Kerala Court July 2001 Judgments
Praveen Menon Vs. Ajitha K. Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-17-2001
Reported in: I(2002)DMC288
ORDERS. Sankarasubban, J.1. Petitioner challenges the order passed in I.A. No. 1337 of 1998 in M.O.P. No. 153 of 1997 on the file of the Sub court, Palakkad. In the impugned order, the court has granted maintenance to the wife and child at Rs. 500/- and Rs. 350/- respectively, and Rs. 1000/- towards litigation expenses. By an interim order, this Court imposed a condition to deposit an amount of Rs. 3,000/-. By another order dated 12.3.1999, the respondents were allowed to withdraw the amount so deposited.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though under S. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, a wife is entitled to claim maintenance against the husband, that section does not provide maintenance for any other person. Hence, an order of maintenance cannot be made except for the either of the spouses before the court. Any how, counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, it is the duty of the father to maintain the minor child and i...
Tag this Judgment!Joseph Vs. Official Liquidator
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-13-2001
Reported in: [2002]108CompCas268(Ker); [2001(90)FLR1141]; (2001)IILLJ1217Ker
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J. 1. The claim of the applicant in this case is that provident fund amount payable was admitted by the Liquidator only under S. 529A of the companies Act. It is the contention of the applicant that in view of S. 11 of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short 'EPF Act') first charge should be given to the provident fund dues and, therefore, dividend cannot be apportioned in pari passu with the secured creditors as S. 11 will prevail over the provisions of S. 529A. it is also contended that the Industrial Tribunal has awarded that workers are entitled to salary during lay off period. Even though salary for lay off period as directed by the Tribunal was admitted by the Official Liquidator, the provident fund dues on the salary paid during the lay off period was not admitted by him.2. The first question to be considered is whether the stand of the Official Liquidator is correct in not admitting the claim for provident fund contributio...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnamma Vs. Thomas
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-12-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)ALT(Cri)256
ORDERM.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. The prayer of the petitioners, who are sisters, is to quash the proceedings pursuant to a private complaint filed by the respondent, which is registered as C.C. No. 1285 of 1997 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Muvattupuzha. 1 Acre and 52 cents of land belonged to one Krishnan. On his death it was inherited by his wife as also by four of his daughters and two sons. The petitioners in the M.C. are two of the four daughters aforementioned. The petitioners executed Annexure III Power of Attorney in favour of their mother authorising her to convey the petitioners' right over the property also. Pursuant hereto the rights over the property were conveyed to the respondents as per Annexures I and II Sales Deeds dt 9.9.1985. Actually one of the daughters of Krishnan was not a party to either of the Sale Deeds. Alleging that fraud was committed in the matter of sale, the respondent filed a private complaint invoking Section 420 of IPC. It was sent fo...
Tag this Judgment!Thankamoni Vs. University of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-11-2001
Reported in: [2001(91)FLR305]
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. Petitioner is a Reader in bio-technology Department of the University of Kerala. She was so appointed on 28.2.1995. By Ext. P2 she has been put in charge of the Head of that department by the Vice Chancellor. She is continuing as such. Later, there was an attempt to transfer a Professor from another department to Biotechnology Department. That is evident from Ext. P6. The Syndicate decided to transfer a Professor from one Department to Biotechnology department. That has been stayed by this Court in C.M.P. No. 36401/2001 in O.P. NO. 21701/2001. It is still in force. That is not disputed. Now Ext. P7 whereby a decision of the Syndicate to shift one post of Professor from the Bio-Chemistry Department to Bio-Technology department has been implemented, is impugned in this Original Petition. No incumbent is transferred but only a post is transferred as per Ext. P7. That means a new post of Professor is instituted in Bio-Technology department on transfer from Bio-Chem...
Tag this Judgment!Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-11-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)ALT(Cri)241; 2002CriLJ187
M.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. The challenge in the appeal is with regard to the conviction entered against the appellant, who was the accused in S.C.No. 157/93 of the 1st Additional Sessions Court, Kollam for the offence under S. 489-C of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 15,000/-(in default rigorous imprisonment for a further term of one year) imposed therefore.2. The prosecution alleged that at about 3.00 pm on 1.10.1987 the accused approached PW3, who is a meat vendor, while he was at the Churulikkodu Junction and after introducing himself, offered to advance cash for the business of PW-3 and discuss the matter. He also took from the pocket of his underwear a handful of notes of Rs. 20/- denomination and extended it to PW-3. When PW-3 got the notes and examined, he found that its colour materially differed from that of genuine currency notes and hence became suspicious. PW-3 therefore not only did not receive it; but passed on th...
Tag this Judgment!Ahamed Kalnad and Etc. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-10-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4448
ORDERM R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. The revision petitioners in these 26 cases are all accused in the connected cases pending trial before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode. Of these, 12 revisions are by a contractor and 14 are filed by Engineers. An FIR was filed against them on 30-9-1985 reporting that the latter, while working as Engineers of various rank for works in the Attappady Valley Irrigation Project, Agali, during the period from 24-7-1978 to 9-11-1981, they committed criminal misconduct by abusing their official positions in the matter implementing a criminal conspiracy with the contractors aforementioned by placing four supply orders dated 17-11-80, 18-12-80, 19-2-81 and 3-2-81 for 95 numbers of 200mm Sluice valves in favour of M/s. Indira Engineering Corporation, Coimbatore, of which one of the accused is the Managing Partner causing loss of crores of rupees to the Government exchequer. After investigation, 13 charge sheets were filed on 10-3-1989 alleging ...
Tag this Judgment!CochIn Malabar Estates and Industries Ltd. Vs. Overseas Latex (P) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-10-2001
Reported in: [2001]107CompCas563(Ker)
J.B. Koshy, J. 1. This petition filed sunder Ss. 433 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 for winding up of the first respondent company. At the time when the petition was filed, scheme for rehabilitation was sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) on 27.2.1997, as BIFR declared the company as a sick industrial company within the meaning of S. 3(1)(o) of the Act by proceeding dated 25.3.1996. BIFR notified failure of the scheme sanctioned on 27.2.1997 and operating agency was directed for new proposal by proceeding dated 7.3.2000 and it is still under consideration. When company petition was filed, scheme sanctioned was under implementation as can be seen from Annexures I to II in R.P.No. 303/2000. BIFR has confirmed that proceedings are still pending.2. S. 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') states as follows:'22(1). Where in respect of an industrial company, an inquiry under S. 1...
Tag this Judgment!C.M. Varkeychan Vs. T.V. Mathew
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-06-2001
Reported in: [2002]108CompCas159(Ker)
Mohan Kumar, J.1. The statutory requirement is that the annual general body meeting of the company should be held on or before 31-5-2001. The appellants contend that they were denied membership and that in pursuance of the order passed by the Secretary to Government, marked as annexure 1, dated 25-6-2001, the company was directed to grant membership to the appellants and, therefore, they are entitled to vote in the annual general body meeting.2. This is impermissible. The meeting scheduled to be held on 16-7-2001 is the one that ought to have been held on 31-5-2001. Admittedly on that day the appellants were not members of the company. Therefore, the learned single Judge was right in holding that the meeting should be held on the basis of the list of members as on 31-5-2001. We do not find any ground to interfere.3. The writ appeal is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Narayanan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-06-2001
Reported in: 2002ACJ1990
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the direction of the Tribunal to honour the insurance claim and to recover the same from the insured. The Tribunal found that as on the date of the accident on 21.10.1992 the policy was live but not the driving licence of the rider of the scooter. Counsel for the appellant submitted that after having found that there is violation of policy and that the rider is having no licence the Tribunal is not justified in directing payment by Insurance Company and then to recover from the insured. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gian Chand & Ors. (1997 ACJ 1065) wherein the Apex Court held that when the insured had handed over the vehicle for being driven by an unlicenced driver, the Insurance Company should be exonerated from the liability to meet the claims of third party who might have suffered on account of vehicular accident caused...
Tag this Judgment!Salim Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-06-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)ALT(Cri)139
ORDERN.Krishnan Nair, J.1. Can a Magistrate forward a complaint to the police for investigation under S. 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure when the offence complained of is exclusively triable by a Court Session? That is the question to be resolved in this petition filed under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings arising out of Crime No.234/CR/99/C.B.CI.E.,Special Investigation Group-I, Thiruvananthapuram.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this petition may be stated as follows: The petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No. 234/CR/99/CBCID, Special Investigation Group-I, Thiruvananthapuram. The crime was originally registered as Crime No. 164/99 of Valiyathura Police Station. The case arose on a complaint filed by the de facto complainant against the petitioner and others before the Chief Judicial Magistral's Court, Thiruvanathapuram, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Ss. 195, 196, 201, 211, 120B and S. 307 of the Indi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »