Kerala Court November 1988 Judgments
Varghese Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-28-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Ker248
ORDERK.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. The revision-petitioner filed a suit for injunction against respondents 2 and 3. The suit related to the building which was under the occupation of the revision-petitioner as a tenant. At the time of presentation of the plaint, the plaint produced a rent-deed, The chief ministerial officer of the Munsiff's court noticed that the rent-deed was not properly stamped and a sum of Rs. 41,217/- was payable as stamp duty and penalty. The learned Munsiff thereafter made an endorsement on the document : 'pay stamp duty and penalty. The suit was not pressed and the same was dismissed on 2-7-1984. The plaintiff filed an application for the return of the document. However, the document was not returned and the same was impounded by the learned Munsiff on 3-8-1984. The application to return the document was dismissed. Plaintiff filed I.A. No. 1943 of 1984 to review the order passed by the court impounding the document.2. The short question that arises for consideration ...
Tag this Judgment!Padmanabhan Vs. Thomas and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Ker188
Verghese Kalliath, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for injunction. The short facts which resulted in the filing of the suit are these.2. Admittedly, the defendant is a rentee of a shop room from the first respondent's father. The annual rent of the building was Rs. 120/-. From July, 1979 onwards due to financial difficulties the defendant was not in a position to do trade in the shop room. The shop room remained closed.3. The case of the defendant is that on 11-1-1980 the son of the original landlord; the first plaintiff along with a college student -- a neighbour of the 1st plaintiff forcibly trespassed into the room and broke open the room by removing the lock and attempted to reduce the room in question into their possession. Immediately, the defendant lodged a complaint before the police. On 12-1-1980 the police made an investigation and found the room broken open by two persons -- the first plaintiff and the 2nd plaintiff. The police took the key of the room and ...
Tag this Judgment!Chokli Moideenkutty Vs. the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernaku ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-23-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Ker271
Malimath, C.J.1. This appeal is against the judgment of the learned single Judge in O.P. No. 6414 of 1988. The second respondent, the Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram passed an order as per Ext. P1 on 23-5-1985 for the purpose of introduction of a stage carriage service for the route Kuttur North-Kozhikode v. A. R. Nagar Kakkadumpuram Kunnumpuram-Kondotty and Ramanattukara, it being satisfied that there is need for grant of a stage carriage permit for one trip. The said route is an inter-district route falling within the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram and the Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikode. In pursuance of that decision applications were invited under Section 57(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act by notification dt. 5-12-1985, published in the gazette dt. the 21st Jan. 1986. The said notification is extracted as follows :'In pursuance of the decision of the R.T. A., Malappuram dt. 23-2-1985 the Secretary, R.T.A., Malapuram will receive applicati...
Tag this Judgment!K.P. Sobhana Vs. Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-18-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Ker246; [1989]66CompCas325(Ker)
ORDERK.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J. 1. In execution of the decree, the first respondent-bank has obtained against the petitioner, the share of the petitioner in the property belonging to a partnership of which she is a partner, has been attached. It is further seen from the order that the Court below has also directed sale of the said property.2. It is the common case of the parties that the decree is against the petitioner in her individual capacity. The petitioner therefore contended before the Court below that the properties of the firm of which she is a partner cannot be attached and sold in execution of such a decree. Overruling this objection the Court below has directed the sale of the share of the petitioner in the partnership property. The question therefore is, can the decree-holder attach the share of the petitioner in the partnership property and sell the same in execution of the money decree obtained against the petitioner in her individual capacity.3. It is a principle well ...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Kunjukrishnan Nair Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-18-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Ker253
ORDERU.L. Bhat, J.1. Petitioner was appointed Additional Government Pleader, Quilon bythe State Government on 3-7-1986 for a period of three years from the date of assumption of charge. The order makes it clear that the conditions of service, duties, remuneration etc. of the petitioner will be governed by the rules issued on 25-1-1978 as amended from time to time. He joined duty on 14-7-1986. By Ext. P3 dated 13-9-1988, State Government issued notice to him that his appointment shall stand terminated on the expiry of one month from the date of receipt of the notice.The termination is now challenged. In the process petitioner also contends that Rule 17 of the Rules aforesaid is tin constitutional being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and being void under Section 23 of the Contract Act.2. Rule 17 of the Rules aforesaid reads as follows :'Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the Government may terminate the appointment of any Government Law Officer, other...
Tag this Judgment!V.M. Kunhimohammed Vs. Superintendent of Customs and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-18-1988
Reported in: 1989(39)ELT519(Ker)
T.K. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. The Proceedings are only at the threshold. The petitioner's grievance is however, that he may be fastened with what is stated in Exts. P4(a) and P4(b) without an opportunity to put forward his case in relation to a mahazar which had been allegedly prepared and destroyed. Petitioner's case is that he is an innocent religious scholar, who had come to India after working in the gulf countries for some time. He met with an accident and was under treatment. It was while so that certain officials of the 3rd respondent's department visited the petitioner's house and snatched away a piece of gold from a locket worn by the petitioner's wife. According to the petitioner he is innocent and he is not guilty of any offences under the Customs Act or under the Central Excises and Salt Act. Nevertheless the respondents are attempting to connect him with one P.T. Mohammed, a distant relation of his. This Mohammed himself was intercepted while he was travelling by bus bound fo...
Tag this Judgment!Monarch Investments St. Thomas Road, Trichur and ors. Vs. State of Ker ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-17-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Ker177
Bhaskaran Nambiyar, J.1. The provisions of the Kerala Money Lenders Act are in challenge in this batch of writ appeals and writ petitions. A learned single Judge rejected the claim and dismissed the writ petitions. Hence the appeals. The Act has been subsequently amended. Thus the new writ petitions.2. Money Lenders including pawn brokers are the appellants or the writ petitioners.Licence under the Act to carry on the business of money lending gives the money tenders a status and symbol which they would always gladly welcome. Rightly, therefore, there is no complaint against the insistence of a licence to conduct the business. But it is contended;(1) that the fixation of a uniform licence fee of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 4(2) of the Act, not geared to the business turnover of the money lender is arbitrary; (2) that the insistence of security on a graduated scale under Section 4(2A) is un-reasonable and arbitrary violating Article 19(1)(g) and Article 14 of the Constitutionand (3) that...
Tag this Judgment!R. Balakrishna Pillai Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-16-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Ker99
Paripoornan, J.1. The petitioner, Sri. R. Balakrishna Pillai, is a member of the Kerala Legislative Assembly. He belongs to the Kerala Congress (J) which is a component of the United Democratic Front (hereinafter referred to as the U. D.F.) led by the Congress (1). He was a Minister holding the portfolio of Electricity in the previous Ministry (U.D.F. Government) which was in power from 1982 to 1987. In this Original Petition, the attack is against Ext.P6, a notification issued by the State Government dated 16-12-1987. The said notification is one issued under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (Central Act 60 of 1952). As many as 14 allegations against the petitioner are included in the Appendix to Ext. P6. A free translation of the said allegations in English (as furnished by petitioner's counsel) is as follows :1. The contract of Tunnel driving works of the Lower Periyar Project was given to the 'Hindustan Construction Company' (H.C.C.) which was quoted more than Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnan Assari Velayudhan Assari Vs. Parameswaran Pillai Madhavan Pil ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-15-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Ker163
K.T. Thomas, J.1. An obstructor succeeded in two courts below in his resistance against delivery of a property covered by the decree. The obstructor is none other than the brother of the first judgment-debtor. Other judgment-debtors are the children of the first judgment -debtor. This second appeal is by the decree-holder,2. The appellant obtained the decree for redemption of two usufructuary mortgages in respect of a land having thirtyeight cents in extent. All the steps so far adopted by the decree-holder to get possession of the mortgaged property did not fructify. The turn in the fight is consequent on the obstruction made when the Amin went to effect delivery of possession of the property. Execution Court upheld the obstructor's claim in regard to thirtyone cents, but rejected the claim in regard to the balance area of seven cents on which a building is situate. Both the obstructor and the decree-holder challenged the said order of the execution Court. It was the obstructor who fi...
Tag this Judgment!West India Steel Company Ltd. Vs. Azeez
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-15-1988
Reported in: [1990(60)FLR802]; (1990)IILLJ133Ker
Sukumaran, J. 1. Two writ petitions challenge the award of the Labour Court by which a substantial finding of guilty in a domestic enquiry was upheld by the Labour Court, but the punishment modified as one from dismissal to that of discharge. The management is aggrieved because the Labour Court has diluted the rigour of the punishment.The workman says that he should have been reinstated with backwages.2. The gravamen of the charge is that the workman, President of the Trade Union, caused obstruction to the work in the factory for about five hours, when a particular worker, Krishnan, was deputed for work in the millets clearing section.3. In the enquiry there was evidence, direct evidence, on that aspect. The Assistant Foreman was a witness. He spoke in terms of the charge. The entirety of the evidence was placed before the Labour Court. If the evidence is accepted, the charge is clearly established.4. According to the workman, he had kept out of the enquiry when there was an indication...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »