Kerala Court March 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.
Narayanan Kamalasanan Vs. Valsala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-03-1994
Reported in: II(1995)DMC303
M.M. Pareed Pillay, J.1. Revision petitioner is the defendant. Respondent (Plaintiff) filed the suit for declaration that the defendant her father is bound to conduct her marriage and also for a mandatory injunction directing him to provide sufficient funds for the marriage. She filed an application for interim injunction to restrain the defendant from collecting the retirement benefit from his employer. Interim injunction was granted on 30.6.1992. Revision petitioner did not file any appeal against it. But he filed revision petition. That was rejected by the impugned order.2. Contention of the revision petitioner is that the Munsiff having found that he has no jurisdiction to try the suit ought to have allowed the review petition and dismissed the injunction application. Learned Counsel for the respondent pointed out that the Munsiff was not justifed in holding that he has no jursdiction to try the suit as the reliefs sought in the suit fall outside Section 7 of the Family Courts Act....
R. Ratheesan Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-03-1994
Reported in: 1994CriLJ2564
ORDERK.J. Joseph, J.1. The petitioner is a registered dealer in cement, doing the business under the name and style 'S. R. Cement Traders,' Pothencode at Trivandrum. The petitioner had got additional place of business at KP1-Uchkada P. O., Kottukal Panchayat, KPVII-812 Punnamoodu, Palliachal P.O., Kalliyod and 282 Vedivachancoil P.O. This is evident from Ext. P1 certificate of registration issued by the Sales Tax authorities under the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963. The District Collector, Trivandrum is the designated licencing authority under the Kerala Cement Distribution (Licensing and Registration) Order, 1974. The petitioner has applied for a licence as a stockist for the non-levy cement as per his application dated 26-3-1985. The said application was enquired into by the District Collector through the Tahasildar, Trivandrum before whom the petitioner has produced the appointment order obtained from M/s. Someswara cements and Chemicals Ltd., Hyderabad. After due enquiry by t...
Headmaster, Poilkav High School, P.O. Edakkulam Quilandy Vs. Murali A. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-02-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Ker21
Mohammed, J.1. The Headmaster of Poilkave High School is the appellant in this writ appeal. It is filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge in O.P. No. 15873 of 1993 quashing Ext. P2 show cause notice issued by the appellant and Ext. P3 order passed by the third respondent. The main question that arises for decision in this appeal is whether this court is justified in interfering with the orders passed by the Headmaster and District Educational Officer dismissing a pupil, in exercise of the powers of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. By Ext. P 2 show cause notice issued to the father of the student, it was proposed to dismiss the first respondent from the rolls of the High School for gross indiscipline. Ext. P3 is the order passed by the District Educational Officer, Badagara rejecting theappeal filed by the father of the pupil and upholding the action of the appellant. After quashing Exts. P 2 and P 3 the learned Judge directed the third respondent to co...
Susey Jose Vs. G. Janardhana Kurup and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-02-1994
Reported in: 1994(2)ALT(Cri)687; 1994CriLJ2780
K.T. Thomas, J.1. First respondent was appointed as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting prosecution in a murder case in the Sessions Court. But when the trial in the Sessions Court was in full swing, Government rescinded his appointment as per G. O. dated 18-7-91 (Ext. P-3). Within a fortnight, Government directed an Assistant Public Prosecutor (for short 'the APP') to conduct prosecution in the said case (Ext. P-6). The widow of the deceased in the murder case now challenges Exts. P-3 and P-6 and prays for quashing them and also to issue necessary directions in the matter. (Ext. P-4 is also sought to be quashed which is substantially the same as Ext. P-3 and hence the former cannot remain alive if the latter is struck down).2. The murder case relates to the death of a person in police custody on 12-11-85. There was public agitation for entrusting the investigation to a more specialised agency than the local police. Government, therefore, ordered the Crime Branch wing of the polic...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›