Kerala Court June 1999 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.
Arun S. Nair and Ors. Vs. Headmaster, St. Michael's Anglo-Indian High ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-07-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Ker413
Ar. Lakshmanan, Actg. C.J.1. Heard Mr. K. Balakrishnan for the appellants and M/s. K.L. Narasimhan and Anil Xavier for the contesting respondents.2. The unsuccessful petitioners in the Original Petition are the appellants herein. Aggrieved by the action taken by respondents 1 and 2 herein, which, according to them, would result in denial of admission to them to the 1 Standard of the St. Michael's Anglo-Indian High School, Kannur, which is an aided school run by the 2nd respondent, the appellants/petitioners approached this Court. According to the appellant, the school is bound by the provisions of the Kerala Education Act and the Rules and the Manager of the school is bound by the statutory duties contained therein. Any action taken by the Manager contrary to the statutory provisions, according to the appellants, is amenable to correction at the hands of this Court. Our attention was also drawn to Chapter VI-A, Rules 1, 4, 6 and 11 of the Kerala Education Rules.3. Per contra, the manag...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M.A.C.T. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-07-1999
Reported in: II(1999)ACC540; 2000ACJ558
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Petitioner insurance company, a public sector undertaking, is challenging the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, dated 25.9.1997, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner was the respondent No. 3 in the case before the Tribunal. Petitioner's contentions were considered and an amount of Rs. 3,700 was ordered by the Tribunal even though claim was for Rs. 21,250. This writ petition is filed contending that no compensation should have been allowed as the driver was also not having valid licence. This is a question of fact to be specifically pleaded before the Tribunal. This contention is not seen argued before the authority concerned. Well settled grounds for interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are absent. There is no patent jurisdictional error or perverse finding.2. Apart from the above, an appeal is provided against the awards of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. It is specifically provided in...
C. Pitcheiyan and Etc. Vs. Regional Manager, Co-optex, Kochi and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-04-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Ker328
Mohammed, J. 1. In all these cases a preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The objection is that this Court has no power or jurisdiction to entertain these writ petitions under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and hence we have to decide this question at the outset.2. The Regional Manager of the Tamil Nadu Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society Limited, Cochin issued demand notices to the petitioners-employees to remit the amount alleged to have been misappropriated by them on the basis of an enquiry report submitted by the AssistantDirector of Handloom and Textiles, Nagarcoil. The appellant in Writ Appeal No. 2107/98 and the petitioners in O.P. Nos. 7774 and 8182 of 1998 are the three employees among others, we are concerned in these cases.3. On behalf of the respondents it was contended that the cause of action for these cases arose outside the State of Kerala. First of all we have to find out the meaning of the expre...
Umanath Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-04-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ1067
ORDERK.A. Mohamed Shafi, J. 1. This Crl. M. C. is filed by the de facto complainant in C. C. No. 118/93 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Kanjirappally to quash An-nexure-Al order dated 12-2-1998 passed by the Magistrate.2. On the basis of a complaint lodged by the petitioner as de facto complainant against the 2nd respondent a case in Crime No. 107/91 was registered against the 2nd respondent and after investigation charge was laid before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Kanjirappally alleging offences punishable under Sections 451, 342, 323 and 325 of I.P.C. and the case was registered as C. C. 118/93 by the Court. The petitioner filed a petition before the Government of Kerala to appoint a private advocate to conduct the prosecution in the place of the Assistant Public Prosecutor. As there was inordinate delay he filed O. P. No. 13832/95 before this Court and this Court disposed of that O. P. directing the authorities to dispose of the app...
K.i. George Vs. Muhammed Master
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-01-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)ALD(Cri)400; [1999]97CompCas664(Ker); 1999CriLJ3121
G. Sasidharan, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the complainant in C. C. No. 9 of 1993 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the first class, Sulthan Bathery, from the judgment by which the accused in the above case was acquitted. The allegation against the accused, who is the respondent in this appeal, was that he committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In the complaint filed by the appellant in the trial court, the allegation was that the respondent borrowed an amount of Rs. 37,000 from the appellant on October 5, 1992, agreeing to pay the amount back within one month. Even after one month, the amount remained unpaid and hence the appellant made a demand to the respondent to pay back the amount. Then the respondent issued a cheque for Rs. 32,000 with the date November 25, 1992, drawn on Nedungadi Bank, Vadakara branch and agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 5,000 within one week. The statement in the complaint is that the re...
Patel Babu Lal Pranlal Brothers and ors. Vs. Pameric Export Internatio ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-01-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Ker355
Rajan, J.1. The appellants who were the plaintiffs filed the suit for recovery of the money alleged to be due from the respondents-defendants. There were various payments made by the respondents to the appellants. The last date of such payment was 12-8-1982. Thereafter the respondents defaulted payment. The suit was filed on 24-8-1985. According to the appellants the suit was not barred by limitation on account of Ext. A9 acknowledgment letter dated 27-9-82. By Ext. A9 acknowledgment, the respondents confirmed that the entire money due to the appellants would be paid shortly. The lower court dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit claim was apparently barred by limitation and that there was no specific pleading claiming grounds of exemptions from the law of limitation as enjoined under Rule 6, Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure. The above rule reads as follows :'Where the suit is instituted after the expiration of the period prescribed by the law of limitation, the plaint ...
EdwIn Vs. Director-general, All India Radio
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-01-1999
Reported in: (1999)IILLJ1065Ker
P.A. Mohammed, J. 1. This is a Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext.P6 order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench on December 7, 1998 rejecting O.A. No. 1676 of 1998 under Section 19(3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act')2. While the appellant was working as Transmission Executive in the office of the All India Radio, Calicut he was transferred to its Trichur office vide Ext.P2 order dated November 19, 1998 issued by the first respondent Director General, All India Radio, New Delhi, Consequent to the transfer order, the second respondent, Station Engineer, All India Radio, Calicut issued Ext.P3 relieving order to the appellant on November 27, 1998 with a direction to report himself for duty to the Station Director, Trichur. Being aggrieved by this order the petitioner filed Ext.P4 representation on November 30, 1998 before the second respondent. Thereafter the petitioner filed E...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›