Kerala Court June 1992 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Achuthan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-24-1992
Reported in: [1992(65)FLR830]; (1995)IIILLJ136Ker
Sreedharan, J. 1. Petitioners, three in number, challenge the validity of Ext.P1 notification issued by Government fixing minimum rates of wages payable to employees engaged in Cinema Theatres within the State. Petitioners 1 and 2 are owners of Cinema Theatres and 3rd petitioner is an Association of exhibitors of Cinematograph films, either owned by them in proprietary or partnership concerns or on hire. It is averred that the third petitioner has a membership of 1370 out of total 1400 Cinema Theatres in Kerala.2. Government of Kerala as per notification dated 21.7.1984 issued under Section 27 of the Minimum Wages Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' , added 'Employment in Cinema Theatres' to the Schedule to the Act. Thereafter they appointed a Committee to hold enquiries to advise it in respect of the fixation of minimum rates of wages in respect of the employees in the Theatres. Committee was constituted by 11 persons representing the employees, 11 persons representing the emplo...
Padmanabhan Vs. Kerala State Handloom Development Corporation Limited
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-24-1992
Reported in: (1993)ILLJ1226Ker
Jagannadha Rao, C.J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the writ petitioner against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition. The question related to the validity of the disciplinary action taken against the appellant and the order of dismissal from service, Ext. P6 dated September 7, 1987.2. The appellant was formerly the Finance Manager of the Kerala State Handloom Development Corporation Ltd., Cannanore, and was holding the said post till September 10, 1987 when the above said order of dismissal was passed. A domestic enquiry was earlier conducted by the third respondent, Enquiry Officer, who was a practising lawyer. There were, in all, 19 charges against the appellant out of which 17 were held to be proved. In this appeal before us, the same points which were urged before the learned Single Judge are again urged.3. The following points arise for consideration:'(1) Whether, the Regulations applicable to the officers of the Corporation contemplated a second...
Bhageerathy Vs. V. Beena and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-1992
Reported in: [1993]76CompCas684(Ker); 1992CriLJ3946
M.M. Pareed Pillay, J.1. The petitioner is the accused in S. T. No. 56 of 1991, in the court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Palakkad. First respondent filed the complaint alleging an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the Act'). The main contention of the petitioner is that Section 138 of the Act is not attracted as the cheque was returned unpaid with the bank's endorsement 'payment stopped by drawer'. It is argued that return of the cheque with the said endorsement would not come under the purview of Section 138 and hence no offence has been made out against the petitioner, especially when there is no allegation in the complaint that the endorsement was made by the bank as there was no sufficient money in the bank.2. Section 138 of the Act provides for punishment only in case a cheque was returned unpaid due to(i) insufficiency of the amount in the account of the drawer of the cheque to honour the cheque, and ;(ii)...
Malankara Rubber and Produce Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-1992
Reported in: [1993]203ITR226(Ker)
L. Manoharan, J.1. The revision petitioner is a public limited company carrying on business of growing and selling rubber at its Malankara Rubber Estate at Thodupuzha. The petitioner is an assessee to agricultural income-tax under the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 (for short, 'the Agrl. I. T. Act'). For the assessment year 1981-82, the petitioner was assessed under the Agricultural Income-tax Act by order dated December 5, 1983, copy of which is annexure-A. The petitioner states that the said assessment was accepted by the petitioner and that the petitioner had paid the full tax as per the said assessment. During the period 1974-75, corresponding to the assessment year 1975-76 onwards, portions of the petitioner's estate were being acquired for the Muvattupuzha Valley Irrigation Project as per the provisions of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act and the petitioner was being paid compensation for the same. A total of 361.256 acres were acquired during the period 1974-75 to 1980-81. On ...
Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Democratic Labour Federation a ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-1992
Reported in: (1993)ILLJ846Ker
K.A. Nayar, J.1. This original petition is filed to quash Exhibit P-3 said to be contrary to the provisions of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961. Exhibit P-3 is the duty schedule issued to the workmen of the first respondent. Their case is espoused by petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 union. The averment in the petition is that there was a conciliation settlement, viz., Exhibit P-1, which was valid up to 1st February, 1990, and that was modified by another conciliation settlement. Exhibit P-2, on December 28, 1990. In Sub-clause 14 of clause 37 of Exhibit P-2, it is stated that all existing provisions which are not modified by agreement will continue to operate as such. Therefore, even though the term of settlement evidenced by Exhibit P-1 expired on February 1, 1990, the same will remain in force by virtue of Exhibit P-2 agreement aforementioned. The contention of the petitioners is that Exhibit P-3 schedule is in violation of the provisions of the two agreements and, therefore, Exhibit P-...
T. Madhusoodan Vs. the Superintendent of Police and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-1992
Reported in: 1992CriLJ3442
P.A. Mohammed, J.1. This is an application filed under Section 438 of the Criminal P.C., 1973 (for short 'the Code'). It came before us on a reference made by a learned single Judge. The point involved is whether this High Court has jurisdiction to grant an order of 'anticipatory bail' under Section 438 of the Code on the ground that the petitioner apprehends his arrest here, though the alleged offence was committed at a place situate within the territorial limits of Madhya Pradesh High Court. Bhaskaran Nambiar, J. has held in C.I. Mathew v. Govt. of India, 1984 KLT 942 : (1985 Cri LJ 1316), that the court within whose limits the arrest is apprehended has also jurisdiction to grant the order under Section 438 of the Code. Pareed Pillay, J. who referred this matter to a larger Bench expressed that 'an authoritative decision by a Division Bench of this court' is required in view of the different opinion pronounced by Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ravinder Mohan v. State of Punjab, 198...
P. Karunakaran and ors. Vs. Sri. C. Jayasooryan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-1992
Reported in: 1992CriLJ3540
ORDERM.M. Pareed Pillay, J.1. Petitioners are the accused in C.C. 318 of 1991 on the file of the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Thalassery. First respondent filed the complaint under Sections 500 and 501 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. alleging that the news item published in the Deshabhimani Daily in its Kozhikode Edition dated 26-5-1991 with respect to the cremation of Rajiv Gandhi, President of the Congress (I) is false, mischievous and politically motivated. The report stated about the insufficiency of sandal wood pieces for the cremation. The first respondent alleged that on account of the publication of the said news report the members of the Indian National Congress (I) have been lowered down in public estimation and that this is per se defamatory.2. Section 199, Cr. P.C. lays down an exception to the general rule that a complaint can be filed by any body whether aggrieved or not and modifies that rule by permitting only an aggrieved person to...
Muslim Printing and Pvt. Co. Ltd. Vs. Secretary to Government
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-18-1992
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ860Ker
K.A. Nayar, J. 1. Industrial jurisprudence in India can rightly be styled as bread and butter jurisprudence, for the management bringing in capital, the workmen investing their flesh and blood and the industry struggling for survival, in the competitive market, all draw sustenance from the industrial adjudication and quick decision. 2. This original petition is for a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 order and also for a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to reconsider the issue and pass appropriate orders granting permission sought for in Ext.P2 application, taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner is a private limited company owning a Malayalam daily called 'Chandrika'. It publishes a weekly also. The employment strength of the petitioner company at present is 170 including eight employees not coming under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Company, it is stated, is running at a loss for several years and accumulated loss as...
Mohammed Sayeed Sarkar Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-18-1992
Reported in: 1992CriLJ3542
ORDERM.M. Pareed Pillay, J.1. Petitioner is the accused in C.C. 930 of 1989 pending before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the Second Class, Trivandrum. He seeks to quash the proceedings against him under Section 17(2) and (4) of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Petitioner's case is that he has registered his name as a Hakim with the Council of Ayurvedic and Unani Medicine, Bihar constituted under Bihar Development of Ayurvedic and Unani Systems of Medicine Act, 1951 and so no action can be taken against him under the Act. It is stated that he practised in Bihar till 1965 and thereafter he shifted his practice to Trivandrum where he has settled down with his family. Contention of the petitioner is that he cannot be made liable under Section 17(2) of the Act as he has obtained Registration Certificate under the Bihar Development of Ayurvedic and Unani Systems of Medicine Act, 1951 as Hakim on 15-6-1961.2. The short point that ...
Punnakkal Sreedharan Vs. Vellali Padmini and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-18-1992
Reported in: 1992CriLJ3562; II(1992)DMC296
M.M. Pareed Pillay, J.1. Against the petitioner respondents filedpetition Under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kannur. First respondent claims to be the wife ofthe petitioner. She claimed maintenance for herself and for the second respondent, who is alleged to be the child born to her through the petitioner. Thelearned Magistrate granted maintenance to both of them. That has been confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Tellichery in Crl. R.P.14 of 1990.2. Petitioner contended that the first respondent has not establishedher marriage with him by any cogent evidence and hence on the basis of Ext.P- l registered document there cannot be any presumption of the marriage.Counsel for the petitioner submitted that even assuming that Ext. P- l wasreally executed by the petitioner willingly and voluntarily the same cannot beconsidered as evidencing valid marraige in view of total lack of pleadings withrespect to the solemnisation of the marr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »