Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1992]73CompCas80(Ker)
Radhakrishna Menon, J.1. These appeals are not only important to the parties involved in them but they raise several questions of general importance relating to the power of the appellant company, a public limited company, to alter its articles and especially its power to introduce a new article, the effect of which is to empower it to refuse to recognise transfer of shares which it could not have refused under the articles as they stood at the time of transfer as the transfer was prior to the alteration.2. Facts relevant and requisite to dispose of the disputes can briefly be stated thus : The petitions from which the appeals arise are petitions under Section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'), for rectification of the share register ; some of them filed at the instance of the transferors and some at the instance of the transferees, of the equity shares of Mathrubhumi Printing and Publishing Company Ltd. (for short, 'the company'), a company registered as a public co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1994]79CompCas78(Ker)
B.K. Thulasidas, J.1. This revision is directed against the order in M.P. No. 2253 of 1991, passed by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kochi.2. A complaint was filed by the petitioner against the respondent alleging that he had committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of Act 66 of 1988. The court dismissed the complaint finding, that--'the complainant did not send a notice in writing as required. Thus he failed to observe one of the requirements listed under Clause (b) of Section 138 read with Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881'.3. In my view, the impugned order is unsustainable. The Magistrate has misunderstood the relevant legal provisions. It is not in dispute that the respondent issued a cheque for Rs. 8,000. It was presented on April 1, 1991, and was dishonoured on the next day. It was re-presented on May 9, 1991, and again it was dishonoured. Thereupon, the petitioner sent a notice to the respondent on May 14, 1991, which was accepted by hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1992Ker219
G.H. Guttal, J.1. The Appellant, who is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 294/87 in the court of Munsiff, Kannur impugns the validity of the Appellate order dated 5th November, 1990 in A.S. No. 27/89 made by the I Addl. Sub Judge, Thalassery by which he reversed the decree for mandatory injunction made by the trial court and remanded the case for trial of the issue whether the respondent holds an irrevocable license under Section 60(b) of the Easements Act. The facts necessary for disposal of this petition appear in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 below: The appellant and therespondent are in this judgment referred to as the plaintiff and the defendant respectively.2. The plaintiff instituted O. S. No. 294/87 in the court of the Munsiff, Kannur. She claimed a decree for a mandatory injunction that the defendant-respondent herein, shall remove the shed used as pump house and the water pipes connecting the well to the defendant's factory. The plaintiff based her title on the assignment dated 1-6-1986 made...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1992]197ITR499(Ker)
S. Padmanabhan, J. 1. The petitioner is a partnership-firm represented by its managing agent. Exhibit P-1 is the deed of partnership. There were four partners. Plantation is the main business. Clause 12 of exhibit P-l provided that, if a partner dies, the partnership shall accept his legal representative as a partner in his place ; but if the legal representative is unwilling to join, he or she shall be entitled to the same reliefs as a partner willing to retire. Till such intimation, the other partners shall have full right of deciding all questions connected with the working of the partnership. Channiah, one of the four partners, died in 1971. His legal representative, Pramila Krishna, readily joined as a partner. In 1973, another partner, Bharathi Udayabhanu retired by mutual agreement and the other partners continued. Another partner, Devaki Amma, then died and her legal representative, Sarada Vijayan, was admitted as a partner. At present, the three partners are Pramila Krishna, S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1992Ker119
ORDERG.H. Guttal, J.1. This petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is by the judgment debtors 2 and 3 in E. P. No. 6 of 1985 arising out of decree in O. S. No. 6 of 1971. The respondent No, 1 is the decree-holder. Respondent No. 2 is the judgment-debtor No. 1. Respondents Nos. 3 to 8 are the legal representatives of the decree-holder. They have not been joined as petitioners in the execution petition.The question is whether the Execution Petition No. 6 of 1985 filed on 1-1-1985 for execution of the decree made on 7-4-1971 isbarred by limitation prescribed by Article 136 of the Limitation Act.2. A decree for recovery of Rs. 11,885/-with interest was made on 7-4-1971. After directing the judgment-debtors to pay the decretal sum, the decree goes on to record :'That the defendant be entitled to the benefit under Act II of 1970.'Act II of 1970 is the Kerala Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).3. The execution petition was filed on 1-1-198...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1993ACJ509
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. Both these original petitions relate to alleged police excess that had taken place on 22.10.1986. Petitioners in these original petitions claim to be the victims of the unprecedented atiocities of infuriated police. Petitioners are inhabitants of a small village known as Thankamani, which is 42 kilometres away from the Idukki town. This village is in Kamakshy Panchayat and it lacks in several basic amenities including supply of electricity. There are about 1,000 families in this village and most of them are agriculturists. The nearest township is Kattappana, which is about 22 kilometres away from Thankamani. The only mode of transport to the village from Kattappana and Idukki is buses operated by private carriers and K.S.R.T.C. During the relevant time there were only two K.S.R.T.C. buses plying between Thankamani and Kattappana. There were two private stage carriages operating transport service between Thankamani and Kattappana. For all these buses the route pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1992Ker187
Jagannadha Rao, C.J.1. This referrence to Full Bench made on 27-2-1989 appears to us to be largely covered by the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Associated Engineering Co. v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, (1991) 4 SCC 93 : (AIR 1992 SC 232), dealing with non-speaking awards of arbitration. The referring order of the Division Bench of the Full Bench thus in its concluding paragraph:'In view of the decisions in State of Kerala v. Poulose, (1988) I Ker LT 541 and State of Kerala v. Poulose, (1987) I Ker LT 781 which state that even non-speaking awrds are liable to be set aside if the award is contrary to the basic features of the contract or traverses beyond its terms, which are contrary to the views expressed by the various Supreme Court decisions including the latest pronouncement in Jawaharlal Madhwa v. Haripada Chakraborty, (1989) 1 SCC 76 : (AIR 1989 SC 606), we are of the opinion that the matter requires consideration by a Full Bench of this Court.'2. The facts of the case are a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1992Ker224
Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. The legal representatives of the deceased declarant are the petitioner. The reference to the Full Bench was occasioned by the doubt entertained by a learned single Judge of this court in a related matter, C.R.P. No. 1215 of 1982 (which we are disposing of separately) that Section 84(1 A) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act 1 of 1964) hereinafter referred to as the Act, does not enable exclusion of the lands gifted by the declarant between January 1, 1970 and November, 5, 1974 from his accountable holdings in determining the extent of surrenderable area under the ceiling provisions of the Act. The learned Judge was inclined to take the view that the provision was intended only to protect the interest of the donee and not to confer any benefit on the donor. In other words, the view taken was that after the amendment 'it was not open to the Taluk Land Board to accept such a choice' (i.e. to surrender the gifted lands) 'made by the declarant because the transfer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1992(65)FLR865]; (1994)IILLJ760Ker
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. The petitioner is a public limited company which is an industrial establishment satisfying the requirements of Section 25K of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Permission sought for by the company under Section 25O(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for closure was refused by the Government under Sub-section (2). Exhibit P-6 is copy of the order dated January 17, 1990. Exhibit P-7, review petition, was filed under Sub-section (5) of Section 25O on February 3, 1990. Complaining that the petition was not disposed of, the petitioners moved Original Petition No. 3721 of 1990 for compelling the Government to pass orders on Exhibit P-7. The original petition was allowed by the original of Exhibit P-8 judgment. Subsequently, at the instance of the Company itself, the Government passed Exhibit P-9 order referring the matter to the Industrial Tribunal. By Exhibit P-10 award, the Industrial Tribunal rejected the application holding that there are no grounds for review...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1992Ker215
ORDERChettur Shankaran Nair, J.1. The question involved in these writ petitions is the same, -- it is whether respondents have power to regulate admissions to private Nursing Schools, run by minority communities. The notification impugned in all the writ petitions, is the notification, Ext. P1 in O.P. No. 10229/89.2. Petitioners represent Nursing Schools, established and administered by a minority community, namely the Christian Community. Taking power under Sub-section (1) of Section 36 of the Travancore-Cochin Nurses & Midwives Act 10 of 1953, as amended by Act 15 of 1961 and Act 14 of 1964, the Kerala Nurses & Midwives Council issued Ext. P1 notification dated 29-11-1989, regulating admissions to Nursing Schools, Section 36 of the Act, enables the Council to make regulations:'for all or any of the following matters: (a) .......................................................... (b) the conduct of any examinations which may be prescribed by rules as a condition of admission to the re...
Tag this Judgment!