Kerala Court July 1992 Judgments
A.L. Sivaraman and ors. Vs. the State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-31-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Ker17
ORDER1. Petitioners 1 to 3 and 4th respondent are brothers. 4th respondent instituted O. S. No. 10/83 on the file of the Additional Munsiff s Court, Palghat against the first petitioner. The dispute in that suit centred around a tamarind tree. 4th respondent contended before the court that the tree stands in the portion allotted to him in the family partition. To support that plea, he produced an unregistered partition deedwritten on plain paper. An application for receiving that document in evidence was also filed by him. First petitioner who was alone made party in that suit contended that the document is a concocted and fabricated one and that he did not subscribe his signature to it. The court impounded the document and forwarded it to the third respondent for collection of stamp duty and penalty. When the suit came up for trial, 4th respondent reported 'not pressed'. Consequently the suit was dismissed. So the court had no opportunity to examine the contention of the first petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Raghavan and anr. Vs. Sankaran Ezhuthassan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-31-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Ker178
ORDERG.H. Guttal, J.1. The petitioners are plaintiffs in O.S. No. 356 of 1991 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Trissur. The respondent-defendant holds a decree for possession against the petitioner. The decree was passed by the subordinate court, Trissur in O.S. 32 of 1968. By an application 1. A. 1175/1991 the petitioner sought interim injunction restraining the defendants from recovering possession in execution of the decree in O.S. 32/ 1968. The Subordinate Judge, Trissur, dismissed the I.A. 1175/91. 'the petitioners' C.N.A. 57 of 1991, was dismissed by the District Judge, Trissur. According to the learned District Judge, the court which made the decree in O.S, 32/1968 was not subordinate to the court which was called upon to grant the injunction. Therefore Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act precludes the grant of injunction. The plaintiff challenges the legality of these orders. In this judgment the parties are referred by their nomenclat...
Tag this Judgment!Sudarsan Chits (India) Ltd. Vs. R. Sambasiva Rao and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-31-1992
Reported in: [1995]84CompCas962(Ker)
G.H. Guttal, J.1. In this claim under Section 446(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, the official liquidator seeks to recover Rs. 5,062.50. The only question is whether the claim is barred by limitation.2. The facts are as under :Respondent No. 1, a subscriber to the chitty conducted by the company committed defaults in the payment of the monthly instalments. The last instalment was paid on June 30, 1984. The time started running on July 1, 1984. On this day the claimant acquired 'the right to apply' for recovery of the amount due under the contract of chitty. The amount is Rs. 5,062.50 (Rs. 3,457.22 principal and Rs. 1,605.28 interest). In order thatit is not barred by the period of three years prescribed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the claim ought to have been filed before July 30, 1987. It was filed on October 11, 1991.3. Some more facts which are relevant are these :The petition for winding up Sudarsan Chits (India) Ltd., the claimant herein, was filed on January 2, 198...
Tag this Judgment!K.C. Sankaranarayanan and ors. Vs. the State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-31-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Ker402
ORDERP.K. Shamsuddin, J. 1. A common question of law arises in all these Original Petitions and therefore they were heard together and disposed of by a common judgment. For convenience sake, I shall refer to the documents as they are marked in O.P. No. 9044 of 1991. 2. Petitioners 1 to 4 in O.P. No. 9044/91 are the legal representatives of late Smt. Puthiyaveettil Meera Bai. 1st petitioner is the husband, petitioners 2 to 4 are the daughters and 5th petitioner is the younger sister of late Meera Bai. 3. Under a final decree, in a partition suit, O.S. No. 553 of 1939 on the file of Munsiff's Court, Kuthuparamba, the plot 'C'comphsed in R.Section 6/1 of Kavilampara Desom in Badagara Taluk was allotted to the thavazhi of late Mathu alias Kunchi Amma. The above plot was private forest. As per the final decree, the private forest was divided into by metes and bounds among the co-sharers to be enjoyed by them either singly or in groups. According to the petitioners, Meera Bai and four others...
Tag this Judgment!Hyderkhan Vs. Meharunnissa
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-31-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ236; II(1992)DMC382
Pareed Pillay, J.1. Petitioner challenges the order of the AdditionalSessions Judge, Palakkad in Crl. R.P. 14 of 1990 confirming the order of theChief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad in M.C. 6 of 1989. The M.C. was filedUnder Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act,1986 by the respondent.2. Respondent was married by the petitioner on 26.3.1980. Due toestrangement between them the marital relationship was snapped. Divorcewas effected on 26.10.1980. In the wedlock a male child was born to therespondent on 22.2.1981. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate awarded altogetherRs. 24,000/- to the respondent. This has been confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge holding that it is not possible to hold that the amountawarded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate is excessive.3. Contention of the petitioner is that the respondent was divorced on26.10.1980 and as the divorce was before the commencement of the MuslimWomen (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, (for...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Gopalakrishnan Vs. P.P. Dominic and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-30-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Ker408
ORDERK.P. Balanarayana Marar, J. 1. In the election for the Chairman of Palakkad Municipal Council held on 9-8-1991 petitioner was declared elected. The losing candidate, the 1st respondent, challenged the election before the District Court, Palakkad in O.P. 56/91. By judgment dt. 12-2-1992 the District Court set aside the election of petitioner as Chairman and ordered a re-election. That order is under challenge in this O.P. 2. In the election held on 9-8-1991, 33 councillors cast their votes of which 17 were in favour of petitioner and 16 in favour of the 1st respondent. Petitioner was declared as elected and was functioning as Chairman from that date onwards. The election was challenged by the 1st respondent mainly on the ground that the 2nd respondent (Vice-Chairman) who presided over the meeting had treated certain invalid votes as valid which had materially affected the result of the election. The District Judge took the view that one vote cast in favour of the petitioner which c...
Tag this Judgment!Chacko Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-30-1992
Reported in: (1993)ILLJ283Ker
Sreedharan, J.1. Petitioners, two in number, were Abkari contractors. First petitioner bid in auction certain arrack shops during the financial year 1982-83. He had respondents 3 to 24 under his employment during that period. On expiry of his licence, he ceased to have any connection whatsoever with the shop on March 31, 1983. Respondents 3 to 24 approached Labour Court, Kollam invoking the provisions under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming retrenchment compensation and notice pay. Their petition was entertained as C.P. 7/1985. Labour Court allowed that petition and directed first petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs. 693/- each to respondents 3 to 24. The total amount payable by the first petitioner comes to Rs. 15,246/-.2. Second petitioner was the licensee of certain arrack shops during the Abkari year 1983-84. Respondents 3 to 14 were workers under him. On the expiry of the period of licence, second petitioner ceased to have any connection whatsoever with the s...
Tag this Judgment!Powar Vs. Labour Enforcement Officer (C)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-29-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ26; [1992(65)FLR907]; (1993)ILLJ521Ker
ORDERPareed Pillay, J.1. Petitioner is the Manager of the Reserve Bank of India, Trivandrum. The Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed to quash the proceedings in ST. 67 of 1991 of the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trivandrum on the ground that the proceedings clearly amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.2. S. T. 67 of 1991 was taken to file by the Court on a complaint preferred by the first respondent against the petitioner and the second respondent for the offence punishable under Section 23 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The accusation is that the petitioner committed offence punishable under Section 23 of the Act by engaging three contract labourers for sweeping, cleaning and watching of the residential quarters of the officers of the Reserve Bank of India, which is prohibited as per Notification No. S. 779(E) dated December 9, 1976 of the Government of India pursuant to Section 10(1)...
Tag this Judgment!P.V. Sreedharan Nair Vs. Spl. Deputy Tahsildar and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-29-1992
Reported in: (1993)ILLJ851Ker
K.A. Nayar, J.1. The Original Petition is filed to quash the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner by Exhibits P-10 to P-13. The petitioner was the managing partner of a partnership which was operating a bus bearing Registration No. KLN 708. Admittedly, respondents Nos. 4 and 5 are workers employed by the partnership. That partnership was dissolved by a decree passed in a suit filed by one of the partners, viz., the brother of the petitioner as O.S. No. 192 of 1979 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Thalassery. Preliminary and final decrees have been passed. In the final decree passed, there is a provision for payment of arrears of salary to the employees in connection with the management of the bus up to the date of court auction. Before the partnership was dissolved, the petitioner purchased the bus in court auction on October 24, 1988, for an amount of Rs. 80,000. The purchase consideration was deposited in court and, thereafter, the petitioner was operating ...
Tag this Judgment!Sreedhar Pillay and ors. Vs. P.J. Alexander and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-29-1992
Reported in: 1992CriLJ3433
ORDERM.M. Pareed Pillay, J.1. Crl. M.C. 847 of 1992 is filed by A3 and Crl. M.C. 881 of 1992 is filed by A4 in C.C. 435 of 1990 of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam.2. The complaint is filed under Section 500 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. against the Printer and Publisher of English Weekly 'Sunday'. An article along with an interview of the 4th accused published in the weekly is the subject matter of the defamation complaint. Complainant's case is that the impugned article maligned his good name and damaged his reputation. In the publication it is stated that the conduct of the complainant in the investigation of Hamza murder case was not above board.3. Complainant examined himself as P.W. 1. Two other witnesses were examined on his side. The complainant closed his evidence and thereafter accused were questioned under Section 313, Cr. P.C. Petitioners (A3 and A4) wanted defence evidence. A4 wanted to examine 17 witnesses and submitted a list to that effect. A3 ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »