Kerala Court May 2001 Judgments
Gopinathan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-31-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Ker116
R. Bhaskaran, J. 1. Petitioner is the Manager of Hemambika Junior Basic School, Palakkad. He sent Ext. P1 notice under S. 7(6) of the Kerala Education Act proposing to close down his school with effect from the next academic year. The Director of Public Instruction by Ext. P3 communication dated 20.5.2000 informed the petitioner that the notice to close down the school is rejected. According to the petitioner, there is not provision in the Kerala Education Act and Rules to reject the notice under S. 7(6) and to compel the Manager to continue the school after one year of the issue of notice. Since the petitioner apprehended that the educational authorities may break open the gate and re-start the school after the period of notice, he filed O.S.No. 473 of 2000 before the Munsiff's Court, Palakkad, for necessary reliefs. After the filing of the suit, the second respondent passed Exts. P4 and P5 orders appointing the Deputy Director of Education Palakkad, as Ex-officio Manager of the schoo...
Tag this Judgment!Augustine Vs. Omprakash Nanakram
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-30-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)ALT(Cri)109
ORDERR. Rajendra Babu, J. 1. Petitioner, who is the accused in C.C. 1093/1997 before the Metropolitan Magistrate's Court No. 16, Ahmedabad, filed this petition invoking S. 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the above complaint and the further prosecution proceedings thereon pending against the petitioner.2. Respondent herein filed the complaint C.C. 1093/+8 before the Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, Ahmedabad, alleging the commission of offences under Ss. 406 and 420 IPC. The allegations int he complaint were that the complainant was doing wholesale business on cloth in Ahmedabad and the petitioner (accused) had purchased cloths on credit as per two bills dated 31.7.96 for Rs. 16,016.50 and Rs. 18,827.00. The goods covered by the above bills had been delivered by the complainant to the accused, the petitioner, who was doing textile business at Ernakulam. Petitioner had taken the goods on 30 days credit and the value of the goods had to be paid within a period of 30 days. The petitioner was purc...
Tag this Judgment!Ponthinoda Sainabi and ors. Etc. Vs. Vatakkiloda Aboobackerkoya and or ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-30-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Ker331
Sankarasubban, J. 1. These three appeals are filed against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 9 of 1974 of the Subordinate Judges's Court, Lakshadweep. Kavarathi. In A.S. No. 550 of 1983, the appellants are the plaintiffs, while A.S. No. 554 of 1983 is an appeal filed by defendants 4, 5 and 8 to 13. A.S. No. 11 of 1984 is filed by the first defendant. The suit, O.S. No. 9 of 1974 was filed by four plaintiffs. Plaintiffs 1 to 3 are the daughters of one Ponthinoda Ummubee and the fourth plaintiff is the son of Ponthinoda Attakoya, who is the brother of plaintiffs 1 to 3. The suit was filed for declaration of title and for recovery oi possession of the plaint schedule properties with mesne profits after setting aside the compromise dated 24-7-1961. The suit was dismissed. However, certain findings were entered and the plaintiffs were declared tobe entitled to 1/3rd share. It was found that all the necessary parties were not impleaded and a right to file a fresh suit for partition was res...
Tag this Judgment!Chidambaran Pillai R. Vs. Deputy General Manager, (Personnel and Admin ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-30-2001
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ1599Ker
ORDERK.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. Admittedly, petitioner is a member of the Watch and Ward Staff of a Nationalised Bank. Government of India announced Voluntary Retirement Scheme, which was incorporated as per Ext. P1. Members of Watch and Ward Staff are excluded from that scheme. It is discriminatory, the petitioner submits.2. Voluntary Retirement Scheme, Ext. P1 is a part of the Manpower Management and Planning. In such circumstances, whereever such management is required, is a matter for the management to decide. Management thought that such planning and management of staff are required only for the permanent employees of the Bank except those specifically mentioned under the head 'ineligible.' Eligible and ineligible are separately considered in Clause 3 of Ext. PL One among the category of ineligibles is 'Watch and Ward Staff.' When the management announced the scheme excluding the Watch and Ward Staff, it has to be noted that such man power management is not necessary in that sector....
Tag this Judgment!Annu Thomas Vs. Mathew Thomas
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-29-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Ker387; II(2001)DMC586
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Appellant herein is the respondent in O.P. (Divorce) No. 4603/94 W. Husband filed a petition before this Court under S. 18 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 praying for a declaration that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent as null and void on the ground that his consent to the marriage was obtained by practising fraud. Even though the marriage was solemnized in accordance with the Christian rites, it was found out that the wife was earlier married. According to the respondent, he consented to the marriage as he was made to believe that the appellant was an unmarried virgin girl. It is not disputed that the wife was earlier married according to the Christian rites on 26.10.1981 and the above marriage was subsisting and there was a child in that wedlock. It came to know only later and when petitioner questioned, respondent admitted that the child is her own child on the first wedlock and the child is put in a boarding school. In fact, the wife sought ma...
Tag this Judgment!Kumari Vs. Sankara Raman
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-23-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)ALT(Cri)160
ORDERG. Sasidharan, J.1. The question which arises for consideration is whether in a complaint filed in a Court alleging that a company committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for making the Directors liable for the commission of the offence, is it necessary that there should be averments in the complaint that they were in charge of and were responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company at the time when the offence was committed. In the present case, in three complaints filed before the learned Magistrate, there is no statement that at the time when the offence is alleged to have been committed by the company, the petitioner was in charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. The complaints only say about the issuance of the cheque, dishonour of the cheque and also issuance of the notice to the Managing Director as well as th...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Kurien Menon and Pai and ors. Vs. R. Rankara Raman and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-23-2001
Reported in: [2001]106CompCas675(Ker); 2002CriLJ478
G. Sasidharan, J.1. The question which arises for consideration is whether in a complaint filed in a Court alleging that a company has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for making the directors liable for the commission of the offence, it is necessary that there should be averments in the complaint that they were in charge of and were responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company at the time when the offence was committed. In the present case, in the three complaints filed before the learned Magistrate, there is no statement that at the time when the offence is alleged to have been committed by the company, the petitioner was in charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. The complaints only say about the issuance of the cheque, dishonour of the cheque and also issuance of the notice to the Managing Director as well...
Tag this Judgment!Jacob Mathew Vs. Gangadharan Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-21-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)ALT(Cri)46
ORDERA. Lekshmikutty, J.1. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 108 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri by the third accused.2.The first respondent had preferred a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri against five accused persons including the petition herein alleging that the accused persons therein had committed offences punishable under Ss.500 and 502 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ``the IPC'). Annexure-A is the said private complaint. The complaint relates to the allegation that accused 1 and 2 therein had preferred complaints before the Police allegiant that the death of Srijith and his mother who is the sister of the complainant/first respondent and one Balakrishnan were not natural and that the complainant and his brother Balakrishnan were responsible for the death and they caused the third accused, the Executive Editor, Malayala Manorama daily, Kozhikode, 4th accused, Editor, Kerala Kaumudi, Ko...
Tag this Judgment!Jacob Mathew Vs. Adangam Purath Kallada Gangadharan Nair and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-21-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3793
ORDERA. Lekshmikutty, J.1. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 108 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri by the third accused.2. The first respondent had preferred a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri against five accused persons including the petitioner herein alleging that the accused persons therein had committed offence punishable under Sections. 500 and 502 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the I.P.C.'). Annexure-A is the said private complaint. The complaint relates to the allegation that accused 1 and 2 therein had preferred complaints before the police alleging that the death of Srijith and his mother who is the sister of the complainant/first respondent and one Balakrishnan were not natural and that the complainant and his brother Balakrishnan were responsible for the death and they caused the third accused, the Executive Editor, Malayala Manorama daily, Kozhikode, 4th accused, Editor, Kerala ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Santhamma and ors. Vs. Rahmath and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-21-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)ALT(Cri)59; 2001CriLJ3409
ORDERT.M. Hassan Pillai, J.1. The revision petitioners challenge the legality and propriety of the order passed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-11, Kollam under Section 319 of the Cr. P.C. directing them to be arraigned as accused persons in a case being tried before him for offences punishable under Section 451, 427 read with Section 34, IPC (S.T. No. 1830 of 1997). On the basis of the statement of P.W. 1 recorded by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kollam East, a case has been registered in Crime No. 351 of 1997 on 16-4-1997 under Section 427 and 451 read with Section 34, IPC against two persons (accused Nos. 1 and 2). The allegation made in the first information statement was to the effect that P.W. 1 and her family members have been residing in the house rented out to her by the 1st accused and the owner of the house, on several occasions, asked them to vacate that house. No house was available on rent to shift her residence. First accused in whose favour an agreement wa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »