Kerala Court April 1990 Judgments
M. Muraleedharan Nair Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-10-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ker25
K.A. Nayar, J. 1. The short question arises for consideration in this Original Petition is whether the Hindu M. L. As. had to give a declaration that they believe in God and temple worship before exercising their right of electing a person to the Travanecore-Cochin Devaswom Boards and further whether a Hindu has to declare that he believes in God and temple worship before getting nominated to the Devaswom Boards.2. Vacancies having arisen in Cochin and Travancore Devaswom Boards, the second respondent, Shri. K. K. Sunkara Gunakan, a retired District Judge, as authorised person under Sections 5 and 64 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act issued a notice dated 13-6-1.989 to all Hindu M. L. As. of the State of Kerala to attend a meeting to be held between 9.30 a.m. and 12 hours on 6-7-1989 at the Durbar Hall, Government Secretariat, Trivandrum for the purpose of electing a member each to the Travancore and Cochin Deveswom Boards, it is mentioned in that notice that if...
Tag this Judgment!R. Madhavan Assari Vs. Kerala State Small Industries Development and E ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-10-1990
Reported in: (1992)IILLJ341Ker
ORDERT.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J. The petitioner is now working as Charge Hand in the Wood Workshop at Kollakkadavu, Mavalikkara, of the first respondent, the Kerala State Small Industries Development and Employees Corporation. He joined the Corporation as a Machine Operator on July 9, 1970. He was borne in the category of worker when he was promoted as Chargehand by the proceedings Ext. P2 dated September 11, 1978 (vide paragraph 2 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first repsondent). He has been functioning as Chargehand since September 19, 1978. Respondents 2 and 3 are junior to him, as is evident from the seniority list Ext. P3. Petitioner is now borne in the revised pay scale of Rs. 330-515, drawing a basic pay of Rs. 378/-.2. Respondents 2 and 3 were promoted as Chargehand in the years 1981 and 1982, long after the petitioner. Several other juniors of the petitioner have also been promoted as Chargehand after his promotion as such. However and despite their later promoti...
Tag this Judgment!Sainudeen Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-10-1990
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1644
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. Appellant Sainuddin was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for having murdered his fourteen years old daughter Noorjahan. In this criminal appeal filed from jail, he is challenging the conviction and sentence. He engaged his own Lawyer. We heard both sides.2. Noorjahan was the only child of the appellant and his wife deceased Nadeera Beevi. She was studying in the Nineth Standard. These three were the only inmates of Parayil Puramboke house at Pattithanam in Ettumanoor Village. Prosecution case is that on 26-3-1986 at about 9 a.m. inside their residential building, the appellant committed murder of Noorjahan by smothering her with a pillow in an attempt to have sexual affair with her. That was at a time when the mother was absent as she went out for work. *3. The plea of the appellant is that he was nowhere in or around the house when his daughter met with tragic end.4. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses. Exts. P1 to P11 are the documents p...
Tag this Judgment!Appraem Co. Ltd. Vs. V.M. Narendranath and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-05-1990
Reported in: [1991]71CompCas158(Ker)
P.K. Shamsuddin, J. 1. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 290 of 1982 on the file of the Sub-Court, Trichur, is the appellant. The suit was for realisation of amount on the basis of kuri security agreement.2. The plaintiff company started a kuri from its Bangalore branch on June 5, 1979. The first defendant was a subscriber. The defendants prized the kuri and received the amount and they executed a security agreement on January 30, 1980, in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to pay a sum of Rs. 10,300 being the amount due for the future 103 instalments at the rate of Rs. 100 per month from February 5, 1980, onwards. They also agreed that in case of default of one instalment, the subscription for that month shall be paid with 12% interest on the date of the next instalment. In case of default of the subsequent instalment also, the foreman shall be entitled to realize the entire future instalments in lump with 12% interest on the whole amount from the date of the first instalment and that the defe...
Tag this Judgment!Moideen Koya Vs. State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-05-1990
Reported in: 1990CriLJ2761
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the 1 st accused in Sessions Case No. 110 of 1989 on on the file of the Ist Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Kozhikode. The appellant-1st accused was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 17 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh and in default of payment of fine he was directed to undergo R.I. for a further period of 2 years. .2. The prosecution case is that on 24-10-1987 at about 5.45 p.m. PW1, the Circle Inspector of Police, Kozhikode Town Police Station was proceeding in a jeep in the company of two police constables. When the jeep reached near the post office at the South Beach Road, PW 1 saw two persons talking to each other. One of them was carrying a plastic bag. As the jeep went near them the person who was carrying the plastic bag entrusted the same to the other person and tried to run away, P...
Tag this Judgment!Commercial Finances Vs. Thressia and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-04-1990
Reported in: [1990]68CompCas704(Ker)
M.M. Pareed Pillay, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The plaintiff discounted a cheque dated August 20, 1977, for Rs. 10,000 drawn by K.J. Mathai on Canara Bank, Kothamangalam, through the eighth defendant. The cheque was presented by the plaintiff to the Canara Bank on October 12, 1977. It was dishonoured. Defendants Nos. 1 to 7 are the legal representatives of Mathai. Additional defendants Nos. 9 to 12 are the legal representatives of the eighth defendant.2. Defendants Nos. 1 to 7 contended, inter alia, that the plaintiff did not advance Rs. 10,000 to Mathai through the eighth defendant. All the findings by the trial court were in favour of the plaintiff except the one that the suit is not maintainable as no notice of dishonour under Section 93 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was given to the defendants.3. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether a notice of dishonour is mandatory to the drawer of a cheque in a case where the cheque was dishonoured on present...
Tag this Judgment!C.J. Palu Vs. the Assistant Collector of Central Excise and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-04-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ980
Jagannadha Raju, J.1. This is an appeal by the petitioner against the judgment dated 2-8-1989 in O.P. No. 4444 of 1988-D. The learned single Judge, Thomas, J., pronounced a common judgment in O.P. Nos. 4444 of 1988 and 5898 of 1989. The main contention in the O.P. was that Section 77 of the Gold (Control) Act is unconstitutional, void and inoperative. The petitioner having been proceeded against Under Section 71 and Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for confiscation and imposition of penalty in regard to gold articles seized, those proceedings and the imposition of penalty would amount to prosecution and punishment, and hence filing a criminal prosecution by virtue of Section 77 offends Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. The principle of double jeopardy would apply and the prosecution in the criminal court is incompetent. The learned single Judge placing reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›