Kerala Court April 1997 Judgments
State of Kerala Vs. Thiruvanchoor Radhakrishnan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-11-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Ker266
U.P. Singh, C.J.1. Both the writ appeals arise out of a common judgment of the learned single Judge rendered in O. P. No. 9680/1996. While W. A. No. 1153/1996 has been filed by the State of Kerala, W. A. No. 1168/1996 is by Dr. K.C. Joseph, the third respondent in the Original Petition.2. The petitioner in the original petition is a member of the Kerala Legislative Assembly. On 7-6-1995, he was nominated as a member of the Syndicate of the Cochin University of Scienceand Technology (hereinafter called the'University') under Section 17(1)(x) of the CochinUniversity of Science and Technology Act(hereinafter called the 'Act'). Exhibit P1notification was issued by the Universitynominating him and also another person asmembers of the Syndicate of the University. Thenotification further stated that the terms of officeof the nominees would be for a period of fouryears from 7-6-1995 and it shall be subject to theprovisions of the Act and the Statutes thereunder.Thus the petitioner could contin...
Tag this Judgment!L.K. Prabhu Vs. S.M. Ameerul Millath and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-11-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Ker347
ORDERK.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. M.C.A. Nos. 94/95 in C.P. No. 23/88 and 29/96 in C.P. 2/87 are filed by Ex-directors of the Company in liquidator, under Section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956 alleging that the 2nd respondent as Official Liquidator, while conducting sale of movable and immovable properties of the Company in liquidation, contumaciously and wilfully acted in a manner detrimental to the interests of the Company and consequentially his action is misfeasance and malfeasance to be proceeded against. They therefore pray for a declaration that the 2nd respondent has committed misfeasance and breach of trust in relation to the company in liquidation and that necessary enquiries be made and accounts taken for ascertaining the liability of the 1st respondent to contribute to the assets of the company by way of compensation for the alleged misfeasance and breach of trust. They also seek an order directing the 1st respondent to contribute to the assets of the company in liquidation as ...
Tag this Judgment!Narayanankutty Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-11-1997
Reported in: (1997)IILLJ429Ker
C.S. Rajan, J.1. The petitioner along with four others were charge sheeted by the Vigilance Department under Sections 5(1)(c) and (d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Sections 120B, 409, 468, 471 and 477A of IPC. The prosecution case was that the accused criminally conspired to misappropriate Government funds, created with intention to cheat, fabrication of false certificates of work towards charge for pulling out seedlings from Social ] Forestry Nurseries and by using such forged vouchers as genuine and falsifying the accounts and by committing criminal breach of trust, misappropriated Government money. By Ext.P-2 judgment, the petitioner and others ; were acquitted. In Exhibit P-2 judgment the Criminal Court came to the following conclusion:'.....Therefore, this is a case where theprosecution was not able to prove that the accused criminally conspired together and the vouchers relied on by them are forged or that they have used those forged voucher...
Tag this Judgment!Thilayil Abdurahiman and anr. Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-11-1997
Reported in: 1997CriLJ3496
Thulasidas, J.1. In the appeal filed by the accused, the Advocate General filed Memo of appearance on behalf of the State of Kerala. The office pointed out that the memo of appearance by the Advocate General is not in order that he cannot appear for the State in view of the decision in State of Kerala v. Krishnan 1981 Ker LT 839 : 1982 Cri LJ 301. But then it was clarified in reply that the above decision is inapplicable since it was in connection with the question about the presentation of an appeal against acquittal Under Section 378, Cr.P.C. that the present case is not and further it was also pointed out that under Sub-rule (vi) of Rule 2 of the Rules framed under Article 165(2) and (3) of the Constitution, the Advocate General has a duty to represent the government in the High Court in proceedings of importance, civil or criminal, original or appellate, in which the Government is a party and he has been specifically directed to appear. The matter has come before us in view of the ...
Tag this Judgment!G. Rajarethna Naikkan Vs. P.N. Parameswara Kurup
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-10-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Ker361
ORDERP.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. This revision is by the judgment debtor. In execution of a decree for money against him, the respondent-decree holder brought the property to sale and purchased the same in Court auction. The judgment debtor filed an application under Order- XXI, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the sale. That application was filed out of time with the result that the executing Court dismissed that application. The judgment debtor filed C.M.A. 243 of 1995 before this Court challenging the dismissal of that application. This Court by judgment dated 28-3-1996 agreed with the finding of the executing Court and affirmed the dismissal of the application under Order XXI, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Before this Court an attempt was made to contend on behalf of the judgment debtor that the application for setting aside the sale though out of time as an application under Order XXI, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure was maintainable under S...
Tag this Judgment!R. Jayaraja Menon Vs. Dr. Rajakrishnan and anr. Etc.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-09-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Ker15
ORDERP.K. Balasubramanyan, J. 1. These revisions are by the same plaintiff in four suits against four dailies in the State for recovery of damages for defamation. The plaintiff filed the four suits O.S. Nos. 174 of 1989 to 177 of 1989 with petitions for permission to sue as an indigent person. After the enquiry into the indigency of the plaintiff, he was permitted to sue as an indigent person. The suits were numbered and proceeded with. When they were ultimately posted applications were made by the defendants invoking Order XXXIII, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure submitting that the plaintiff has then such means that he ought not to continue to sue as an indigent person. This was because, the plaintiff, who was a Police Officer and who was under suspension earlier had later been reinstated and had retired from service and had come by the retirement benefits and the arrears of salary due to him. Though the amounts were received in the year 1992 the applications for dispaupering th...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala and ors. Vs. V.K. Natesan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-08-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Ker277
Usha, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal at the instance of State of Kerala and two others is against the judgment of Principal Sub Judge of Trivandrum in O. S. (Arb) No. 92/86. The respondent herein was the plaintiff and the appellants were defendants. The respondent herein had taken on contract the execution of work NH 47 widening and strengthening of single lane section to two lines -- Quilon, Alleppey road portion from KM4I6/2 to 421/4 road formation balance works. He had entered into an agreement on 9-8-1976 and the site was handed over to him on 20-8-1976. As per the stipulation in the contract he should have completed the work on 19-2-77. But actually the work was completed only on 15-7-1977. Payment as per final bill was made on 24-6-1978. 2. According to the appellants, the respondent received the final bill without any demur. He filed a petition on 12-11-1981 to the Chief Engineer, National Highway raising certain objection regarding payment. Thereafter he filed a claim petition ...
Tag this Judgment!Jony Soaria Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-04-1997
Reported in: [2003]133STC616(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. Assessee is the petitioner. Revenue is the respondent. The matter arises in proceedings under Section 29A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963.2. Petitioner is doing business in rubber in the name and style of St. George Rubber Industries, Arumannoor, Kottayam. He is an assesses on the files of the Sales Tax Officer, II Circle, Kottayam.3. On August 4, 1994 the petitioner was transporting thirty-five barrels of 'Latex adhesives' in lorry No. KL. 5B-1861 under the cover of invoice No. 50 dated August 2, 1994 and the prescribed declaration to M/s. Prakash Paranda, New Delhi. The vehicle was detained and checked by the Inspector, Walayar check-post and it was found that the barrels actually contained centrifuged latex and not latex adhesives. Suspecting evasion of sales tax the Sales Tax Inspector issued notice demanding security of Rs. 47,775 and also advance tax of Rs. 23,888. The quantity of centrifuged latex under transport was 6,825 Kg. valued at Rs. 2,38,875....
Tag this Judgment!Sultan Alibhai Sharieff Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-04-1997
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2800
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. This Original Petition is filed by Sultan Alibhai Sharieff, who is detained in the Central Prison, Trivandrum as per detention order dated 1-4-1996 issued by the Government of Kerala Under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (hereinafterreferred to as 'the COFEPOSA Act'). Immeidately after detention, the detenu was served with the grounds of detention. Petitioner filed a representation dated 15-5-1996 with regard to the grounds of detention. Copies of the representation were sent to the State Government, Chairman, COFEPOSA Advisory Board, Ernakulam and Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi.2. On 2-5-1996, the Government of India, Ministry of Financne, Department of Revenue issued the declaration Under Section 9(1) of the COFEPOSA Act. Copy of the declaration is produced as Ext. P20. To Ext. P20, petitioner sent a representation dated 22-5-96.3. The State Gover...
Tag this Judgment!Anandan and anr. Vs. Railway Claims Tribunal
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-04-1997
Reported in: I(1998)ACC157; 1998ACJ1265
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Petitioner's son was travelling from Kochi to Calicut in the Trivandrum-Mangalore-Malabar Express. As the train passed Kadalundi Station, some bogies of the train jerked and the petitioner's son was thrown out of the train and unfortunately he was run over, and he succumbed to the injuries. He died on 13.9.1991. Petitioner then filed a petition O.A. No. 137 of 1992 claiming a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the Railways before the Railway Claims Tribunal. Application was under Section 124 of the Railways Act, 1989. Tribunal, however, vide its order dated 10.12.1992 did not entertain the application stating that the claim petition is not maintainable and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction since the case set up by the petitioner is not covered by Section 13(1)(a)(ii) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. According to the Tribunal, only if the person has suffered injuries on the basis of an accident as defined under Section 123(a) of the Railways Act, 1989, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »