Kerala Court November 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.
The Food Corporation of India Vs. Anupama Warehousing Establishment
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-18-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ker137
S. Sankarasubban, J. 1. A.S. No. 12 of 1991 is filed by the defendant, against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 126 of 1987 of the Sub Court, Tellicherry, while R.F.A. No. 125 of 2003 is filed against the judgment and decree by the plaintiff in the suit-The facts of the case are as follows ;2. In 1976, the Food Corporation of India (hereinafter called as 'Corporation') invited offers from the parties interested in constructing godowns in their land and rent it to the Corporation on reasonable rates. In response to the invitation, Susheela, Managing Partner of M/s. Anupama Warehousing Establishment, expressed her willing ness to consider the offer, Thereafter, the District Manager of the defendant informed her to approach a Nationalised Bank for getting sufficient advance for the construction of godowns for the Corporation. It is also informed that the defendant would recommend the application if routed through them. On 20-10-1976 Susheela wrote a letter to the District Manager stati...
Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samithy Vs. Adoor Municipality
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-18-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT549
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1.The first petitioner is the Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samithy, Adoor unit. Petitioners 2 and 3 are members of that samithi. This Original Petition is filed by them mainly challenging Ext. P3 notification issued by the 1st respondent Municipality under Section 447 of the Kerala Municipality Act. Ext. P3 is a notification issued by the Secretary of the Municipality fixing the rates applicable for grant of licence for carrying on certain trades within the Municipal area. Ext. P1 was the initial notification issued by the Secretary on 21.1.1997 superseding the earlier notification of 1990. That was challenged before this Court by filing O.P. No. 3881/98. Subsequently, the Municipality decided to keep in abeyance Ext.P1 and taking into account the objections raised to the rates prescribed in Ext. P1, Ext.P3 notification was issued on 14.10.1998, which was to take effect from 1.4.1999. The petitioners attack Ext. P3 on the following grounds:-01. The rates prescribed...
Beeyathu Vs. Gopalan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-18-2003
Reported in: 2005(1)KLT313
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J.1. Is the landlord, who seeks eviction of the tenant Under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 on the ground of need to reconstruct the building bound to produce the plan along with the petition or during the proceedings? Is the failure to do so fatal to the petition? This is the question before the Full Bench. The relevant facts may be briefly noticed.2. On March 6, 1964, the demised premises were given on lease to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for a period of ten months. The monthly rate of rent was fixed at Rs. 9/-. After the lapse of more than 15 years, the petitioner sent a notice dated September 22, 1979 to the respondents. By this notice, the tenancy was terminated. They were asked to vacate the premises. On October 10, 1979 the first respondent had sent a reply. Mediation followed. The building was got repaired. The monthly rent was raised to Rs. 15/-. The rent at the revised rate was paid upto April 1980. Thereafter no ...
K. Balakrishnan Nair and anr. Vs. K. Gopalan Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-18-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ker271
S. Sankarasubban, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the defendants in O.S. No. 2 of 1996 of the Sub-Court, Koyilandy. Respondent is the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, there was a partnership consisting of the plaintiff and the defendants under the name and style 'Udaya Boarding and Lodging'. The plaintiff was the Managing Partner. 50% of the share in the Firm was contributed by the plaintiff, 40% of the share was contributed by the first defendant and 10% was contributed by the second defendant.2. According to the plaintiff, the Firm was running smoothly. But by 1991, the defendants obstructed the plaintiff from continuing as Managing Partner, which compelled the plaintiff to retire from the Partnership. According to the plaintiff, he was offered Rs. 9,95,205/- by mediators to be given by the defendants for his retirement from the Partnership. Towards that amount, Rs. 1 lakh was paid on 30-4-1991 and the defendant agreed to deposit the balance amount in the Canara Bank. But the def...
Shaji Vs. Kerala State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-18-2003
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT270
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. In all these cases, the applicants the accused in Crime Nos. 164, 182 and 214 of 2003 of Mattanchery Police Station or Thoppumpady Police Station, as the case may be, registered under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') had been found possessing 'Tidigesic', a preparation of Buprenorphine, in excess of the commercial quantity made mention of against item No. 169 in S.O.1055 (E) dated 19th October 2001 issued by the Union of India, as empowered under Section 2 (vii a) and (xxiii a). One among the applicants was found to be in possession of 64 ampules of the said substance; another one possessing 120 ampules and the remaining one possessing 15 ampules. The learned Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, as no Special Court is constituted under the Act for the said area, considered their applications and declined to grant bail. Thereupon, bail applications have been filed before this Court. When the a...
Cit Vs. Navodaya
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-18-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Ker)357
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.The Tribunal, Cochin Bench (hereinafter called the Tribunal), in obedience to the direction issued by this court in O.P. Nos. 17297 and 794 of 1992, has referred the following questions of the law relating to the assessment years 1985-86 and 1987-88 :1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the main floor of the studio is a plant ?2. Whether, the Tribunal was right in law and in fact in holding that the floor can be treated as a tool with which the business of the assessee is being carried on and it satisfies the functional test ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to extra-shift allowance on the main floor of the studio, studio bulbs and central air-conditioning plant ?These references arise out of the two appeals, ITA No. 362/Coch/1989 and ITA No. 116/Coch/1991 relating to the assessment years 1985-86 and 1987-88, respectively (Tribunals order as Navodaya v. Asstt. CIT (1991) 40 TTJ (Coch)...
Jomon Puthenpurackal Vs. Judicial 1st Class Magistrate-iii
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-17-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT720
G. Sasidharan, J.1. Petitioner is the complainant in C.M.P. 3157/2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-III, Thiruvananthapuram. He filed the above complaint in Court alleging that the accused in that complaint committed the offences under Sections 465 and 468 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate commenced proceedings under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. The learned Magistrate issued summons to the second respondent in this petition, who is the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Kerala, for production of documents. It is stated that the summons was not accepted by the Speaker and it was returned. Regarding the issuance of summons to the second respondent for production of documents he made statements to the press which, according to the petitioner, will amount to contempt of Court. The statement alleged to have been made by the second respondent reported in Malayala Manorama daily dated 16th September, 2003 i...
Joseph Thaikoodan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-14-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT416
J.B. Koshy, J.1. In the Writ Appeal and the Original Petition the appellant and the petitioner challenge Clause 4(a) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Ordinances. The questions involved are two. They are as follows:'i) Whether the Government can interfere with the right of the educational agencies to appoint and make promotions to teaching posts and constitute screening/selection committees with Govt. Secretary and the Director of Collegiate Education?ii) Whether the University can make Ordinances against the provisions of the University Act and incorporate a new provision for the selection and appointment of the Head of the Department?'It is stated that in view of the subsequent Government Order no decision is required on the first issue. The only question now to be decided is regarding the correctness of Clause 4(a) of Ordinance in so far as it prescribes that the post of Head of the Department can be filled up only on the basis of seniority alone.2. It is not disputed that Ordinances...
Binoj Vs. Excise Commissioner
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-14-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT777
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. The petitioners in all these cases who were engaged in retail sale of toddy are challenging separate orders issued by the Commissioner of Excise cancelling their licences. The reason for cancellation of licenses is the seizure of arrack/spirit from the toddy shop, or from the compound of the toddy shop or from nearby area, and consequent registration of crime against the petitioners as licensees and against their employees. Though the orders under challenge are different, the findings are more or less the same and the reason for cancellation also being the same, the Writ Petitions are heard together, and I proceed to dispose of the same under this common judgment. I heard counsel for the petitioners appearing in all the cases and Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.2. Even though the reason for cancellation of license is seizure of arrack or spirit and consequent registration of crime against the petitioners who are licensees, alongwith their ...
Raman Namboothiri Vs. Chief Commissioner, H.R. and C.E.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-14-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ker319; 2004(1)KLT945
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Petitioner in O.P.No. 32886 of 2002 is a member of Elayakorarnbu Mana of Payyallur village, Kollengode taluk in Palakkad district. Sree Kuruvambalam Siva temple is an ancient temple situated at Kuruvambalam, Perinthalmanna taluk in Malappuram district. The temple was owned by four Namboodiri families and they are trustees of the temple from time immemorial. The temple is a public religious institution coming under the purview of Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. Day to day administration of the temple is vested in a Board of Trustees consist of both hereditary and non hereditary trustees.2. Petitioner is a member of Elayakorambu Mana. Members of Moothakorambu Mana, Pulikkezhu Illom and Attayoor Mana are the other three non hereditary trustees of the temple. Petitioner has approached this court seeking a direction to the respondents to allow him to continue as member of the Board of Trustees of the temple. Consequent on the death of Kar...