Kerala Court July 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.
P. Ravindran Vs. Inspector of Police, S.P.E., C.B.i.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-08-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ3789
ORDERK.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.1. The 1st accused in C.C. 526/92on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate'sCourt, Ernakulam has filed this revision petitionchallenging the order dated 13-7-1995 passed in M.P. 4946/95.2. The petitioner along with the co-accused are standing trial before the lower Court for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 466, 473 and 474 of I.P.C. r/w Section 120B of I.P.C. on the basis of the charge-sheet laid by the Special Police Establishment, C.B.I. in Crime Case No. RC. 39(S)/89 and RC. 40(S)/89. After appearance of the accused and charge was framed by the lower Court, the petitioner herein filed M.P. 4946/95 seeking acquittal alleging that the investigation in this case was conducted without jurisdiction and therefore, all the proceedings arising out of that investigation are bad in law. Therefore, he sought to drop the entire proceedings and to acquit him contending that the entire proceedings is ab initio void. The lower Court found that the investig...
President, Tiruvalla East Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Etc. Vs. Returnin ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-07-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Ker7
Koshi, J.1. Main question to be decided in these cases is regarding the interpretation of Rule 26 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). All these cases arise out of the decision of the Returning Officer during the election to the managing committee of Tiruvalla East Co-operative Bank Limited hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank') registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Art') that in view of Rules 26 and 28 as interpreted by this Court in Vijayakumar v. Joint Registrar, (1996) 1 Ker LT 285 : (AIR 1996 Kerala 150), members admitted within a period of 90 days of the election cannot participate in the election. The Returning Officer removed names of 1951 members from the voters list without issuing any notice to them by a one line order dated 5-2-1999.2. President of the Bank challenged the proceedings of the Returning Officer (Ext. P5) by filing O.P. No. 3762/99. The learned Single J...
C.P. Paul Vs. C.P. Susan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-06-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Ker415
Balasubramanyan, J. 1. An application for probate under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act was filed before the High Court. The application was filed in the High Court in view of Sections 273, 276 and 300 of the Act on the ground that the portion of the assets likely to come into the hands of the petitioner situate outside the State exceeded Rs. 10000. The application for probate was opposed and hence was treated as a contentious proceeding in terms of Section 295 read with Rule 26 of the Rules framed by the High Court of Kerala. The petition filed was numbered as a suit. The suit was tried and disposed of by a learned single Judge of this Court exercising original jurisdiction. The learned single Judge after trial held that the due and valid execution of the will propounded by the plaintiff has not been established. The learned single Judge thus dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal, the plaintiff filed this appeal under Section 5 of the High Court Act. Accordin...
Nirman SIndia Vs. Indal Electromelts Ltd., Coimbatore and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-06-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Ker440
ORDERK.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.1. This arbitration request is filed by the applicant under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to appoint an arbitrator to resolve the entire disputes between the applicant and the 1st respondent as per the agreement entered into between the applicant and the 1st respondent dated 10-5-1997. It is contended by the applicant that while the execution of the work was in progress the 1st respondent illegally and unilaterally terminated the agreement on 5-1-1999, It is also contended that the 1st respondent did not resort to the decision of the adjudicator specified under Clause 36(1) of the agreement or referring the matter to the arbitrator as specified in Clause 25(1) of the agreement and unilaterally terminated the contract. Therefore it is necessary to appoint an arbitrator to adjudicate the entire disputes between the applicant and the 1st respondent relating to the contract.2. The respondents have resisted this arbitration request on sever...
Sivadasan Vs. Santha
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-06-1999
Reported in: I(2000)DMC198
P.V. Narayanan Nambiar, J.1. O.S. No. 66 of 1993 on the file of the Family Court, Trivandrum, renumbered as O.S. No. 32 of 1995 on the file of the Family Court, Kollam, is a suit filed by the wife and daughter of the revision petitioner for enhancement of the amount of maintenance awarded in their favour in an earlier suit. O.S. No. 86 of 1996 on the file of the Sub-Court, Kotarakkara is a suit filed by the second plaintiff in O.S. No. 32 of 1995 against her father who is the revision-petitioner herein claiming an amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- towards the expenses of her marriage. The prayer in the C.M.C. is to transfer O.S. No. 86 of 1996 pending before the Sub-Court, Kottarakkara to the Family Court, Kollam.2. Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short 'the Act') which deals with jurisdiction says that subject to the other provisions of this Act, the Family Court shall have and exercise all the jurisdiction exercisable by any District Court or any subordinate Civil Court under an...
G. Purushothama Panikkar and anr. Vs. G. Mohan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-02-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Ker443
Usha, J. 1. Revision petition is at the instance of the judgment debtors in O. S. 1037/89 of the Sub-Court, Thrisaur, Respondent-decree holder applied for sale of 30 Cents of land comprised in Sy. No. 81/1 of Nedumpura village of Thalappilly Taluk in execution of the money decree. Judgment debtors filed objection to the notice under Order XXI, Rule 66, C.P.C., contending that the property sought to be sold is not liable to be sold since the property is that of a school. The above objection was disposed of by the Execution court with a direction to incorporate an objection in sale paper. Upset price was fixed and sale was posted on 23-9-1996. The above order is under challenge in the revision petition.2. It is contended by the revision petitioner that 30 Cents of land which was directed to be sold in Court auction is part of 99 Cents of land belonging to Sree Narayana L. P. School, Vettikkattiri. Section 6 of the Kerala Education Act, 1958 contains a bar for sale, mortgage, lease, pledg...
Reji Michael Vs. Vertex Securities Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-02-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALT(Cri)55; 1999CriLJ3787
ORDERK.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.1. This Crl. M. C. is filed by the 3rd accused in Crime No. 561/97 registered by the Central Police Station, Ernakulam alleging offence punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 34, I.P.C. to quash the entire proceedings against him.2. The complaint filed by the 1st respondent against the petitioner and two other accused persons before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam alleging offence punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 34, I.P.C. was taken on file in Crl. M.P. 10108/97 and forwarded to the police for investigation and report under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly the Ernakulam Central Police registered Crime No. 561/97 against the petitioner and two others. While the investigation was commenced by the police, the petitioner has filed the above Crl. M.C. to quash the entire proceedings against him.3. Though this Court stayed the investigation and the entire proceedings as against the petitioner alone as per order in Crl. M.P. No. ...
K. Pushpangadan Vs. Federal Bank Ltd., Alwaye and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-01-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Ker421; [2000]101CompCas197(Ker)
Rajan, J. 1. The first respondent is the plaintiff in the suit filed for recovery of the money advanced by the Bank to the appellant on account of a loan he took for agricultural purposes. According to the plaintiff, as per the terms of the loan, the amount was repayable on demand within twelve months in a lump sum with interest at 16.5% at quarterly rests. As a security for the advance, the appellant executed a demand promissory note in favour of the Bank. He also executed a hypothecation agreement in favour of the Bank. A collateral security was also offered as equitable mortgage in respect of the scheduled property by depositing the title deed. 2. The appellant contended in his written statement, inter alia, that the action of the Bank in charging interest at the rate of 16.5% per annum was unauthorised and illegal. The directions is-sued by the Reserve Bank of India to the Scheduled Banks in the matter of charging interest for loans are binding on the Bank. According to the above c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›