981 onwards he started growing beard and submitted a representation Ext. P 1 dated 10th February, 1981 to the Inspector General of Police for permission to grow beard, as according to him, shaving the face is opposed to Quoranic injunctions and the Islamic religion. As a devout Muslim he wants to lead a religious life without transgressing the Code of Conduct, prescribed by his religion. His petition Ext. P 1 was rejected by the Inspector General of Police, as per his order Ext. P 2 dated 7th December, 1981 declining his request to grow beard...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Dasan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-20-1985
Reported in: 1986CriLJ345
T. Kochu Thommen, J.1. Respondents 1 to 19 in this appeal are the accused in Sessions Case No. 17 of 1982. They were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 302, 506 and 109, Penal Code. They were acquitted of all the charges by the learned Sessions Judge by her judgment dt. 3-7-1982. The present appeal is accordingly brought by the State against the order of acquittal.2. The case of the prosecution is Radhakrishna Menon (alias Rajan) and his maternal uncle Sankarankutty Menon (alias Thankappan) were on 28-4-1981 engaged in ploughing their paddy field at Kappukulam, Panangad by means of a tilter. P.Ws. 1 and 2 and others were with them. At about 12.30 P.M. accused 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 15 and about 60 other persons came to them and asked them not to plough their field since agricultural labourers were on strike. Rajan and Thankappan told them that they had almost completed their work and what remained to be done had to be finished. So stating they got ...
Tag this Judgment!Mayilvahanam Roadlines Vs. Mayilvahanam Travels and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-13-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ker27
Bhaskaran, Ag. C.J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment in O.P. 509 of 1985 dated 21-1-1985 (reported in 1985 Ker LT 178), and is at the instance of the 4th respondent therein. In the writ petition the prayer was for quashing Exts.P7 and P8 by the issue of a writ of certiorari. In this judgment parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the Original Petition. Ext.P7 is the copy of the order dated 9-1-1985 in M. P.No. 49 of 1985 in M.V.A.A. 12 of 1985 passed by the 3rd respondent, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam. The application before the Tribunal was-to direct the first respondent, the Regional Transport Authority, Malapuram, to issue a temporary permit for 20 days or in the alternative to direct the second respondent, the Secretary to the R.T.A. Malapuram, to consider the application for temporary permit for 20 days at the next meeting of the second respondent, the R.T.A. The 3rd respondent, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, passed an order di...
Tag this Judgment!Chacko Vs. Paily
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-13-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Ker196
Sukumaran, J.1. The second appeal raises an interesting question relating to limitation. The courts below have non-suited the appellant-plaintiff on the ground of limitation. The correctness of the view taken by those courts is challenged in the second appeal.2. Some articles kept in the house of the plaintiff were stolen on 21-4-1972. The Perumbavoor Police registered a crime investigated into it, and filed a charge before the Magistrate Court. The police recovered the articles from the house of the defendant, who was the brother-in-law of the 2nd accused in the criminal case. That was on 3-5-1972. Ultimately the criminal case ended in an acquittal. The defendant herein gave evidence in the criminal case and claimed that the articles belonged to him. The articles in question were directed to be returned to the defendant, after the criminal court took evidence relating to the disposal of the property. That order was challenged before the Sessions Court and ultimately before this Court....
Tag this Judgment!K.A. Prabhakaran Vs. Kuttian Prakashan and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-11-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Ker204
Balakrishna Menon, J.1. The only point for decision in this Civil Revision Petition at the instance of an obstructor against the execution of an order passed by the Rent Control Court is as to whether an obstruction petition is maintainable under Order XXI, Rule 97. C.P.C. The 1st respondent in this C.R.P. obtained an order against the 2nd respondent for eviction of building No. 10/108 of Tellicherry Municipality in R.C.P. No. 9/1981 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Tellicherry. In execution the revision petitioner offered resistance setting up a claim of tenancy of the building under the predecessor-in-title of the 1st respondent-landlord, and filed a petition purporting to be under Order XXI, Rule 97, C.P.C. for adjudication of his right to possession under a title different from the title of the judgment-debtor. The court below dismissed the application on the ground that the petition at the instance of the obstructor in execution is not maintainable under Order XXI, Rule 97, ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Shanmukha Vilas Cashew Traders
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-05-1985
Reported in: 1986(10)ECC286; 1986LC350(Kerala); 1986(24)ELT500(Ker)
Bhaskaran, Ag. C.J.1. We have heard the Central Government Pleader for the appellant, the Collector of Customs and the Counsel for the respondent, who was the petitioner in the original Petition. The counsel for the appellant has placed two points for our consideration ; (1) that there was a novation of the contract; and the attempt on the part of the respondent-petitioner was to export cashew kernels for a price below the international price, thus depriving our country of foreign exchange this country was legitimately entitled to receive ; and (2) that the respondent-petitioner had an alternative remedy either by way of appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act or by way of revision under Section 131 of the said Act. The learned Judge is seen to have dealt with both the points, rather elaborately, in the judgment appealed against. On the first point, the learned Judge found that the point was covered by Section 3 of the Contract Act. The case was only one where the extension of tim...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaskaran Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-05-1985
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1711
M. Fathima Beevi, J.1. The appeal is directed against the conviction of the appellant Under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentence to undergo imprisonment for life. The appellant was tried on the charge that he committed murder by causing the death of his younger sister Santhamma by stabbing her with a knife. The occurrence happened inside their dwelling house on the night of 22/23-10-1981 22/23-10-1981 . The prosecution has alleged that the appellant did the act out of frustration on account of the resistance of the deceased in his attempt to satisfy his lust. The learned Sessions Judge has based the conviction on few circumstances which according to him are strong enough to form a complete chain and point to the guilt of the appellant2. The main contention advanced on behalf of the appellant is that there is no evidence to warrant the conviction. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor, we are of the view that the circumstances relied on by the l...
Tag this Judgment!Executive Engineer Vs. Santha
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-05-1985
Reported in: 1(1986)ACC197
Bhaskaran, Ag. C.J.1. The only question argued by the Government Pleader appearing for the appellant, who was the 4th respondent before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, is with respect to the indemnity under Section 12(2) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. That subsection reads as follows :(2) Where the principal is liable to pay compensation under this section, he shall be entitled to be indemnified by the contractor or any other person from whom the workman could have recovered compensation and where a contractor who is himself a principal is liable to pay compensation or to idemnify a principal under this section he shall be entitled to be indemnified by any person standing to him in relation of a contractor from whom the workman could have compensation and all questions as to the right to and the amount of any such indemnity shall, in default of agreement, be settled by the Commissioner.2. In the course of the discussion under issue No. 5, which related to 'whether th...
Tag this Judgment!Janardhanan Vs. Sreedharan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-01-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Ker199
Varghese Kalliath, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff. He filed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 3,203/- from the defendant. Plaintiff says that for the purpose of conducting a trade in rice a partnership was formed with the defendant as one of the partners. The management of the partnership business was with the defendant. The business was carried on only for a short period. When the accounts of the business were settled, it was found that the plaintiff was entitled to an amount of Rs. 3203.83 from the defendant. The amount represented the capital investment and share of profits. The capital investment was Rs. 2,995/- and the share of profits was Rs. 208.83. The defendant promised payment but refused when demanded. The suit was laid for recovery of this amount.2. The defendant contended that he is not liable to pay the amount. He admitted that there was a partnership business but contended that he was not the managing partner. He asserted that there was no settlement of ...
Tag this Judgment!Fatima Sarohini Suresh and ors. Vs. K. Saraswathi Amma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-01-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Ker56
M.P. Menon, J. 1. The short but interesting question in these two appeals is about the construction of Ext.A2 settlement. 2. One Walter Rose died on 24-6-1969 leaving behind his widow Mabel, two sons Suresh and Mahesh, and two daughters Hasheela and Jamila. Under the Travancore Christian Succession Act all the five were entitled to shares in the properties of the deceased, with the difference that the share of the widow would be limited to a life interest, the remainder devolving on the others on her death. Instead of effecting a partition on the above lines, however, Mabel and her children entered into Ext.A2 agreement on 1-9-1969 settling the properties in a different manner. Mabel was not interested in getting her share; the properties were therefore divided into four equal shares, scheduled as A, B, C and D, The Items in B, C and D schedules were set apart absolutely to Mahesh, Hasheela and Jamila respectively. A-schedule allotted to the eldest son Suresh consisted of two items. Th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›