Kerala Court November 1993 Judgments
Bhagavathy Radha and anr. Vs. Narayanan Kamalasanan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-1993
Reported in: 1994CriLJ1413
ORDERK.T. Thomas, J.1. A destitute wife obtained an order under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') as early as July, 1980 fixing the monthly maintenance allowance at Rs. 100/- after much haggling. But even that amount remains a mirage for her as the successive applications made by her for recovery of the arrears amount reached cul de sac. This is the third tier in the judicial hierarchy she climbs like a mendicant even for the modicum. The third application filed by her was seemingly out of time but it was salvaged by the Magistrate who treated it as continuation of the earlier application. However, the Sessions Judge in revision has held that it is irretrievably out of time. Hence she has come to this Court with the present revision petition.2. The order to pay maintenance allowance passed by the Judicial Magistrate remianed abeyance till August, 1981 due to the pendecy of a revision in the Sessions Court. Travails of the petitioner really began there...
Tag this Judgment!Valummel Thommachan Alias Thomas Vs. the State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-26-1993
Reported in: 1994CriLJ1738
L. Manoharan, J.1. Accused, Thoramachan alias Thomas was charged under Sections 447 and 302, I.P.C. for having caused the death of his elder brother Augusty at about 10.45 p.m. on 5-2-1989 after criminally trespassing into the court yard of the house of Augusty. Learned Additional Sessions Judge. Kozhikode Division tried the accused, found him guilty and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 447, IPC and to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302, I.P.C. with a direction that the sentences shall run concurrently. Accused challenges the said finding, conviction and sentence in this appeal.2. The matrix of the prosecution case is that the relationship of the brothers were not cordial. Some time before the occurrence which took place at about 10.45 p.m. on 5-2-1989, the dog belonging to Augusty bit the cat belonging to the accused. Accused got wild and he called abusive words against Augusty. At that time, Augusty was not in his house. On his ret...
Tag this Judgment!Luga Bay Shipping Corporation and Etc. Vs. the Board of Trustees of th ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Ker71
Sreedharan, J.1. These Original Petitions have come before us on a reference made by a learned single Judge. The short question that arises for decision in these petitions is whether the Cochin Port Trust is entitled, under the Major Port Trusts Act, the Indian Ports Act and the Regulations made thereunder, to demand an unconditional cash deposit from the owner of a ship which caused damage to the property of the Port Trust.2. Short facts necessary for the decision of these petitions are as follows-- Petitoner in O.P. 5822/1984 is a foreign company, which owns the vessel M/T LARNACA. Petitioner in O.P. 6986/1984 is the agent of the vessel M/T LARNACA. Vessel M/T LARNACA reached outer rods of Cochin Harbour on 2-6-1984. She entered the harbour on 6-6-1984 and was berthed at No. 2 berth in the Cochin Shipyard. She was shifted from that berth to North Tanker Berth, as required by the Cochin Shipyard, on 14-6-1984. While she moved to the North Tanker Berth, she was under the control of Pil...
Tag this Judgment!P. Karunakaran Pillai Vs. State and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-24-1993
Reported in: (1994)IILLJ431Ker
G.H. Guttal, J. 1. The question in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is whether the Government of Kerala has, under Rule 3 of Chapter I of Part III, Kerala Service Rules, the authority to withhold the pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner on the sole ground that a criminal case of misappropriation of public money is pending against him.2. The petitioner retired on February 28, 1991 as the Principal, Extension Training Centre, Kottarakkara. In 1981-82 he was entrusted with a sum of Rs. 1,95,000/- for the purpose of purchasing Charkas. He is alleged to have misappropriated this amount and other sums of money. The event occurred in 1981-82. A Criminal Case No. 4 of 1987 of the Vigilance Police Station, Quilon is pending against him. As a result of this, the Respondents, the State of Kerata and the Commissioner of Rural Development, granted him only anticipatory pension of Rs. 829/- per month and denied the full pension of Rs. 1,1067-per month, death-cum-...
Tag this Judgment!Hathika and ors. Vs. Puthiyapurayil Padmanabhan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-23-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Ker141
K.P. Balanarayana Marar, J. 1. The appeal arises from a suit for redemption of mortgage. Plaintiffs are the appellants. The trial Court as well asthe lower appellate Court held that the transaction to be a lease and the request for redemption was denied. Hence the second appeal.2. Plaintiffs are admittedly the owners of the building described in the plaint schedule which according to them was mortgaged to defendant as per mortgage deed dated 23-10-1978. An amount of Rs. 1000/- was borrowed from defendant on the security of the building, possession of which was handed over to the defendant on condition to pay an amount of Rs. 85/- per month by way of surplus profits. The document stipulated for payment of interest at 12% on the amount defaulted. The period prescribed in the document is six months on the expiry of which defendant had to retransfer the building to plaintiffs. In case of default to pay the amount within the stipulated period defendant was given the right to realise the amo...
Tag this Judgment!Sooraj Vs. the State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-19-1993
Reported in: 1994CriLJ1155
P.A. Mohammed, J.1. What is involved in the main appeal is a crime of matricide where a young man by name Sooraj killed his mother 'Sundari alias Lakshmi Narayanan'. The accused was convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201, I.P.C. by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta. The said conviction and sentence imposed therein are challenged by the accused in the appeal. In the revision the accused prays for an order to direct the above sentences to run concurrently with sentences awarded against him in C. C. 201/87 under Section 380 and 457, I.P.C. by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranni.2. The prosecution case in short can be stated thus : The accused and his deceased mother were residing together in a house called Mayasadanam' in Chittar. In the first marriage with Kochukunju, the deceased had three children by name Snahaji, Jaya Thampi and Viroji. In the second marriage with Narayanan she had one son who is the accused in this case. Narayanan was...
Tag this Judgment!Selvi and anr. Vs. Nataraja Mudaliyar and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-18-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Ker134
Balanarayana Marar, J. 1. Revision arises from an order in a Rent Control Petition. Revision petitioners are respondents-tenants of the building sought to be evicted by respondent-landlord. Petitioners failed to appear on the date of hearing and after setting them ex parte the Rent Control Court allowed the application. Petitioners moved the Rent Control Court by I.A.2056/ 1989 to get the ex parte order set aside. Another petition was also filed as I.A.2035/ 1989 to excuse the delay in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte order. The reason for the absence is alleged to be the illness of petitioners. Respondent resisted the petition. The Rent Control Court after hearing both sides dismissed both the petitions by a common order dated 1-1-1990. The reason for the absence was not satisfactorily explained according to the Rent Control Court and the reason for the delay was also not established. On appeal Addl. District Court, Palakked concurred with that order and dismissed the app...
Tag this Judgment!A.U. Pradeep and ors. Vs. University of Calicut
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-17-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Ker56
Jagannadha Rao, C.J. 1. This writ petition was referred to a Division Bench by a learned single Judge of this Court. That is how this writ petition comes before me.2. The four writ petitioners filed the writ petition on 21-1-1992 seeking the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P 1 scheme of examination for M.Com. Course in so far as the said scheme insists securing of a minimum of 35% of marks for viva voce examination for the purpose of obtaining M.Com. degree. They also seek the consequential declaration that the petitioners must be deemed to have successfully passed the M.Com. examination with Second Class. The four petitioners are privately enrolled candidates for M.Com. Course conducted by the Calicut University. The Course spreads over two years and comprises of compulsory and optional subjects. Part I comprises of compulsory subjects, which are in four papers. Part II comprises of optional subjects which are again in four papers. At the end of each year, there will be ex...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Peelari Edathil Kunhiraman Nambiar an ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-17-1993
Reported in: II(1994)ACC485; 1994ACJ1019; [1995]83CompCas599(Ker)
T. L. Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. Three persons were knocked down by a jeep KLC 4448 at about 9.30 p.m. on October 14, 1979. Of these three, two persons, Raghavan and Devanarayan, died and their legal representatives filed claims for award of compensation for the loss caused by their death, under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The first respondent was stated to be the owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident and the fourth respondent, the previous owner. The second respondent was the driver, and the third respondent the insurer, speaking with reference to the array of parties before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Though the first respondent was impleaded as the owner of the vehicle, there was no insurance for the vehicle in his name ; it stood in the name of the fourth respondent. The Tribunal held that the vehicle was driven rashly and negligently by the second respondent driver and an award was accordingly passed for amounts of Rs. 5,600 and Rs. 7,600, respect...
Tag this Judgment!Mathew Vs. Annamma Mathew
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-17-1993
Reported in: I(1994)DMC525
Jagannadha Rao, C.J.1. The Miscellaneous Petition has been referred to a Division Bench by the learned Single Judge by order dated 15.3.93. The main petition, OP 13049 of 1991 is a petition filed on 13.12.1991 in the High Court by the petitioner Mr. A.T. Mathew against his wife Mrs. Annamma Methew for declaring their marriage dated 28-10-1979 as null and void, under Sections 18 and 19 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. Earlier, the same petitioner had filed OP 153 of 1986 in the District Court, Kottayam under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 for divorce. The said OP has since been transferred to the High Court and has been re-numbered as OP 14997 of 1992.2. CMP 20290 of 1992 is a petition filed by the petitioner-husband in the newly filed (in the High Court) OP 13049 of 1991 for declaration of the marriage as nullity under Sections 18 and 19. The petitioner and the respondent were married on 28-10-1979. The substantive allegation now made in 1991 is that on the same night, the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »