Kerala Court June 2002 Judgments
Gopi Vs. Maneed Grama Panchayat
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-28-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Ker364
Kurian Joseph, J.1. The point and moment of disqualification of an elected member of Grama Panchayat and the stage of jurisdiction of the State Election Commission are the issues which arise for consideration in this Original Petition. It may not be necessary to go into the factual details for the purpose of disposal of this Original Petition and it will not be proper also for this Court at this stage to go into such questions. Yet, it is necessary to refer to certain facts so as to understand the law.2. Petitioner is a member of the Maneed Grama Panchayat, Piravom. He was arrested in connection with Crime No. 18/2002 of Ramamangalam Police Station registered under Section 302 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code. It is not in dispute that the petitioner did not attend the meetings of the Panchayat Committee held on 5.2.2002, 18.3.2002, 25.3.2002 and 26.3.2002. He also did not attend the meetings of the Standing Committee on Finance held on 22.2.2002 and 20.3.2002. According to ...
Tag this Judgment!Baby Chemparathy, President, the Thodupuzha Taluk General Marketing Co ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-27-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Ker10
ORDER NO. S.C.T.M. 589/2002 DT. 12.2.2002 BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, IDUKKI.EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATOR DT. 13.2.2002.EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DT. 13.2.2002 ADDRESSED MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LTD BY THE ADMINISTRATOR.EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. MP(1)4932/2002 DT. 19.2.2002 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES TO THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION.EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES NO. MP(5)44158/01 DT. 21.3.2002.RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:EXT.R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL COVER & REGISTRATION LETTER.EXT.R2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE RESIGNATION LETTER BY THE SECOND, THIRD AND FOURTH PETITIONERS.EXT.R2(C) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY T.P. POULOSE TO THE ASST. REGISTRAR GENERAL, THODUPUZHA DT. 11.2.2002 WITH THE RESIGNATION LETTER OF T.P. POULOSE TO THE PRESIDENT....
Tag this Judgment!Nature Lovers Movement Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-25-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Ker18
B.N. Srikrishna, C.J.1. This Original Petition in the nature of a public interest litigation has been brought by a society which is concerned with preservation and conservation of nature and natural resources. The crux of the contention raised in this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is that, after the coming into force of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (Central Act 69 of 1980), no forest land anywhere in the State could be assigned or otherwise dealt with by any quasi judicial authority for the purpose of determining whether the forest land has really vested in the State of Kerala or not. An examination and comparative evaluation of the relevant provisions becomes necessary to appreciate the contention.2. The Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (Act 26 of 1971), hereinafter referred to as 'the State Act, 1971', was brought into force from 23.8.1971 after being reserved for and receiving the assent of the President. The Act is intended to p...
Tag this Judgment!P.A. Lilly Amma Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary to Gover ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-24-2002
Reported in: [2003(96)FLR671]
M. Ramachandran, J.1. Petitioner has filed this original petition, thoughafter her retirement, challenging Ext. P5 which came into lifeafter her retirement. An application for approval of herappointment as Headmistress in St. Kuriakose U.P. School,Melpadom, which is under the control of 6th respondent, for theperiod from 1.6.1989 to 31.5.1989 had been rejected by theGovernment. It appears that though original petition had beenfiled earlier, the matter was not finally decided and wasrelegated for appropriate proceedings. But the Government byorder dated 1.5.1996, took a view that the approval was liableto be rejected pointing out that the appointment was made on4.6.1990 with retrospective effect which is impermissible.2. Now the facts could be started. The petitionerhad commenced her service from 1.7.1961 as Upper Primary SchoolAssistant. The Manager of the school had passed away on8.4.1988. Due to the rift among the committee members who werein charge of the affairs of the school, it w...
Tag this Judgment!SalahuddIn Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-21-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALT(Cri)411
M.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. The new question that arises in this appeal is as to the notification with reference to which small quantity of contraband under the N.D.P.S. Act has to be assessed; that is, as to whether it is the notification that prevailed on the date of occurrence or the notification that has come into effect under the Amendment Act 9 of 2001 that applies for purposes of the benefit contemplated in Section 41 of the said Amendment Act. Another question of novelty is whether there will be violation of the provisions of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act if the offender is searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate who is brought to the scene of occurrence instead of the accused being taken to a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer as the accused might opt.2. The challenge in the appeal is with regard to the conviction entered against the appellant as accused in S.C. No. 318/99 of the special Court for trial of N.D.P.S. Act cases (Sessions Court), Trissur for the of...
Tag this Judgment!Mattathil Ouseph Ittira Vs. State of Kerala, Rep. by Its Public Prosec ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-21-2002
Reported in: I(2003)BC294; 2003CriLJ514
ORDERG. Sasidharan, J.1. Petitioner is the accused in C.C. 540 of 2001 onthe file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,Thiruvalla. The allegation against the petitioner isthat he committed the offence punishable under Section138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The statement inthe complaint is that the petitioner obtained a loan of3.8 lakh dirhams for conducting the business of provisionstore and canteen. Petitioner issued a cheque for 16,000dirhams on 1-1-2001 towards part payment of the amountborrowed from the second respondent. The cheque wasdrawn on M/s. Abudabi Commercial Bank, Industrial AreaBranch, Sharjah and the second respondent presented thecheque in M/s. Indian Overseas Bank, Thiruvalla Branch on22-1-2001. The cheque was dishonoured for the reasonthat there was no sufficient amount in the account formaking payment of the amount covered by the cheque.Second respondent got intimation regarding the dishonourof the cheque on 7-2-2001 and notice was sent to thepetition...
Tag this Judgment!Nazir Vs. State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-21-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ4742
ORDERM.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. Is the offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code a minor offence vis-a-vis Section 380 of the I.P.C.? Can one be convicted for the former offence without a specific charge accusing him of that offence and based on charge under Section 380 for which he faced the trial'? These are some of the questions posed in the present revision.2. The appellant is the second accused in C.C. No. 83/89 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate I. Ernakulam. He is aggrieved that though the conviction entered against him by the trial Court for offence under Sections 457 and 380 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was set aside in Cri. A. 141/92 by the Third Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam the learned Sessions Judge proceeded to convict him for the offence under Section 411 of the I.P.C.3. Sri C. B. Sreekumar who argued the case of the appellant submitted that in the absence of any charge under Section 411 of the I.P.C. framed agai...
Tag this Judgment!Lawrence Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-21-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3458
ORDERM.K. Hariharan Nair, J.1. Petitioner is the first accused in C.C. No. 6/91 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court 1, Kochi. The second accused therein was his mother. After trial the Court found that they were liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The present petitioner was sentenced to under R.I. for six months for the said offence and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-. The second accused, however, was released on bond for Rs. 2,000/-. The aforesaid judgment was confirmed by the Third Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam in Crl. A. 465/93. It is aggrieved by these concurrent findings that the petitioner has approached this Court.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the conviction in question has resulted in miscarriage of justice and that the courts below have not appreciated the facts correctly, that actually the evidence adduced was not in conformity with the grievance projected in the complai...
Tag this Judgment!Nijamudeen Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-21-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3266
ORDERM.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. The challenge in the revision is with regard to the conviction entered against the petitioner as 4th accused in SC 144/1993 of the Principal Assistant Sessions Court, Trivandrum, which was confirmed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Trivandrum in Crl. A. 245/1993.2. The prosecution alleged that at about 3.30 a.m. on 23-2-1993, the six accused in the case were found assembled in front of the outer gate of the office building of the goods transport near Thampanoor Overbridge, Trivandrum and that their presence was for the purpose of committing dacoity. Though the petitioner and the other accused denied the charges, they were found guilty of the offence under Section 402 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years each.3. There is nothing to show that the other accused in the case have filed any appeal or revision and hence this appeal was heard separately.4. Sri. Pirappancode V.S. Sudheer, who appeared for the petitioner submitted that...
Tag this Judgment!Nadesan Vs. Dinesan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-20-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Ker7
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J. 1. Doubting the correctness of the interpretation given by a Single Judge of this Court in State Bank of India v. Iqbal Zacharia (1994 (1) KLT 141) regarding the scope and effect of Section 4A of the Kerala Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act'), this revision petition was referred to the Division Bench. Before going into the merits of the case we may look into Section 4A of the Act, which reads as follows: '4A. Levy of fee at the time of institution of suit:-Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, the amount of fee to be paid on plaint at the time of institution of suit shall be one-tenth of the amount of fee chargeable under this Act and the balance amount shall be paid within such period, not later than fifteen days from the date of framing of issues or where framing of issues is not necessary, within such period not exceeding fifteen days as may be specified by the Court: Provided that the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »