Kerala Court May 2002 Judgments
Dharman Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-31-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1586; 2002(83)ECC885
M.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. The challenge in this jail appeal is with regard to the conviction entered against the appellant as accused in SC 186/1998 of the Sessions Court, Thrissur (Special Court for trial of N.D.P.S. Act Cases) for the offence under Section 20(b)(i) of the N.D.P.S. Act and the sentence of R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 5000/- (in default R.I. for three months) imposed therefor.2. The prosecution case that at about 8 P.M. on 26.2.1997 the accused was found in possession of 120 gms. of ganja by PW1-Circle Inspector of Police at the portion of the road in front of Thushara Bar at Triprayar found acceptance with the trial court based on the evidence of PWs. 1 to 5 and Exts. P1 to P7 and MOs. 1 to 5.3. Smt. Saira Ravikumar, who appeared for the appellant on State Brief submitted that there is violation of Section 50 of the N.P.P.S. Act in the matter of the seizure; that the material object continued to be in the custody of the seizing official until 24.10.1997 and that i...
Tag this Judgment!Soman Vs. Thomas Paul
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-30-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALT(Cri)302; II(2003)BC471
ORDERM.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. The challenge in the revision is with regard to the concurrent findings of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offence), Ernakulam and the Sessions Judge, Ernakulam with regard to the conviction entered against the petitioner in C.C. No. 89 of 1997 of the former court for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act') and the modified sentence imposed by the Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, viz., imprisonment till rising of court and fine of Rs. 32,000/-(in default Simple Imprisonment for two months). The direction that Rs. 29,000/- out of the fine amount should go to the complainant is also challenged.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the conviction is unsustainable for the reason that the complainant failed to produce before the Court the memo of dishonour issued by the drawee bank or any other clinching evidence to show that Ext. P1 cheque was actually dishonoured for want of funds. Ext...
Tag this Judgment!S. Suresh Vs. the Manager, the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-30-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Ker24
ORDERK.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. Second respondent is a limited company, of course, owned by the Government and the first respondent is an officer. The company is engaged in the conduct of chitties and business of finance. The petitioner subscribed to one among the chit-ties conducted by the second, respondent on the basis of 'variyola'. The chitty amount shall be distributed to the petitioner on reasonable security. This is a contract statutorily entered into in terms of the chitty variyola by the subscriber, the petitioner and the foreman, the first respondent. It is an admitted fact that the chitty had been prized in favour of the petitioner. Therefore the respondents are liable to pay the prize amount on the petitioner providing reasonable security for ensuring payment of the future subscription of the chitty. The petitioner intended to provide security of his immovable property. To show that he owns the property, he produced a certified copy of the title deed. The title deed in origin...
Tag this Judgment!Selvam Broilers (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Assmt.) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-30-2002
Reported in: [2003]129STC389(Ker)
Kurian Joseph, J.1. Chicken has been on the tax table of this Court for quite some time for the main reason that the State had not been finding it easy to prepare and promote Kerala chicken. The State intends to support and promote poultry farmers in Kerala ; but is unable to reach at them and that is the unfortunate story unfolded in these cases. To quote from the counter-affidavit of the respondents 'it is respectfully submitted that from the year 1967-68 onwards the intention of the Government is to give special incentive to farmers in Kerala. Each time when notification is issued with the above intention clever dealers outside Kerala could take advantage of the notification by adopting skilful means. But the Government never intended to give any such benefit to outside Kerala people, because the clear intention ever since 1967 was to encourage poultry industry in Kerala'. The last of such attempts to encourage poultry farmers in Kerala has given rise to the present litigation. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Razack Vs. Anjaneyan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-29-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Ker4
ORDERA. Lekshmikutty, J. 1. Against the order regarding the additional issue No. 3 in O.S. No, 2 of 1997 on the file of the Sub Court, Kozhikode, this revision is filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition of 1/7th share over the plaint schedule property. An additional issue was raised regarding court fee. The plaintiff paid court fee under Section 37(2) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. The Court below found that the plaintiff has no joint possession over the plaint schedule property and therefore, the court fee paid under Section 37(2) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act is not correct. Challenging the said order, this revision petition is filed.2. The only point to be considered is whether the impugned order is liable to be set aside.3. The petitioner filed the suit for partition and separate possession of l/7th share over the plaint schedule property with mesne profits and for consequential reliefs. As per the plaintiff, he has p...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala Public Service Commission Vs. Ashokan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-29-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT177
Cyriac Joseph, J.1. The appellants herein are the District Officer, Kerala Public Service Commission, Thrissur and the Kerala Public Service Commission who are respondents 2 and 3 respectively in O.P. No. 31446 of 2001. The appellants challenge the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 19.12.2001 in C.M.P. No. 51236 of 2001 in O.P. No. 31446 of 2001. 2. During the year 1997 the Public Service Commission issued a notification inviting applications from eligible candidates for the post of Electricity Worker (Mazdoor) in the various offices of the Kerala State Electricity Board. Sri. Ashokan A.M., petitioner in O.P. No. 31446 of 2001, applied for the post of Electricity Worker (Mazdoor). The petitioner passed the written examination and he was included in the short-list published by the Public Service Commission. Thereafter he was asked to appear for physical measurement and cycling test. As per the notification issued by the Public Service Commission, the minimum height required fo...
Tag this Judgment!Aboobacker Babu Haji Vs. Pathummakutty Umma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-28-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Ker313
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. S.A. No. 362 of 1990 has come before us on a reference by one of us, Bhaskaran. J., by order dated 21st December, 2001. Suit, O.S. No. 233 of 1980 was filed for redemption of mortgage. Two questions of law raised in the Second Appeal, which are as follows:(1) Can a composite decree for redemption of mortgage, drawn in Form 7D under Order 34 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure as provided by notification dated 10.12.1973 issued by the High Court of Kerala, be drawn up after the Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act 104of 1976? (2) Is not the decree now granted irregular and improper, inasmuch as, it is not in conformity with Order 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as amended by the Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act 104 of 1976? The suit out of which, the present Second Appeal is filed is O.S. No. 233 of 1980. The suit was filed for redemption of mortgage evidenced by document dated 11.12.1951.2. The suit was dismissed by the trial court on 28.5.1984. ...
Tag this Judgment!Meera Vs. Mathew
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-28-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3845
ORDERM.R. Hariharan Nair, J. 1. The revision petitioner is a retired Taluk Supply Officer hailing from Taliparamba. He is aggrieved that through the impugned order passed in C.M.P. No. 7688 of 1997 the complaint tiled by him against the first respondent in this case alleging offence under Section 500 of the IPC was dismissed under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C, inspite of the fact that he had examined three witnesses to prima facie establish the correctness of his averments. 2. In the complaint the petitioner alleged that the accused, who is working as R.D.O., Thalassery, while participating in the meeting of the Food Advisory Committee held in the Collectorate Hall, Cannanore on 20.7.1996, made certain imputations aimed at the petitioner. The accused allegedly referred to certain irregularities in the performance of the Universal Gas Agency. The complainant alleged that after making a statement that a complaint directly filed against the irregularities in the Gas Agency did not yield any ...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Prathapan Vs. Dale and Carrington Investments (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-28-2002
Reported in: [2002]111CompCas425(Ker)
Koshy, J. 1. All these three appeals are filed under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act') against the common order passed by the Company Law Board, Principal Bench, Chennai in C.P. Nos. 13 of 1999 and 65 of 1999 under Sections 111, 397 and 398 of the Act and in the matter of Dale and Carrington Investments (P.) Ltd. ('the Company'). Since M.F.A. No. 284 of 2001 was the earliest appeal filed against the above order, for convenience sake appellants in that appeal are referred to as 'Appellants' in this judgment. First respondent in that appeal is the company itself and second respondent is the Managing Director of the company. He is referred to as the Managing Director throughout this judgment. C.P. No. 13 of 1999 was filed under Section 111 by the Company for rectification of the register of members of the Company in respect of 500 equity shares mentioned in the petition deleting the name of the appellants herein. C.P. No. 65 of 1999 was filed under Sections 397 and 398 by...
Tag this Judgment!Kunharamu Vs. Kunhalankutty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-28-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT216
ORDERK.A. Mohamed Shafi, J. 1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 31/1998 on the file of the Munsiffs Court, Tirur is the revision petitioner. The order dated 30.1.1999 returning the plaint for presentation before the appropriate court finding that the suit should be valued under the proviso to Section 27(c) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, in which case the suit will be beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court, is under challenge.2. The suit is filed by the plaintiff - revision petitioner seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the plaint schedule properties for the arrears of sales tax amounting to Rs. 32,28,000/- due from the 1st defendant in the suit.3. The plaintiff valued the suit for injunction under Section 27(c) of the Court Fees Act and paid the fixed court fee. The lower court found that since the relief sought for is in respect of money sought to be recovered from the plaintiff, the suit has to be v...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »