Kerala Court March 2002 Judgments
Veeran Sayvu Ravuthar Vs. Beevathumma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-27-2002
Reported in: II(2003)DMC20
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. Whether a Muslim wife residing in her own family house and away from her husband, is entitled to claim divorce on the ground under Section 2(ii) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939, hereinafter referred to as the Act, that her husband 'has neglected or has failed to provide for her maintenance for a period of two years', is the main issue raised in this case.2. Divorce in Muslim law is a much debated topic, not only in courts; but among social activists, legislators and even among different groups in the community itself. Certainly that is with respect to the divorce coming from the husband, viz. 'Talaq'. At the same time the right of Muslim women to effect divorce is also a much debated issue among the Muslim themselves.3. Marriage as per the Muslim law is in the nature of a contract. But it has got a religious sanction as well. That contract is to subsist during the life period of the couple or until they cannot live within the limits of the God. I...
Tag this Judgment!Rejikumar Vs. Sukumaran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-25-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALT(Cri)437; [2002]112CompCas12(Ker); 2002CriLJ3255
M.R. Hariharan Nair, J. 1. The complainant in C.C. No. 119/1996 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Adimaly, is aggrieved that his complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act with regard to Ext. P1 cheque for Rs. 7,000/- ended in acquittal of the present respondent based on the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2, DW1 and Exts. P1 to P6 and D1.2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the complainant is entitled to a presumption regarding genuineness and passing of consideration with regard to the cheque and the acquittal of the accused was unjustified. It was also pointed out that there was failure on the part of the accused to subject the signature of the drawer in Ext. P1 to expert examination and that as such his contention that Ext. P1 was not signed by him is unacceptable.3. On the arguments advanced in the case, the points that arise for decision are:(1) Whether Ext. P1 is a cheque issued by the respondent? (2) Whether the accused has commi...
Tag this Judgment!Premier Plantations Ltd. Vs. M. Ebrahimkutty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-25-2002
Reported in: [2002]110CompCas721(Ker)
J.B. Koshy, J.1. First respondent in this appeal (referred in this judgment as the petitioner for convenience) filed a petition under Section 237 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act') to direct the Central Government to appoint one or more competent persons as inspectors by declaring that the affairs of the Premier Plantations Ltd., first appellant ('as company') ought to be investigated and to report thereon within a specified time limit. Before going into the facts of the case we may first discuss the power of this Court under Section 237(a)(ii). Section 237 reads as follows :'Investigation of company's affairs in other cases.- Without prejudice to its powers under Section 235, the Central Government--(a) shall appoint one or more competent persons as inspectors to investigate the affairs of a company and to report thereon in such manner as the Central Government may direct, if--(i) the company, by special resolution; or(ii) the Court, by order, declares that the affairs of the comp...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kunnamkulam Mill Board
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-25-2002
Reported in: (2002)178CTR(Ker)356; [2002]257ITR544(Ker)
V.P. Mohan Kumar, J. 1. The assessee is a partnership firm carrying on business in the manufacture, of mill boards. For the assessment year 1989-90, the firm filed the return declaring a loss of Rs. 5,33,120. The Assessing Officer while finalising the assessment added Rs. 7,68,559 by invoking the provision of Section 45(4). It was alleged that during the previous year ending on March 31, 1989, there was a change in the constitution of the firm with the retirement of five partners after receiving the credit balances in their accounts. There was also a revaluation of the assets and it is the enhanced value of the assets that was credited equally in their accounts. The Assessing Officer took the view that on the retirement of five partners taking the enhanced value for the assets there amounted to a transfer of capital assets as envisaged in Section 45(4) and the profit arising from the transfer was liable to tax as the income of the asses-see-firm. He accordingly treated that sum, i.e., ...
Tag this Judgment!Manager, M.P.V.H.S. School Vs. Girija
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-21-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT935
ORDERB.N. Srikrishna, CJ.1. This appeal has been placed before the Full Bench by an order of reference dated 10th January, 2002, made by the Division Bench of K.S.Radhakrishnan and K.Balakrishnan Nair, JJ. as the Division Bench had a doubt with regard to the correctness of the ruling of another Division Bench in Sindhu v. Kerala Public Service Commission (2001 (2) KLT 507) interpreting Rule 2 (2)(b) (i) of Chapter XXXI of Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'K.E.R.').2. Under Chapter XXXI of the K.E.R., Rule 2 (2)(b) prescribes the qualification for appointment of High School Assistant to teach different languages, i.e. (i) Malayalam; (ii) Tamil, (iii) Sanskrit, (iv) Hindi, (v) Arabic, (vi) Urdu, (vii) Kannada (viii) Gujarathy and (ix) French. As far as High School Assistants for teaching Malayalam, Tamil, Sanskrit, Arabic, Urdu and Kannada are concerned, the qualification prescribed are a basic degree in the subject coupled with B.Ed./B.T./L.T. conferred or recogn...
Tag this Judgment!Basheer Vs. Lona Chackola
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-20-2002
Reported in: [2003]115CompCas127(Ker); [2004]50SCL19(Ker)
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Important question of law to be decided in this case is whether need for occupation of a registered Private Company in which the landlord is a Director, is the bona fide need of the landlord for his 'own occupation'. Revision petitioners are tenants of the respondent. They occupied line rooms in the same building owned by the respondent. Respondent filed eviction petition to evict these revision petitioners. The common ground urged is one under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act'). Other grounds were also urged. Rent Control Court dismissed the application in all respects. The matter came in appeal. Appellate Court held that the claim is maintainable under Section 11(3) of the Act and dismissal of the case on that ground was not correct Jnd the matter was remanded. Section 11(3) of the Act reads as follows:'(3) A landlord may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing the tenant to put the...
Tag this Judgment!Sujeetha Thomson Vs. M.P. Devassy
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-20-2002
Reported in: II(2003)DMC465; 2003(2)KLT162
R. Rajendra Babu, J.1. The petitioner/wife filed this petition for dissolution of the marriage with the respondent on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. 2. The allegations in the petition briefly are as follows: The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 14.11.1999 at St. George, Church, Edappally in accordance with the religious rites of Christian community. After the marriage the petitioner and the respondent lived together in the parental house of the petitioner till 7.10.2000. The parents of the petitioner came to know about the marriage proposal of the respondent through a newspaper advertisement, wherein he had expressed his willingness to stay in the wife's house and accordingly the above proposal was considered. The petitioner and her parents were made to believe that the respondent had passed Pre-degree and ITI and was employed at FC OEN Ltd. and was having monthly salary of Rs. 5,000/-. At the time of marriage the petitioner was a Post-graduat...
Tag this Judgment!Saseendran Nair C. Vs. D.G.M., State Bank of Travancore and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-19-2002
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR185]; (2003)ILLJ165Ker
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J. 1. The petitioner challenges the disciplinary action taken against him by the State Bank of Travancore which resulted in his discharge from service. The brief facts necessary for the case are the following:2. While the petitioner was working as a Record Keeper of TTP (Campus) Branch, Kochuveli, Thiruvananthapuram of the State Bank of Travancore, he was charge-sheeted by the second respondent Assistant General Manager on December 13, 1997. The charges levelled against him were the following:1. The petitioner received Rs. 1,000/- on September 2, 1997 and also certain title deeds from one Mr. Asokan, giving him false promise that the petitioner will get a loan sanctioned for him.2. On October 7, 1996, the petitioner received an amount of Rs. 200/- from the Branch as advance for postage. But, neither stamps were purchased, nor the amount was accounted and thereby misappropriated Rs. 200/-.3. He is in the habit of absenting himself without proper leave applications ...
Tag this Judgment!Thulaseedharan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-18-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALT(Cri)25; 2002CriLJ2522
M.R. Hariharan Nair, J. 1. A new question has been raised before me in this case and that is whether for the purpose of proper compliance with Section 42(2) of the N.D.P.S. Act the report that should reach the immediate official superior should actually be a copy of the record and not the original.2. The appellant stands convicted for the offence under Section 20(b)(i) of the N.D.P.S. Act. It was alleged that at about 4.30 p.m. on 16.3.2001, PW1 - Circle Inspector of Police, received the information that a person riding a motor cycle was coming with ganja carried in a bag; that accordingly PW1 along with his police party intercepted the vehicle while it was still in motion and in the subsequent search it was revealed that the bag possessed by the accused was containing 1.05 kgs. of ganja. After preparing the necessary sample and after recording the details in a contemporaneous seizure mahazar, the arrested accused and the seized contraband were removed to the police station and steps p...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Ajmal Vs. Food Inspector
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2525
ORDERK. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by thesecond accused in S.T. No. 10199/98 pending on the file of the Judicial First ClassMagistrate, Irinjalakuda for quashing Annexure-A complaint filed by the Food Inspectorwho is the first respondent herein. In the complaint it is averred that on 4.8.1997 thefirst respondent inspected the shop conducted by the first accused in the case andpurchased samples of Ice Cream Mix manufactured by the petitioner and the sampleso purchased was found to be adulterated as it does not conform to the standardsprescribed for the dried Ice Cream Mix under the Prevention of Food AdulterationAct hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. It is averred that the petitioner and firstaccused have committed the offences punishable under Sections 2(ia)(m) and 7(i) readwith Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act and Rule 5 - Apex B Item No. A. 11.02.08.01 of thePrevention of Food Adulteration Rules.2. According to...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »