Kerala Court January 1994 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.
V. Raman Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-21-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Ker393
Jagannadha Rao, C.J.1. This writ petition raises a question of law relating to the power of the Government to grant exemptions in the matter of construction of buildings under the provisions of the Kerala Municipal Corporations Act, 1961, read with the Kerala Building Rules, 1984. This writ petition was heard along with O. P. No. 12929 of 1991, which related to a building in Ernakulam Corporation. The building in the present case with regard to which exemption was granted by the Government is located in Kozhikode Corporation. In this case, the Government passed various orders of exemption under Rule 5 of the Kerala Building Rules, 1984, which confers power on the Government to grant exemptions. The Kerala Building Rules, 1984 were issued in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 367 read with Section 238 of the Kerala Municipal Corporations Act, 1961 and also in exercise of the powers conferred under' Section 344 read with Section 222 of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1960. In ...
P.K. Thankachan Vs. Thalanadu Services Co-op. Bank
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-21-1994
Reported in: [1994(68)FLR979]; (1994)IILLJ423Ker
G.H. Guttal, J.1. The petitioner, a dismissed employee of the Thalanadu Service Co-operative Bank Limited, the respondent No. 1 herein, impugns the validity of the order of the Appellate Authority under the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, Kottayam, dated July 3, 1993 in S.A. No. 5 of 1989 whereby his appeal against the dismissal by the Society was rejected. 2. An enquiry was held by the respondent No. 1 against the petitioner. The charge was that he had fabricated documents with a view to having loans sanctioned in the names of certain members. The respondent No. 1 and its officers made a report which preceded the enquiry. The petitioner, by an endorsement below this report, admitted that he did commit the misconduct. This admission was reiterated by the petitioner during the course of the enquiry. In view of the admission of the petitioner no evidence was recorded. Eventually the enquiry officer made the order of dismissal which was confirmed by the order of the Appella...
V.P. Vrinda Vs. K. Indira Devi and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-20-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Ker57
ORDER1. Revision petitioner in this C.R.P. is the second defendant in O. Section 811 of 1993 and petitioner in I. A. 3082 of 1993. She filed a petition under Section 10 of the C.P.C. for staying all further proceedings in the said suit till the disposal of O.S. 106 of 1993 instituted by her. By the impugned order the learned Munsiff did not allow the prayer for stay; but allowed consolidation of the two suits. The said order is under challenge in this revision.2. It is an admitted case that the subject matter in both the suits is the same. Defendants in O.S. 106 of 1993 are the plaintiffs in O.S. 811 of 1993. In that the plaintiff in O.S. 106 of 1993 and her husband are the defendants. Thus the parties in both the suits are substantially the same particularly when according to the petitioner, the 2nd defendant has no independent claim and that he is looking after the property as her husband. Both the suits are for a decree of permanent injunction. The earlier instituted suit is O.S. 10...
K.M. Pareeth Labba Vs. Kerala Livestock Development Board Ltd. and ors ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-20-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Ker286
ORDERK.G. Balakrishnan, J. 1. The first respondent, the Kerala Livestock Development Board Ltd.invited tenders for the disposal of trees in Block Nos. I, IV and V of their farm at Mattupetti. It was stipulated that separate documents should have been submitted for each block of trees. The estimated value of the trees in Block Nos. I, IV and V were Rs. 10.02 lakhs, Rs. 5,03 lakhs and Rs. 7.40 lakhs respectively. Petitioner submitted tenders in respect of Block No. I. Petitioner quoted an amount of Rs. 10,47,101/-. In respect of Block No. IV, the petitioner quoted Rupees 5,17,250/- and in respect of Block No. V, petitioner quoted Rs. 7,59,500/-. According to the petitioner the amount offered by the petitioner is higher than the estimated value of the trees and so the bidding of auction by the petitioner is legally valid but the 2nd respondent issued Ext. P1 notice to conduct fresh auction for Block Nos. I, IV and V without assigning any reason. Petitioner challenges Ext. P1 order.2. A de...
Vasudev Shenoy and ors. Vs. Government of India and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-20-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Ker305
ORDERK.G. Balakrishnan, J. 1. Petitioners are in occupation of a building belonging to Wakf Board. This property originally belonged to a Trustee represented by its Managing Trustee H.K. Mohammed Babu Sait. It was later declared as a wakf property. According to the petitioners, they have been in occupation of this building for the last 14 years and on 17-10-1986 the Kerala Wakf Board published a notification for the sale of the building in question. The notification specified that there could be either separate tenders or a composite there could be either separate tenders or a composite tender. Petitioners submitted tenders for getting their respective portions of property which is possessed by them. Initially the Wakf Board was prepared to accept the tender but later they re-tendered for the whole land and building. One Gopala Fai Raveendra Nath Pai submitted a tender and the same was accepted. The land and buildings were given in his favour. Petitioners preferred an appeal before the...
Evans Food Corporation Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-20-1994
Reported in: (1994)IILLJ646Ker
G.H. Guttal, J. 1. Evans Food Corporation ('Evans' for short) a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act is engaged in the business of manufacturing cattle feed. Super Traders ('Super' for brevity) also a firm is the sole distributor of the product of Evans Food Corporation. Based on a report of the squad of Inspectors dated June 1, 1988, the Regional Commissioner of the Employees' Provident Fund, respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner'), by his order dated February 28, 1989 (Exhibit P-18), made under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act ('the Act' for brevity) determined a sum of Rs. 1,08,911.65 as the employer's contribution and directed the petitioner to remit it. The Commissioner held that Evans and Super constitute one establishment and the number of workers employed by them together exceeds 20. The demand of the employer's contribution is for the period between January 1, 1982 to January 1, 1988. The petiti...
Kanhikkamthoppu Parambil Radha Vs. Kondarappatt Velayudhan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-18-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Ker412
ORDERL. Manoharan, J. 1. Revision petitioner is the mother-in-law of the respondent. Respondent married the daughter of the revision petitioner. In the marriage two children were born. The wife died in 1988. After her death the two children are residing with the revision petitioner, their grand mother. While so the respondent filed O. P. 258 of 1992 for the custody of his children under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. In that the revision petitioner filed I.A. 567 of 1993 underSection 10 read with Section 151 CPC for staying of O. P. 258 of 1992 till the investigation as to the cause of death of her daughter on the basis of a complaint filed by her is completed. Learned Judge dismissed the petition. This revision is against the said order,2. A preliminary objection was taken by the respondent's counsel that the revision is not maintainable. According to him no revision is maintainable from the order under challenge as per the provisions in the Family Courts Act, 1984 (...
K. Madhu and anr. Vs. Omega Pipes Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-18-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)ALT(Cri)603; [1996]85CompCas263(Ker); 1994CriLJ3439
K.T. Thomas, J.1. What is meant by the expression 'giving a notice in writing' in the context in which it is used in Clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act') According to the petitioner, there is no 'giving' of notice until notice is delivered to the drawer of the cheque. If the said contention deserves acceptance, the complaint filed against the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. As the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class took cognizance of the offence upon the institution of the complaint and issued process to the accused, he has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings.2. The case spelt out in the complaint, in short, is that the cheque issued to the complainant for rupees two lakhs was returned dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account and the bank intimated the fact to the complainant through a memo dated May 19, 1993 ; the complainant sent...
Kerala Spinning Mills Workers Union Vs. Kerala Spinners Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-17-1994
Reported in: (1994)IILLJ661Ker
1. This writ appeal is preferred by the sixth respondent in the writ petition, namely, the trade union by name the Kerala Spinning Mill Workers Union, Komalapuram, against the judgment of the learned single Judge in OP 14850 of 1993 dated December 20, 1993, allowing the said writ petition filed by the management, namely, M/s. Kerala Spinners Ltd., Komalapuram. The Mill is under lock-out and there was vigilance and then the writ petition was allowed granting 'police protection' to the management to remove the finished products and semi-finished products and raw materials from the factory for the purpose of the management performing its obligations under existing contracts, both Indian and foreign. Protection is also given to the personnel of the management, vehicles etc. The Union has filed this appeal objecting to the grant of 'police protection' to the management.2. The Kerala Spinners Ltd., Komalapuram, Alappuzha is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The Company is...
Alappuzha Municipality Vs. T.J. Paul
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-14-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Ker36
ORDERL. Manoharan, J. 1. Respondent in C.M.A. 32 of 1991 of the District Court, Alappusha who was the counter petitioner in I.A. 1822 of 1991 in O.S. 418 of 1991 of the Munsiff's Court, Alappusha is the revision petitioner. Respondent instituted the said suit against the revision petitioner for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioner from demolishing or destroying the plaint schedule building or from interfering with his peaceful use of the building. He moved LA. 1822 of 1991 for a temporary injunction. Learned Munsiff dismissed the petition. Against the said order respondent preferred C.M.A. 32 of 1991 before the District Court, the appeal was allowed. The judgment in the said C.M.A. is under challenge in this revision petition,2. Respondent/plaintiff alleged that his father obtained a lease for the plaint schedule 4 cents for industrial purpose and constructed a shed wherein he started a business of Boat Engine repairing and maintenance in the year 1104. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »