Kerala Court April 1998 Judgments
K.R. Girijan Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-28-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Ker144
ORDERK. Narayana Kurup, J.1. The petitioner obtained Post Graduation in Chemistry in 1978. He entered service as Lecturer on 18-6-1979 at S. N. College, Cherthala. At present he is a Senior Grade Lecturer working at S. N. College, Alathur. The petitioner being aggrieved by Clause 5 of Chapter II of Calicut University First Statute 1977 (for short 'the First Statute') which provides pre-qualifying examination for Ph.D. in Calicut Uni-versity as a mandatory requirement, has approached this Court for a declaration that the aforesaid clause is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and alternatively for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the third respondent (Controller of Examinations, Calicut University) to cause revaluation of the answer paper of the petitioner for Ph.D. qualifying examination in Chemistry under the Supervision of Dr. E. Purushothaman and for other reliefs.2. Respondents 2 and 3 have filed a statement in which it is stated that in the p...
Tag this Judgment!North Malabar District Co-operative Supply and Marketing Society Ltd. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-28-1998
Reported in: [1998]111STC271(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The matter arises under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The petitioner is an oil miller. It is an assessee on the files of the first respondent. For the assessment year 1990-91 the first respondent completed the assessment by order dated April 5, 1995 (exhibit P1). During the course of the assessment proceedings the first respondent issued notice under Section 45A of the Act alleging that the petitioner has submitted untrue returns which is an offence under Sub-section (1)(d) of the said section and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,11,960 evidenced by exhibit P2. The petitioner took up the matter in revision before the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Kozhikode, who by his order dated November 1, 1995 (exhibit P3) cancelled the penalty. Subsequently the Board of Revenue initiated suo motu proceedings under Section 45A(5) of the Act for cancellation of exhibit P3 order. Thereafter, the Board of Revenue passed exhibit P5 order cancelling ...
Tag this Judgment!Hubert Peyoli Vs. Santhavilasathu Kesavan Sivadasan and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-22-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Ker344
S. Marimuthu, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree delivered by the additional Sub Judge, Quilon in O.S. No. 286/82. The plaintiff is the appellant and the defendants are the respondents in this appeal. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money on the following grounds : On 17-11-1971 the defendants/respondents received a sum of Rs. 15,000/- from the plaintiff/appellant agreeing to pay the same on demand with interest at 12% per annum and executed a promissory note. As a further security for the same amount, they executed a memo of deposit of title deed relating to the plaint schedule property. The defendants made the payment of Rs. 900/- only in six instalments. Thereafter no amount was paid. As on 18-2-75 the date of the termination of the chities between the defendants and the plaintiff, an amount of Rs. 10,250/-was due to the plaintiff for which with interest the suit was filed. The plaintiff never agreed that the loan amount can be repaid by remit...
Tag this Judgment!K. Muraleedharan Pillai and ors. Vs. CochIn University of Science and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-21-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Ker284
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J. 1. Petitioners are B. Tech students in the Model Engineering College of first respondent University. They have completed VII Semester. As per Clause 3(2) of Ext. P1 regulation, they should have passed all subjects up to IV Semester for getting promotion to VIII Semester. Admittedly, petitioners have not passed all sub-jects in IV Semester. Therefore, they are notentitled to get promotion to VIII Semester. It is for the University to frame regulation. In the absence of mala fides or arbitrariness this Court cannot interfere in academic matters. In the past if a mistake has been committed or leniency was shown on the facts of a particular year it will not be a licence to commit deviation or error in all future years. In any event, this Court cannot direct the University to admit students violating the Rules or Regulations. It will affect the standard of education and discipline in the institution. In this connection, I refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Sta...
Tag this Judgment!Mayakrishnan R. and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-16-1998
Reported in: (1998)IILLJ304Ker
A.C. Lakshmanan, J. 1. Two common questions arise for determination in these cases, viz. (1) whether the amendment brought to the General Rules (Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules) as per notification G.O.(P) N0.57/1992/P&ARD; dated December 5, 1992 issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Rules) Department of the Government of Kerala would take away the rights of the petitioners in the Original Petitions for appointment against 20% of the successive substantive vacancies arising in the cadre of Sales Tax Officers? (2) when the Special Rules clearly speak of the method of recruitment, whether any amendment to the General Rules, which go in conflict with the Special Rules, will hamper the rights of persons arising out of the special rules.O.P. No. 13871 of 1997.2. The petitioners in this Original petition applied for selection to the post of Sales Tax Officers in the Agricultural Income tax and Sales Tax Department pursuant to the notification published in the gazett...
Tag this Judgment!K. Premavalli Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-15-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Ker231
Radhakrishnan, J.1. The question that has come up for consideration before us is as to whether an appeal shall lie to a Bench of two Judges under Section 5(ii) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 against the judgment and decree of a learned single Judge rendered under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.2. Appeal was preferred against the judgment in L.A.A. 101 of 1990 under Section 5(ii) of the Kerala High Court Act along with a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 899 days in filing the appeal. When the delay petition came up for hearing before a Division Bench, Bench expressed doubt as to whether the appeal itself would be maintainable.3. According to the learned Judges, Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act does not provide a further appeal to the Division Bench against the judgment and decree of the learned single Judge. It was stated, Section 54 provides only one appeal to the High Court and a further appeal to the Supreme Court. Sinc...
Tag this Judgment!Augusty Devasia Vs. Haridasan Nair Alias Hariharan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-15-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Ker329
Usha, J. 1. This appeal has come up before the Full Bench in view of the conflict between two Bench decisions of this Court, namely, Veerasikku Gounder v. Korah Kurian, 1960 Ker LT 213 and Moideenkutty v. Subhadra, 1966 KerLT 1125. The issue involed is whether a transferee under a void document would come within the definition of 'tenant' in Section 2(d)(iii) of Kerala Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act 29 of 1958 and can claim compensation for the improvements made by him on the property. In 1960 Ker LT 213, it was held that the transferee who had to surrender possession of the property on finding that the document under which he acquired title to the property was to be set aside would come within the definition of 'tenant'. Any improvements effected by him on the land covered by the sale must be taken to have been effectd by him in the bona fide belief that he is entitled to make such improvements because of the existence of the sale in his favour. In 1966 Ker LT 1125 supra, i...
Tag this Judgment!Varughese Paily and ors. Vs. Chacho Mathai and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-06-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Ker237
Mohammed, J.1. As a pragmatic solution, as we perceive it, a Division Bench of this Court in A. F. A. No. 59 of 1996 directed the Advocate-receivers to conduct election to the Managing Committee of the Piravom St. Mary's Orthodox Syrian Church within a specified time schedule. But the solution appears to be not an instant reality in view of the claims and counter claims raised by the warring factions. The Joint Receivers failed to iron out the differences between the rival groups, by themselves and consequently sought the assistance of this Court for removing the stalemate in so far as the preparation of the electoral roll. Advocate receiver Shibu Thomas representing Patriarch group filed Report No. 8 of 1997 stating the areas of disagreement and the other receiver G. Suresh filed Report No. 2 of 1998 praying to adopt the voters' list submitted by him for election to the Managing Committee. He also insisted on behalf of the Catholicos group that the basic qualification required for bei...
Tag this Judgment!T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons, Calicut Vs. Cannanore District Wholesa ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-06-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Ker259
Patnaik, J.1. The petitioner in O.P. No. 8055 of 1990-H has preferred this writ appeal against the judgment dated 12-10-1990 by which the awards under Exts. P-11 and P-12 by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Cannnore and the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal, Trivandrum were upheld and the petitioner/appellant and the second respondent have been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 91,048/- with 18% interest per annum with effect from 18-11-1982 until realisation to the Cannanore District Wholesale Co-operative Consumer Stores Ltd., (for short, the Consumer Stores).2. The Consumer Stores was established to do the business of distributing consumer items to the public. It placed an order for the supply of a vehicle with the second respondent herein (M/s. C. C. Automobiles Ltd., Calicut) which was necessary for transporting the consumer items. The first respondent (the Consumer Stores) placed its order for a mini lorry with the second respondent and paid an advance of Rs. 3,...
Tag this Judgment!S.A. Sattar and ors. Vs. Mrs. Kuruvilla and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-06-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Ker292; [1998]93CompCas556(Ker)
Radhakrishnan J. Plaintiffs are the appellants. Suit was instituted for recovery of an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the suit till realisation from the defendants jointly and severally. The relief sought for in the plaint is primarily based on a Bank guarantee, Ext. A3, dated 12-8-1981.2. While the suit was pending, first plaintiff died and his legal representatives, plaintiffs 4 to 6 were impleaded as per order in LA. No. 3995 of 1986. Defendants 4 and 5 represent the State Bank of India, the successors of the erstwhile Bank of Cochin Ltd. who executed a Bank Guarantee at the instance of D1 to D3 in favour of the plaintiffs. Even though it is stated in the plaint that the amount is sought to be recovered jointly and severally from the defendants, counsel for the plaintiffs maintained the stand that he is mainly concerned with enforceability of the Bank guarantee executed by the erstwhile Bank of Cochin Ltd., now the State Bank of In...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »