Kerala Court October 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.
Vysali Pharmaceutical Ltd. Vs. the Federal Bank Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-17-2003
Reported in: IV(2004)BC413; 2004(2)KLT503
Jawarhar Lal Gupta, C.J.1. The Recovery of Debts of Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 was promulgated by the Parliament to provide for the 'expeditious adjudication and recovery of debts due to banks....' The present case is a classic example of the manner in which a litigant can delay the proceedings and use the process of law to defeat its purpose. A few facts as relevant for the decision of this case may be briefly noticed.2. On June 20, 2000, the Federal Bank Limited filed a petition under Section 19 of the Act for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 10,28,56,710.39 from the petitioner. An objection with regard to the maintainability of the petition was raised. It was alleged that the financial arrangements had been made with a Consortium of Banks. The 1st respondent was one of the three Banks, which had provided financial facilities. Thus, the petition under Section 19 was not competent. The objection was considered by the Tribunal. Vide Order dated February 27, 2002, a copy...
Kaumudi Madhavan Vs. State Election Commissioner
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-17-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT499
P.R. Raman, J.1. Petitioner herein is a returned candidate in a Panchayat Election. His election was challenged by one of the contesting candidate by filing O.P. (Election) No.169/2000 before the District Court, Trivandrum. Petitioner herein is the 4th respondent and the Returning Officer is the second respondent in the said Original Petition. She filed an application - I.A. 1836/2003 for summoning the third respondent after citing him as a witness in the witness list. The court below by Ext.P1 declined to summon the witness on the ground that the Returning Officer being one of the respondents in the election petition, petitioner is not entitled to cite another respondent/defendant as a witness. Reliance was also placed on the decision of this Court in Syed Mohammed v. Aziz (1990 (2) KLT 952). Challenging the above order, petitioner has come up with this writ petition. The Assistant Returning Officer is also made a party as the third respondent in the proceedings.2. The learned counsel...
Tolins Rubbers Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-16-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Ker)614; [2004]270ITR280(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The petitioners in all these cases are sister concerns. The assessments of all these concerns for the asst. yrs. 1996-97 to 2001-02 under the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), were completed. While accepting the returns processed under Section 143(1) of the Act, no proceedings were initiated as contemplated under Section 143(2) of the Act. However, in March, 2003, the petitioners have been served with notices' under Section 148 of the IT Act for reopening the assessment for the years 1996-97 to 2001-02. The AO initially did not furnish the reasons recorded in the assessment records for reopening the assessments already completed though a request was made by the petitioners in that behalf. The petitioners initially sent a communication stating that the original returns filed must be taken as returns under Section 148 of the Act. The assessing authority was of the view that the petitioners have to file returns pursuant to Section 148 notices and subsequently the peti...
Bava Vs. Cheriya Bava
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-15-2003
Reported in: I(2004)ACC622; II(2004)ACC666; 2004ACJ514; AIR2004Ker162; 2004(1)KLT1
A.K. Basheer, J.1. The short but interesting question that arises for consideration in this Original Petition is whether the 'financier' of a motor vehicle under a hire purchase agreement has to be impleaded as necessary party in a proceeding before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Relevant facts may be briefly noticed.2. A petition for compensation was filed by the parents of a deceased victim in a motor accident. The accident occurred on March 2, 1994. The insurance company which was impleaded in the case contended that there was no valid insurance in respect of the vehicle on the date of the accident. The petitioner who was impleaded as the owner of the vehicle filed written statement contending that the vehicle in question was the subject matter of a hire purchase agreement with M/s. Sundaram Finance Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the financier'). It was further contended that the financier was bound under the Hire Purchase ...
Elsie Felix and ors. Vs. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-15-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ker184; 2004(2)ARBLR328(Kerala)
J.S. Koshy, J.1. The question to be considered in these appeals is regarding the quantum of court-fees payable when an appeal is filed against an order passed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1996 Act') in setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award.2. When court-fee was calculated under Schedule II, Article 4(c) of the Kerala Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Court-fees Act'), in the unnumbered appeal as Rs. 97,447/-(1/3 court-fee of Rs. 32,483/- was paid at the time of filing), objection was raised by the Registry. When the very same order was challenged by another appellant in Arbitration Appeal No. 10 of 2003, court-fee paid was only Rs. 250/- as according to the registry court-fee payable is under Schedule II, Article 3(iii)(A)(1)(a) in view of the decision reported in Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. Radhamma, 2003 (3) KLT 289. The Registry also took the objection in the un...
Vasu S/O Pattu Vs. Pattu S/O Veerandi and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-15-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ker339
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant. Suit was Instituted for specific performance of Clause 8 of the agreement dated 16-7-1983.2. Plaintiff is the son. First defendant is the father and second defendant is the brother. Properties belonging to the plaintiff and defendants were partitioned orally in 1967 and partition deed was executed on 20-2-1972. According to the plaintiff, even though partition deed was registered, since first defendant was old and second defendant was employed in the Electricity Board the affairs of the family were managed by the plaintiff and by utilising the income obtained from the agricultural properties and by availing of loans from Banks and by raising money executing promissory notes, certain properties were acquired. Even though some of the properties were partitioned as per the partition deed, they were having common mess and common residence. Difference of opinion arose between the parties which led to execution of karar dated 16-7-1983. As...
Director of Enforcement Vs. Veerankutty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-14-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT150; [2004]55SCL677(Ker)
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J.1. Whether an appeal is maintainable under Section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (in short FERA) against an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal or if appeal is not maintainable, what is the remedy available to the person aggrieved is the question to be considered in this order. Section 54 reads as follows:'54. Appeal to High Court- An appeal shall lie to the High Court only on questions of law from any decision or Order of the Appellate Board under Sub-section (3) or Sub-section (4) of Section 52.' (relevant for the purpose of this order)'.Respondent in the appeal filed an appeal before the Appellate Board under Section 52 of the FERA against adjudication order passed by Special Director of Enforcement Directorate under Section 9(1) (b) and (d) r/w Section 64 of FERA.2. The appeal filed before the Appellate Board was transferred to the Appellate Tribunal when the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (in short FEMA) came into force repealing FERA...
Rani Vs. Cathreena
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-14-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT563
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 899 of 1986. Plaintiff filed the suit for partition of the plaint schedule property comprised in Sy. No. 481/1, 481/2 and 483 having a total extent of 74 cents. The land is situated in Kottappuram Village in Talappilly Taluk in Trichur District.2. The plaintiff claimed 1/8 share in the property. According to the plaintiff, the plaint schedule property belonged to one Mathai, who was the father of the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 7 and the husband of the first defendant. After the death of Mathai, the plaintiff claimed the 1/8th share in the assets of Mathai.3. The first defendant filed a written statement contending that the plaintiff is not entitled to get partition and the father-in-law of the first defendant Kuriath executed a will in respect of the property belonged to him. Kuriath died on 12.2.1959 and there has been a partition between the first defendant and other defendants by which portion...
Abdul Kadir Vs. Regional Passport Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-13-2003
Reported in: I(2005)BC69; 2003(3)KLT1169
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioners in these two Writ Petitions are Advocates appointed as Notaries under orders issued by the Government. While the petitioner in W.P.(C) 21975 of 2003 is authorised to practice in Revenue District of Ernakulam the petitioner in W.P.(C) 21359 of 2003 is authorised to practice within the Cochin Corporation area. The petitioners are challenging the letter produced as Annexure R1(a) in W.P.(C) 21359 of 2003 prohibiting Notaries from doing notarial work for persons living outside the jurisdiction assigned to the Notary under the certificate of practice issued to him. Another Notary who is authorised to practice in Ambalapuzha Taluk with office at Alappuzha has impleaded as additional respondent in W.P.(C) 21359 of 2003 and opposed the Writ Petition. The immediate provocation to file these petitions is the insistence of the Passport Officer for notarisation of documents produced before him subject to the Government Order and press release referred a...
Assya Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-13-2003
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT54
ORDERR. Basant, J. 1. Does the Criminal Court exercising jurisdiction under the provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act') have the powers to direct interim conditional attachment of properties belonging to the respondent/ divorced husband when there is apprehension that he may dispose off his properties to frustrate the attempts of his divorced wife to claim and recover amounts from him under Section 3 of the Act? This is the crucial question that arises for consideration in this case.2. According to the petitioner, there was a valid marriage between her and the respondent. That marriage was dissolved under the provisions of the Dissolution of the Muslim Marriage Act by order dated 31.5.2002 passed by the Family Court, Kozhikode. A copy of that order is produced as Annexure-I. The petitioner complains that, amounts due under the provisions of the Act have not been paid to her. This obliged her to approach the learned Judicial Magis...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »