Kerala Court January 2003 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Govindan Nambiar Vs. Janaki
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-30-2003
Reported in: III(2003)ACC310; 2003(2)KLT23
Jawabar Lal Gupta, C.J. 1. Is there any conflict between the two Division Bench decisions of this court in Payyannur Educational Society v. Narayani (1995 (1) KLT 621) and in Easow Easow v. Rajan Kallippara Thekkeveetil and Anr. (1999 (1) LLJ 263)? Has the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 erred in holding that the appellant was liable to pay compensation to respondents 1 to 7? These are the two short questions that arise for consideration in this appeal. A few facts as relevant for the decision of this case may be briefly noticed.2. On August 5, 1987, the appellant and the ninth respondent executed an agreement. It is Ext.B7 on the record. By this agreement, the appellant gave his land comprised in R.S.50/2, situated in Keezhalloor Amsom on lease for a period of three years commencing from August 6, 1987 to the ninth respondent. Resultantly, the ninth respondent was entitled to quarry and take 'stone' out of the land by engaging coolies for a period of three year...
Govindan Nambiar N.V. Vs. Janaki and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-30-2003
Reported in: 2003ACJ721; [2003(97)FLR1103]; (2003)IILLJ720Ker
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J. 1. Is there any conflict between the two Division Bench decisions of this Court in Payyannur Educational Society v. Narayani 1996-III-LLJ (Suppl)-1212 (Ker-DB) and in Easow Easow v. Rajan Kallippaara Thekkeveetil 1999-I-LLJ-263? Has the Commissioner erred in holding that the appellant was liable to pay compensation to respondents Nos. 1 to 7? These are the two short questions that arise for consideration in this appeal. A few facts as relevant for the decision of this case may be briefly noticed. 2. On August 5, 1987, the appellant and the ninth respondent executed an agreement. It is exhibit B-7 on the record. By this agreement, the appellant gave his land comprised in R.S. No. 50/2 situated in Keezhalloor Amsom, on lease for a period of three years commencing from August 6, 1987, to the ninth respondent. Resultantly, the ninth respondent was entitled to quarry and take 'stone' out of the land by engaging coolies for a period of three years. 3. It appears that ...
Noor Metals Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-30-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT174; [2004]136STC417(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The matter arises under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act').2. The assessee is the revision petitioner. The State of Kerala is the respondent. The assessment year concerned is 1995-96. The assessee is a dealer in iron and steel. During the assessment year the assessee sold a lorry which was being used for the transport of iron and steel. The assessee had purchased a chassis from M/s. M.G.F. (India) Ltd. on 25.6.1992 (evidenced by Annexure F) after payment of tax. The assessee had also built body using materials purchased from registered dealers within the State. The body was mounted on the chassis and thereafter it was being used as a lorry. This lorry was sold by the assessee for a value of Rs. 3,00,000/-.3. In the assessment for the year 1995-96 the assessee claimed exemption on the sales turnover of lorry on the ground that it is a second sale of a single point commodity which has already suffered tax in the State. The Assessing Authority ...
Francis Vs. Sreedevi Varassiar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-29-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT230
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J. 1. What is the true scope and ambit of the protection available to a tenant under the 'second proviso' to Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965?Have the courts below erred in granting protection to the respondents on the ground that a suitable building is not available to her in the locality? These are the two questions that arise for consideration in this Revision Petition which has been placed before the Full Bench. The facts may be briefly noticed.2. On August 27, 1974 the ground floor of the building in dispute was given on lease for a period of three months to the first respondent. The second respondent is her husband. The monthly rent was fixed at Rs. 350. The premises were given on lease for the purpose of conducting an agency of the Kottakkal Arya Vaidyasala. A copy of the lease deed is on record as Ext.A1.3. In the year 1980, the landlord filed a petition for the eviction of the respondents. It was inter-alia alleged t...
Project Officer Vs. Smitha
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-28-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Ker186
ORDERJ.B. Kosby, J. 1. The question to be decided in this order is whether the Kerala Water Authority can file an appeal without paying court fee. By the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation (Amendment) Ordinance, 2002, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Ordinance') Section 73A was inserted in the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959, which reads as follows: '73A. Special provision regarding suits, appeals, revision etc. filed by or on behalf of the Government before the Court - Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, where a suit, appeal, revision, review or other pleadings or documents are filed or presented by or on behalf of the Government or its officers in their official capacity before any Court, no Court fee shall be chargeable in respect of such suit, appeal, revision, review or other pleadings or documents under the provisions of this Act.' Under the above provision, the Government or its officers in their official capacity can file a...
Philip Vs. Hindu Matha Dharma Paripalana Sabha
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-28-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Ker205; 2003(1)KLT829
A. Lekshmikutty, J. 1. These appeals are filed by the respective appellants against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 313/1987 on the file of the Sub Court, Paravur. A.S. No. 215/1990 is preferred by the defendants in the suit and the other appeal is filed by the plaintiff therein. The plaintiff filed the suit for damages for malicious prosecution. The case of the plaintiff is that on 14.10.1982 the first defendant Sabha filed a false criminal complaint against the plaintiff before the Vadakkekara Police Station. On the basis of the complaint a false criminal case C.C. No. 553/1982 of Parur Judicial First Class Magistrate Court was charged against the plaintiff. The said false complaint was filed by the then Secretary of the Sabha one Narayanan in order to defame and cause injury to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the owner in possession of the property in Survey No. 105/9 of Kunjithaikara and the western side of that property belongs to the first defendant Sabha. On the western port...
Moran Mar Baselious Marthoma Mathews Ii Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-28-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT780
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J. 1. In the year 1880, the Maha Raja of Travancore had described the 'Syrian Christians' as 'the very embodiment of antiquity and historical association, and the very model of contentment, peaccfulness and loyalty' (Ref. 'The Indian Church of St. Thomas by E.M. Philip - 'Preface'.). Today, as even on earlier occasions, they are in court. The petitioners have filed this petition with the prayer that the State and its authorities be directed to 'give effective and adequate police protection' so as to enable the first petitioner 'to exercise his rights, duties and privileges as the Catholicos(Originally called - 'Catholic' Changed to 'Catholicos - to refer the SyrianChurch dignitory.')-cum-Malankara Metropolitan of the Malankara Church with respect to the parishes mentioned in Ext. P4 and institutions of the Malankara Church without any threat or obstruction from respondents ...or their agents or servants in any manner.' The suggestion of the Bench for an amicable se...
Abdulla Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-28-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT961
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J.1. In these three matters the question to be decided is whether the enhanced court fees under the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation (Amendment) Ordinance, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'Ordinance') is applicable to appeals filed from land acquisition references made before the date of the Ordinance. The appellants calculated court fee on the basis of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (Act 10 of 1960) (hereinafter referred to as The Act') as existing before the Ordinance even though appeals were filed after the Ordinance which amended the Act enhancing court fees. The Registry raised objections and the matter came before us for consideration. Since the matter relates to the court fees, we have directed the appellants to give notice to the Advocate General and we have heard the Government Pleader in this aspect in detail. It is the contention of the appellants that right of appeal is a substantive right and the above substantive right cannot be...
Varghese Vs. D.F.O.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-28-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Ker197; II(2003)BC394; 2003(1)KLT892
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff in the suit. Suit was instituted by the plaintiff for declaration that he is not bound by the terms and conditions of the auction notification. He has also sought for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining State from initiating revenue recovery proceedings against him. Trial court found no illegality in the auction notification or in the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against him. Consequently dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same this appeal has been preferred. 2. Plaintiff was successful bidder in the auction conducted on 2.12.1981 by which he was given the right to collect usufructs from the trees in cashew plantations in Wadakkancherry and Machad Ranges for the year 1982. Auction was conducted by the first defendant according to the sale condition in notification dated 21.10.1981 published in Government Gazette dated 3.11.1981. As per condition No. 2 of the auction notification the highest...
Procurator, Roman Catholic Diocese of Calicut Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-28-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Ker143
Koshy, J. 1. In these three matters the question to-be decided is whether the enhanced Court-fees under the Kerala Court-Fees and Suits Valuation (Amendment) Ordinance, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'Ordinance') is applicable to appeals filed from land acquisition references made before the date of the Ordinance. The appellants calculated court-fee on the basis of the Kerala Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (Act 10 of 1960) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as existing before the Ordinance even though appeals were filed after the Ordinance which amended the Act enhancing court-fees. The Registry raised objections and the matter came before us for consideration. Since the matter relates to the Court-fees, we have directed the appellants to give notice to the Advocate General and we have heard the Government Pleader in this aspect in detail. It is the contention of the appellants that right of appeal Is a substantive right and the above substantive right cannot be impaire...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »