Kerala Court August 1995 Judgments
The Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. Aswathi Starch and Glucose (P) Ltd., Anama ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-31-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Ker112
Balakrishnan, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the plaintiff Bank against the decree and judgment in O.S. 62 of 1983 on the file of Sub-Court, Manjeri. The short facts are as follows: Plaintiff Bank advanced money to the first defendant company under various transactions such as cash credit facility, term loan etc. Defendants 2 to 7 are the members of the Director Board of the Company and defendants 17 to 21 are the legal heirs of deceased 4th defendant. The suit was for realisation of Rs. 21,64,796.22. Originally Rs. 12 lakhs was granted as term loan and under cash credit facility Rs. 3.5 lakhs was granted. It was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 5 lakhs. In the plaint it was alleged that as on 31-3-1982 Rs. 17,51,474.04 was due from the defendants and the plaintiff claimed interest at 18.5%.2. First defendant had filed a written statement disputing the plaint claim. But later first defendant filed a statement admitting the plaint amount. On 17th August, 1988 the Court below decreed th...
Tag this Judgment!K.P. Mathai Vs. K.S.E. Board, Trivandrum and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-31-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Ker186
Pareed Pillay, C.J.1. Original petition filed by the appellant challenging the validity of Ext.P4 order of the 5th respondent (Additional District Magistrate, Ernakulam) in exercise of his powers under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 was dismissed by the learned single Judge. The sole legal contention raised in the appeal is that the Additional District Magistrate lacked jurisdiction in passing Ext.P4 order and on that score it has to be set aside.2. The question mooted for consideration is whether the Additional District Magistrate has legal competency to issue Ext.P4 order under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act read with Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act. Contention of the appellant is that the District Magistrate alone is competent to pass the order and not the Additional District Magistrate. Contrary stand is taken by the respondents' counsel.3. For a better appreciation of the case reference t...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Saramma Philipose Vs. Regional Transport Officer, Ernakulam and a ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-29-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Ker44
Shanmugam, J.1. O. P. No. 6990/ 1992: The above original petition is filed praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to register the petitioner's vehicle Tata Mobile 207 as a light motor vehicle/passenger vehicle. The facts stated in brief are that the petitioner purchased a Tata Mobile 207 pick-up van on 11-5-1992 and approached the 1st respondent to register the vehicle as a light motor vehicle/passenger vehicle. It is stated that the respondent informed the petitioner that the vehicle could be registered only as a goods vehicle for her own use. Contending that the petitioner is entitled to get the vehicle registered as a passenger vehicle, she filed the above O.P. Pending the O.P. the petitioner obtained an interim direction in C.M.P. No. 11643/92 dated 2-6-1992 to issue temporary registration to the petitioner's vehicle as light passenger motor vehicle, if it is produced before the R.T.O. after its body is built according to the required specification...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala and anr. Vs. S. Samuel
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-28-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Ker22
Thomas. J.1. This appeal by the State of Kerala calls for interpretation of Section 10(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act). The Sub-section reads thus :--'Every member of the 'District Forum' shall hold office for a term of five years or up to the age of 65 years whichever is earlier, and shall, not be eligible for re-appointment'. (Proviso is omitted).2. Learned single Judge before whom this question came up first the held that the term of five years mentioned in the Sub-section is restricted to membership in one District Forum and if the same person is appointed in another District Forum he would become entitled to hold office for another terms of five years on the strength of such subsequent appointment. As the said interpretation is not acceptable to the State of Kerala, this appeal has been filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act.3. Facts of this case lie in a narrow compass. Respondent holds office as President of the Kottayam District Consumer ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Subramanian and ors. Vs. Ramachandran and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-28-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Ker64
Balakrishnan, J.1. Defendants 1,2 and 5 in O. S. 234 of 1984 on the file of Sub-Court, Ernakulam are the appellants. The suit for partition by the first respondent herein was decreed as prayed for and the appeal is directed against that judgment and decree.2. Plaintiff, defendants 1, 3 and 4 arebrothers and 5th defendant is their sister. They are the children of Parameswara Iyer and Thailambal. Second defendant is the wife of first defendant. The suit for partition was in respect of 6 3/4 cents of property with a building therein owned by Parameswara Iyer and Thailambal. Parameswara Iyer died on 9-9-93 and Thailambal died on 15-5-82. In the plaint, plaintiff alleged the following facts :Plaintiff is the eldest child of Parameswara Iyer and Thailambal. The plaintiff had passed school final and as he could not pursue his studies due to poor financial situation he left Kerala at the age of 18 in search of some job and that he got a job in Calcutta and he had been sending money to his pare...
Tag this Judgment!K.P.Y. Siddhique Vs. Amina
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-24-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Ker140; II(1997)DMC260
Thomas, J.1. Respondent is the fourth wife of the appellant and all the other three are alive. Appellant has grown up sons in his earlier marriages, some of whom are even older than the respondent. The matrimonial life of the appellant was short-lived -- less than an year -- and now the respondent has decided to seek for dissolution of her marriage with him on the ground of his cruelty. Family Court, before which she applied for the relief, granted the decree for dissolution despite resistance from the appellant. This appeal is in challenge of the said decree.2. Appellant's marriage with the respondent was on 16-10-1988. The parties are Muslims. Respondent became pregnant twice during the wedlock, but both were aborted. It was on 27-8-1989 that they lived together last and she was taken back to her natal home by her uncle when she complained of physical assaults inflicted by her husband. A criminal case was launched against the appellant on that allegation and later proceedings for mai...
Tag this Judgment!Joshi, S/O Urumise Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-24-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ143
ORDERN. Dhinakar, J.1. The petitioner now stands convicted for offences under Sections 307 and 447, I.P.C. For the former he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 6 months and for the latter he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 months. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. On 12-1-1987 the petitioner insulted P.W. 3 in the bus, when she was returning from the college, which matter was promptly reported by her to her brothers. Thereupon P.Ws. 1 and 2 along with brother Rajan went to the house of the petitioner at about 8 p.m. to inform the mother of the petitioner about his conduct and the petitioner's mother undertook to see that the petitioner will not indulge in such activities in future. At about 8.30 p.m. on the same day, according to the prosecution, the petitioner came in front of t...
Tag this Judgment!Mukkattukara Catholic Co. Ltd. and ors. Vs. H.V. Thomas and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-23-1995
Reported in: AIR1997Ker51; [1999]96CompCas864(Ker)
B.M. Thulasidas, J. 1. Defendants 1 to 5 in O.S. No. 952 of 1994, who are also respondents 1 to 5 in I.A. No. 4552 of 1994 of the Sub-Court, Trissur, are the appellants. The first appellant is a public limited company, the second appellant is the Chairman and the others are members of the Board of Directors. The respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit (a) to declare that the meetings of the Board of Directors of the first defendant company held on 9-6-1994, 26-6-1994 and subsequently till 26-7-1994 are illegal and invalid and the decisions taken at those meetings are ultra vires, void and non est in the eye of law and (b) to declare that the appellants 2 to 4 have vacated their office as Directors by force of Section 283 of the Companies Act, for short the Act, and to injunct them and the 5th appellant from taking any measures for the implementation of the decisions taken at the above meetings and for other consequential reliefs. By the above I.A. they sought to restrain the appellants f...
Tag this Judgment!K.V. Antony Vs. J. SherafudIn and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-22-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ135
M.M. Pareed Pillay, C.J.1. Complaint in S.T. 2 of 1992 of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Alappuza is the revision petitioner in Crl. R.P. 16 of 1994. Revision petitioners in Crl. R.P. 1108 of 1994 are accused 1 and 2 in the same case.2. For the sake of convenience the position of the parties as it stood in the trial Court is followed in the discussions here-under.3. Petitioner filed the complaint against accused 1 and 2 alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned Magistrate found accused 1 and 2 guilty of the offence and convicted and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 1,500/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each. Conviction and sentence were confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Alappuzha in Crl. A. 141 of 1993. Challenging the conviction and sentence accused 1 and 2 have filed Crl. R.P. 1108 of 1994, whereas the complainant filed Crl. R.P. 16 of...
Tag this Judgment!K. Sreekala (Minor) Vs. the Manager, S.N.V.T.T.i. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-18-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Ker102
ORDERK. Sreedharan, J.1. This original petition is filed by a candidate who applied for admission to the T.T.C. course for the year 1994-96 in the school of which the first respondent is the Manager. In relation to the managership of the school a litigation is pending before the Sub-Court, Alleppey as O.S. 35/87. The Manager was directed to submit the select list of candidates before that Court for approval and only on getting such an approval is he entitled to admit candidates to the course. For the course 1994-96 Manager appears to have prepared a select list of candidates and submitted before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Alleppey on 23-5-94 for approval. From the order on I.A. Nos. 1386/93 and 2488/94 in O.S. 35/87 it appears that the Subordinate Judge has approved the select list dated 23-5-94.2. Petitioner in O.P. 7330/95 claims to have secured higher marks than the candidates included in the list approved by the Subordinate Judge and so she challenges the selection made by the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »