Kerala Court January 1999 Judgments
D. Batcha Moideen Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-29-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Ker243
ORDERK.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext. P10, and seeking a direction to release the entire quantity of rice stored by the petitioner in the godown of the State Warehousing Corporation at Cheruvannur covered by Ext. P2 receipt less the quantity already removed. He also seeks a direction to respondents 2 to 4 to hand over the stock office of 2893 bags stored in the said godown and covered by Ext. P2 less the quantity already removed. He seeks other incidental prayers as well. Exhibit P10 is an order passed by the District Collector, Kozhikode confiscating 2893 bags of boiled rice belonging to M/s. Munnar Traders under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act and directing its sale by Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation observing certain rules and regulations in that regard with sufficient protection to the sale proceeds. Exhibit P10 is an appealable order as per Section 6C of the said Act even admittedly by the petitioner. Inspite of tha...
Tag this Judgment!E.A. Benny Vs. Raichel Bindu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-29-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Ker251; II(1999)DMC464
Usha, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is against the order passed by the learned single Judge granting alimony pendents lite to the wife under Section 36 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. O.P. (Div.) 10285/95 was filed by the husband under Sections 18 and 19 of the above Act for a declaration that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is null and void on the ground of fraud. Wife claimed alimony pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- p.m. The claim was opposed by the husband contending that the application is not maintainable under Section 36. Learned single Judge did not accept the objection and granted the wife, interim alimony at the rate of Rs. 750/- p.m. Aggrieved by the above, husband has come up in appeal. 2. Mainly, two contentions are raised by learned counsel for the appellant. According to him, a petition for alimony pendente lite at the instance of the respondent in an application filed under Sections 18 and 19 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 is not maintai...
Tag this Judgment!Attukal Jewellery Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-29-1999
Reported in: [1999]238ITR185(Ker)
P. Shanmugam, J. 1. The petitioner challenges exhibit P-3 order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. In my view, this original petition is not maintainable since if the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision rendered, the only course open to the petitioner is to file a reference application. The point that is raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that this is an ex parte order. His application exhibit P-4 could not be considered because of the Tribunal not functioning. From the order, it could be seen that there was no appearance on behalf of the assessee. In exhibit P-4, it is not stated that the petitioner had entered appearance. That apart, the order was passed on August 29, 1997, and the application was filed only on January 12, 1999. 2. In the above circumstances, prima facie, I do not find any bona fides in the application. This appears to be made only for the purpose of moving under Samadhan Scheme. Therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere with exhibit P-3 or...
Tag this Judgment!Shankaran Ravi Vs. Income Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-29-1999
Reported in: (1999)156CTR(Ker)602
P. SHANMUGAM, J.:Petition challenges Ext. P-3 order of the Tribunal. In my view, this original petition is not maintainable since if the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision rendered, the only course open to the petitioner is to file a reference application. The point that is raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that this is an ex parte order. His application Ext. P-4 could not be considered because of the Tribunal not functioning. From the order, it could be seen that there was no appearance on behalf of the assessee. That apart, the order was passed on 29-8-1997 and the application was filed only on 12-1-1999.2. In the above circumstances, prima facie, I do not find any bona fides in the application. This appears to be made only for the purpose of moving under Samadhan Scheme. Therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere with Ext. P3 order by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. It is open to the petitioner to move...
Tag this Judgment!P.M. John Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-28-1999
Reported in: [2000]101CompCas186(Ker)
K. A.Mohamed Shafi, J. 1. This revision petition is filed by the accused in C.?. No. 91 of 1990 on the file of the J. F. C. M.'s Court, Pathanamthitta.2. On the basis of the complaint filed by the second respondent, the revision petitioner was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It is alleged that the revision petitioner issued two cheques for Rs. 25,000 and Rs. 19,389 respectively drawn on United Commercial Bank for the amount of Rs. 44,389 due from him to the second respondent and when the cheque was presented for encashment it bounced. The revision petitioner did not pay the amount in spite of a registered notice intimating about the dishonour of the cheque and calling upon him to pay the amount. Hence he is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.3. The trial court after trial found the revision petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Ins...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd., Thrissur Vs. C.J. Thampi and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-27-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Ker36
ORDERK. Narayana Kurup, J. 1. The petitioner is a fully owned Government of Kerala undertaking engaged in the business of Chitties, Hire Purchase and financing. One Smt. J. Anandavally was a subscriber to Chitty No. 6/87/43A of the Attingal Branch of the petitioner Company. The 1st respondent herein and one Dharmaraj and B. Ravindran Nair stood as sureties for the subscriber as per Ext. P-1 agreement. Clauses 5 and 6 of Ext. P-1 agreement state in categorical terms that the liability of the surety is co-extensive and joint and several with that of the principal debtor. Clauses 5 and 6 of Ext. P-1 agreement are as follows :'5. The bounden and the sureties do hereby agree that all sums found due to the company under or by virtue of this bond may be recovered jointly and severally from them and their properties movable and immovable as if such sums are arrears of land revenue due or in any other manner as the company may deem fit. 6. The liability of the sureties under this bond is co-ext...
Tag this Judgment!K.V. Joseph and anr. Vs. Devayani Amma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-27-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Ker181
Mohammed, J. 1. In this writ appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act the respondents raised a preliminary point that this appeal is not maintainable for the reason that the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge in sum and substance is an order passed under Article 227 of the Constitution. Before examining the appeal on merits we would prefer to adjudicate this preliminary issue at the outset.2. The basic facts required for the present purpose are stated hereunder :The appellants are tenants in respect of the 'buildings' sought to be evicted by the respondents-landlords in a proceeding under Section 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). These 'buildings' are actually rooms forming part of a larger building owned by the landlord. The Rent Control Court after enquiry ordered eviction on the ground of reconstruction under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act. The Rent Control Appellate Authority in appeal und...
Tag this Judgment!Anantha Achary Vs. B.S. Abdul Azeez and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-27-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Ker265
ORDERS. Sankarasubban, J.1. Revision petitioner is the first defendant in O.S. No. 127 of 1996, which was filed by the first respondent. Respondents 2 and 3 in the Civil Revision Petition are defendants 2 and 3. The suit was filed for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of portion of the building bearing Door No. MP 10/267 in the ground floor and MP 10/ 259 in the first floor situated in R. S. No. 129/6 of Uppala Village.2. Revision petitioner filed written statement. The claim of the plaintiff was that he had obtained assignment of the leasehold right in respect of the plaint schedule property and the right, title and interest of the landlords in respectof the properties were assigned to him as per the order of the Land Tribunal in S. M. No. 80/92. The present revision petitioner contended that the assignment deed and the proceedings in S.M. No. 80/92 were fraudulent and collusive. The revision petit...
Tag this Judgment!Edavanakkad Telephone Subscribers Association and anr. Etc. Etc. Vs. U ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-27-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Ker306
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Petitioners are subscribers in various telephone exchanges including rural exchanges coming within the Secondary Switching Area of Ernakulam, Kottayam and Pathanamthitta Districts. They are aggrieved by the enhancement of bi-monthly rental by the Telecommunication department. Petitioners submit there is no rationale in the enhancement of rental, which according to them, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Counsel submitted that no reasonable classification has been maintained between subscribers in the urban and rural areas. In any view of the matter, counsel submitted, before enhancement of rental, there was no public notice and the same was effected contrary to the provisions of Rules. Reference was made to Rule 434 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, by which, counsel submitted, telegraph authority is bound to publish a draft of its proposal to revise the local area of an exchange system and after considering objections or...
Tag this Judgment!T.K. Jayaraj Vs. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-27-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Ker288
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Petitioner in O.P. 19765/98 is the registered owner of a stage carriage bearing registration No. KL.5B-5443. He has been operating service on the route Erattupetta-Kottayam on the basis of temporary permit issued to him by the respondent. Petitioner applied for a regular permit. The application was objected by the K.S.R.T.C. on the ground that if the permit is given the same would violate the scheme published by the Government of Kerala Notification dated 24th October, 1966 since the route overlaps the Kottayam-Poonjar route referred to as route No. 6 in the scheme. Regional Transport Authority rejected the application. Aggrieved by the same applicant preferred an appeal before S.T. A.T. as M.V.A.A. 442/98.S.T.A.T. allowed the appeal and granted the permit to the applicant, to operate on the route Erattupetta-Kottayam. The applicant has preferred O.P. 19765/98 to implement the said order. K.S.R.T.C. has preferred O.P. 21296/ 98 challenging the judgment of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »