Kerala Court July 2002 Judgments
Seethalakshmi Ammal Vs. Nabeesath Beevi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-16-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT391
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J.1. The revision petitioners/landlords filed R.C.R No. 4 of 1992 under Section 11(4)(ii) of Act 2 of 1965 for eviction of the respondents/tenants. The Rent Control Court found that there was n6 landlord-tenant relationship and that the petitioners were not able to prove that there is alteration of the building so as to effect eviction under Section 11(4)(ii). The Appellate Authority found that earlier in R.C.P. No. 187 of 1983 with regard to the same building, eviction was ordered on the ground of arrears of rent and that finding was not challenged. The landlord-tenant relationship was found in that case. Therefore, the Appellate Authority held that finding of the Rent Control Court that there is no landlord-tenant relationship cannot be accepted. We agree with the abovefinding of the Appellate Authority. However, with regard to the finding on the ground of Section 11(2)(b), the Appellate Authority agreed with the Rent Control Court that alterations made by the tenant...
Tag this Judgment!B. Six Holiday Resorts (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-16-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT984
B.N. Srikrishna, C.J.1. These connected cases raise the same issue of law, though under slightly differing factual matrices. It would be convenient to dispose of all these cases by a common judgment. For the puipose of appreciating the factual matrix in which the question of law arises, it would be sufficient to refer in detail to the facts in O.P. No. 7112 of 2002.2. O.P. No. 7112 of 2002(a) The petitioner is a private limited company running resort hotels in different areas and does business in the tourism industry within the State of Keraia. It has constructed resorts near Munnar, a well known tourist holiday place in Keraia. by investing huge amounts. The hotel resort at Munnar is classified as 'approved restaurant' by the Central Government in the Ministry of Tourism. The respondents are the State of Keraia and the Commissioner of Excise.(b) On 11.12.2000 the petitioner applied for an FL-31 icence which would permit it to serve liquor in its restaurant. This application was not pr...
Tag this Judgment!Azhagiri Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-15-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT323
Cyriac Joseph, J. 1. This appeal is against the order dated 10.4.2002 in R.P. No. 177 of 2002 in O.P. No. 2689 of 2002. The appellant herein is the petitioner in the said Review Petition.2. The appellant/petitioner entered service as Village Man in 1973. The post of Village Man is included in the Last Grade service. As per Rule 60(b) of Part I K.S.R., members of last grade service as on 7.4.1970 are entitled to continue in service till the age of 60 years. In the case of those who entered service after 7.4.1970, they are liable to be retired from service at the age of 55 years. Since the appellant entered service as Village Man only on 1973, that is, after 7.4.1970, he was liable to be retiredfrom service at the age of 55 years and he actually retired from service on 31.1.2002 on attaining the age of 55 years. But, the appellant filed O.P. No. 2689 of 2002 claiming the benefit of continuing in service till he attains the age of 60 years. However, the learned Single Judge dismissed the ...
Tag this Judgment!Anitha Abraham Vs. Jacob Oommen
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-12-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT417
ORDERA. Lekshmikutty, J.1. Against the order in G.O.P. No. 343/2000 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Ernakulam, this Revision Petition is filed by the respondent in the petition. The respondents as petitioners filed G.O.P. No. 343/2000 to declare them as joint guardian of the person and property of the minor Adithya Aju Abraham, grandson of the petitioners. The petitioner herein and the son of the respondents, Abraham Jacob were husband and wife and their marriage was solemnised at Sharon Marthoma Church, Palarivattom. The child Adithya Aju Abraham was born to them in the wedlock on 7th November, 1998. Late Abraham Jacob was working at Bangalore. He met with an accident and expired on 3rd April, 1999 while he was at Karnataka. The dead body of Abraham Jacob was brought to Kochi and buried at the cemetery of Sharon Marthoma Church, Kochi. The petitioner along with the minor child resided at the residence of the respondents herein from 3rd April, 1999 upto 18th May, 1999 ...
Tag this Judgment!Nabeesa Beevi Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALT(Cri)476
M.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. The question that arises in this case is whether the mere presence of a Gazetted Officer, who had accompanied the seizing official with regard to the detention of an offence under the NDPS Act, would amount to sufficient compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act in the matter of search and seizure?2. The present appeal is from the judgment of the Sessions Court, Kollam, (Special Court for trial of the NDPS Act, Cases), convicting the appellants herein, who are wife and husband, of the offence under Section 20(b)(i) of the NDPS Act on the ground that on 17.11.1997 at about 7.15 p.m. they were found in possession of 20 grams and 28 grams respectively of ganja when approached by P.W. 11, who was the Sub Inspector of Police of Punalur Police Station.3. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and that the appellants are therefore entitled to get an acquittal.4. On the arguments advanced in the case, th...
Tag this Judgment!Ajithkumar Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-11-2002
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR307]; (2003)ILLJ473Ker
Kurian Joseph, J.1. A party to an industrial dispute before a Court/Tribunal refuses to grant consent to engage a legal practitioner. Has the Court/Tribunal got an inherent power to overrule the objection on merits and appoint a legal practitioner? Does Varghese v. Nichimen Corporation, 2001 (2) KLT SN 75 (Bombay), reflect the correct legal positionThe petitioner challenges Ext. P3 order passed by the Industrial Tribunal. By the said order the Tribunal declined permission to the management to engage a legal practitioner. It may be seen that before the Industrial Tribunal the management had made an earlier attempt for appointment of legal practitioner and on being objected to, the proceedings went on without the assistance of a legal practitioner on either side. The application leading to Ext. P3 is a second attempt on the ground that the President of the union is a legal practitioner and hence the management should be permitted to engage a legal practitioner before the Tribunal. But it...
Tag this Judgment!Joseph Jose Vs. J. Baby and State of Kerala, Rep. by Public Prosecutor ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-11-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ4392
M.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. The challenge in the appeal is with regard to the acquittal of the accused in the complaint filed by the appellant alleging offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act against the first respondent herein.2. The complainant alleged that on receipt of a sum of Rs. 85,000/- from his as loan, the first respondent issued Ext. P1 cheque on 3.9.1996; that the cheque, on presentation, was dishonoured for want of funds vide Exts. P2 and P3; that he sent Ext. P4 notice intimating the dishonour and demanding payment and that Ext. P5 is the envelope whereby the notice was returned. He also stated in his evidence as PW1 that Ext. P5 was returned without acceptance deliberately and that the complainant had even intimated the fact of dishonour of the cheque to the accused in person.3. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the acquittal of the accused as per impugned judgment is for trivial and untenable reasons.4. According to the respondent, as long as the postman rem...
Tag this Judgment!C.G. Dassan Vs. Ranimol S.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)27
M.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. The appellant who was the complainant in ST 183/1995 of the C.J.M. Court, Alappuzha is aggrieved that the complaint filed by him alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent herein resulted in acquittal of the accused.2. The allegation in the complaint was that towards dues under business transaction the accused gave Ext. PI cheque to the complainant and that when presented for payment it bounced for want of funds and that in spite of the statutory notice, the amount remains unpaid.3. The petitioner gave evidence as PWI. The accused, it appears, took up the stand that Ext. PI cheque was issued on behalf of a concern by name 'Simpson Coir Works and hence the accused who is an individual has no liability. In the impugned judgmenl the learned Magistrate, however, rejected the said contention and found that the cheque was issued by the accused as proprietress of 'Simpson Coir Works' and not in any other capacity. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnamoorthy Vs. the Transport Commissioner
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: I(2003)ACC154
R. Rajendra Babu, J.1. The 2nd petitioner is. the proprietress of the driving school A2Z at Ernakulam. The 1 st petitioner who was learning motor driving in the above driving school applied for a driving licence before the 2nd respondent. The 3rd petitioner is the All Kerala Motor Driving School Association licensed to impart instructions in driving. All the petitioners joined in filing this O.P. to quash Ext. P2 circular and Ext P3 test sheet issued by the 1st respondent, the Transport Commissioner.2. The first petitioner has been issued with a learner's licence by the 2nd respondent, the Asst. Licensing Authority. The 1st respondent, the Transport Commissioner, had issued Ext. P2 circular No. 20/98 dt. 25.7.98 prescribing the guidelines by which the candidates appearing for driving test will have to drive the vehicle in a 'H' track so far as four wheeler vehicles are concerned and a '8' track in respect of two wheelers. Further, the 1st respondent has issued Ext. P3 test sheet showin...
Tag this Judgment!Dassan Vs. Ranimol
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: I(2003)BC314
M.R. Hariharan Nair, J. 1. The appellant who was the complainant in S.T. 183/1995 of the GJM Court, Alappuzha is aggrieved that the complaint filed by him alleging offence under Section 138 ofthe Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent herein resulted in acquittal ofthe accused. 2. The allegation in the complaint was that towards dues under business transaction the accused gave Ext. P1 cheque to the complainant and that when presented for payment it bounced for want of funds and that in spite of the statutory notice, the amount remains unpaid. 3. The petitioner gave evidence as PW1. The accused, it appears, took up the stand that Ext. P1 cheque was issued on behalf of a concern by name 'Simpson Coir Works' and hence the accused who is an individual has no liability. In the impugned judgment the learned Magistrate, however, rejected the said contention and found that the cheque was issued by the accused as proprietress of 'Simpson Coir Works' and not in any other capacity. The...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »