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.
Jose Vs. Ramakrishnan Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-10-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ker16; 2003(3)KLT999
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This appeal has been placed before us on a reference made by R. Bhaskaran, J.2. The question that is posed for consideration is whether limited interest of a daughter would get enlarged to full right after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 when a male Hindu following the Mitakshara law died before the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act3. Suit was instituted for partition of 6/7 share in the plaint schedule property and for recovery of plaintiff's share from defendants 1 and 2 and for mesne profits. Plaint schedule property is having only an extent of 12 cents belonged to one Madan Bhagavathy along with the adjacent property having a total extent of 20 cents. The property was self acquired property of Madan Bhagavathy as per Ext. A2 dated 19.9.1064 (M.E.). Kunjan Pillai and Chempakakuty Amma were his children. Chempakakutty Amma sold the entire 30 cents of property inclusive of the plaint schedule property to third defendant, vide Ext. B3 ...
Vijayakumar Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-10-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT627
Cyriac Joseph, J.1. The petitioner in this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the Principal of the N.S.S. College, Pandalam (hereinafter referred to as 'the College'). He prays for a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order to respondents 1 to 4, namely, the State of Kerala, the Sub Inspector of Police, Pandalam, the Circle Inspector of Police, Pandalam and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Adoor to give necessary, adequate and meaningful protection to the petitioner and the properties of the college against any demonstration or violent action on the part of respondents 5 to 10 consequent on the removal of respondents 5 to 9 from the register of the College. Respondents 5 to 9 are students of the college and respondent No. 10 is a former student of the college.2. According to the averments in the petition a section of the students has been creating disturbance to the smooth running of the college. Respondents 5 to 10 have been...
Thomas Alias Tomy Vs. K.C. Thomas
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-09-2003
Reported in: AIR2005Ker129
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the defendant in O.S. No. 63 of 1999 of the Sub-Court. Thodupuzha. Respondent is the plaintiff. The suit was filed for recovery of an amount of Rs. 4,50,000/-with interest thereon. The case of the plaintiff is as follows :2. The plaintiff is an Agriculturist. He is having rubber plantation. He sells the rubber to the defendant, who stores it and sells it at Kochi. The dealing has been going for a long time. The practice is that whenever the quantity of rubber is entrusted to the defendant, a slip will be given by the defendant showing the quantity as well as the price and later on, on producing the slip, the amount will be given. According to the plaintiff, the amount under two slips is due to the plaintiff. Those slips are produced as Exts. A1 and A2 and the value of those slips together comes to Rs. 1 lakh and odd and the rubber was sold in 1994. There is another case for the plaintiff that the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs....
Manu Vs. Bhanumathy
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-08-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT212
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Tenant is the revision petitioner. Eviction was sought for under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965.2. Petitioner-landlord is the owner of the petition schedule building which was rented out to the tenant on 22.6.1995 on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. Rs. 3,000/- was paid as advance. Rent is in arrears from 1994 onwards. Petitioner's son Shyam is unemployed and he wanted to start a provision store. He is dependent on the petitioner. Petitioner is the landlady. Respondent tenant filed counter affidavit stating that the attempt is only a ruse to evict him. Further it was stated that there is no arrears of rent. It was pointed out that landlord has got other building and one of the vacant buildings was subsequently sold to his tenant by name Valsan for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. Factum of getting vacant possession of the room and the conduct of sale of the room to the tenant concerned, according to the tenant, evidence lack of bonafide in the plea of the l...
ThajuddIn Shameer Vs. Secretary Coastal Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-08-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT909
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The point to be decided in this O.P. is whether there is any time limit for filing a Revision Petition before the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal under Section 84 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The brief facts of the case are the following:2. The petitioners are the members of the Coastal Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. No. 3036, Kollam. They have availed loans from the said Bank. They committed default in paying the amounts due under the loans. Therefore, the Bank moved the arbitrator and Exts.P1 and P1(a) have been passed in favour of the Bank and against the petitioners. The respondents in the arbitration case filed R.P. Nos. 236/2002 and 235/2002 before the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal under Section 84 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. Those Revision Petitions were filed after a delay of one year and four months and two years and five months respectively. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the Revision Petitions as barred by limitation by Exts...
T.C.M. Employees' Union and Ors. Vs. T.C.M. Ltd. and Ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-08-2003
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ280Ker
R. Rajendra Babu, J.1. The order of the Industrial Tribunal, Alappuzha in ID 13/2001 is under challenge at the instance of the petitioners, TCM Employees' Union, Kalamassery and three other unions.2. By Exhibit P2 award the Industrial Tribunal granted permission for closure of the industry TCM Ltd., Kalamassery. Earlier the management approached the Government for permission for closure of the factory. By order dated November 29, 2000, the Government refused permission. Dissatisfied with the above order, the management filed a review petition on December 5, 2000 under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act. After hearing the management and the trade unions, the Government referred the matter for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal, Alappuzha, The Industrial Tribunal thereafter passed Exhibit P2 award granting permission to the management for the closure of factory at Kalamassery. The above order is under challenge in both these original petitions.3. Heard the learned couns...
Balan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-07-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALT(Cri)436; 2004(1)KLT122
G. Sasidharan, J.1. Appellants are accused in Sessions Case 88/1996 on the file of the Sessions Court, Kasaragod and the order of conviction and sentence in the above case is under challenge. The allegation against the appellants was that they committed the offences under Sections 354 and 341 Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Artrocities) Act. After trial, on an appreciation of the evidence the trial court found that the first appellant committed the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Artrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and the second appellant committed the offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code. On convicting the appellants for the above offences the trial court proceeded on to sentence the first appellant under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six m...
Radhamma Vs. Srivasthava
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-03-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT916
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J.1. Question to be considered in this order is regarding the rate of court fee payable for filing contempt of court cases in the High Court when there are more than one petitioner. Item 11(1) of II Schedule of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 reads as follows:(i) A Munsiff s Court- (1) Under the Madras Village Court Act, 1888 (MadrasAct 1 of 1889), or the Cochin Village Courts Act, XII of 1118 or theTravancore Village Panchayat Courts Act, 1090. Ten rupees (2) in other cases Twenty Five rupees (ii) the Sub Court or a District Court Fifty rupees (iii) the High Court One hundred rupees per petitioner (iv) for Contempt of Court Cases in the High Court One hundred rupees.' 2. This Contempt of Court Case is filed alleging that Annexure A1 judgment in O.P. No. 21201 of 1998 was not implemented. The above Original Petition was filed by seven persons. Therefore, when contempt of court case was filed all the seven persons joined as complainants (petitioners)...
Sainulabdheen Vs. Beena
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-03-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2351; 2004(1)KLT859
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J.1. Whether this Court in the absence of any miscarriage of justice, is bound to interfere in the order of a Magistrate allowing amendment of a petition filed under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act') in the absence of specific provision for amendment of pleadings in the Code of Criminal Procedure is the question considered in this case.2. First respondent herein filed a petition under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act. According to her claim, the counter petitioner in the M.C. has promised a mahar of 28 grams of gold ornaments and it was given. At the time of evidence, the counter petitioner (husband) deposed that out of the mahar promised, only 14 grams of gold was given. Contention of the husband was that since the marriage was not consumated, he has obligation only to give 50% of the mahar promised. According to the wife, the marriage was already consumated. She filed a pe...
Sajeendran Vs. Thalakulathoor Grama Panchayath
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-01-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ555; 2004(1)KLT69
ORDERK.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The petitioner/accused in C.C. No.882/95 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class - IV, Kozhikode has come up with this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure impugning an order passed, allowing the application filed by the complainant/respondent under Section 311 of the Code, by the Magistrate who tried the said case.2. Admittedly by both sides in the case charged in the year 1995, evidence has been collected and closed as late as in 2001. The case has been, further admittedly by both sides, posted for judgment. It was thereafter that the respondent/complainant filed a petition under Section 311 of the Code to recall PW.1 and to produce two additional documents. This has been allowed as per the impugned order. This is without jurisdiction, it is contended.3. The trial of the case terminated and on termination of the trial, the case was posted for judgment. It was after posting the case for judgment, Section 311 of the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »