Kerala Court December 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.
Shanmugham Vs. Madhavan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-08-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT718
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Can a sub-tenant turned landlord defeat the rights of a tenant under the Kerala Rent Act by purchasing the landlord's rights is the interesting question that has come up for consideration in this case.2. Petition Schedule building bearing door No. 37/69-2 of Cochin Corporation originally belonged to one Thottakkattu Bhanumathi Amma. She let out the building to one Madhavan who sub-leased the same to one Shanmughan for conducting a hair cutting saloon by name Indian Hair Cutting Saloon at Cannon Shed Road, Ernakulam. Petitioner before Rent Control Court the tenant sought eviction of the respondent subtenant under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965. According to him rent from 1.1.1977 is defaulted and a sum of Rs. 11,400/- is due as arrears of rent and an amount of Rs. 1,200/- is also due by way of interest at the rate of 6%. He also needs the building for starting a stationary business. A notice dated 2.7.84 was issued demanding arrears of rent an...
State of Kerala Vs. Sreedharan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-05-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT398
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J.1. Was the action of the appellant authorities in withdrawing the benefit of higher grade granted to the respondent legal and valid? The learned Single Judge having answered this question in the negative and allowed the claim of the respondent, the State of Kerala and its officers have filed the present appeal. Relevant facts may be briefly noticed.2. The respondent had worked in the Indian Army for a period of about six years and eleven months. After discharge from the Army he was appointed as a Sergant in the Medical Education Service of the State on July 1, 1982. He was granted the benefit of the Army Service and was deemed to have been appointed on September 16, 1975.3. According to the orders issued by the State Government an employee is entitled to the grant of a higher grade on completion of ten years of service. Thereafter a second higher grade is granted on completion of either ten years of service in the first promoted post or a total service of twenty ...
Mayor of Kochi Vs. Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-05-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT621
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J.1. Is the Ombudsman appointed under Chapter XXV B of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 competent to proceed against a Municipality or Municipal Corporation? This is the primary question that arises for consideration in these two Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned Counsel for the parties have referred to the facts in O.P.No. 9483 of 2002. These may be briefly noticed.2. The Municipal Corporation of Cochin and its Mayor are the petitioners. They are aggrieved by the order dated April 2, 2002 passed by the Ombudsman. By this order observations have been made against 'the entire body of elected members and officials'. No new projects can be executed without the approval of the Ombudsman. The petitioners allege that the order is without jurisdiction. The Ombudsman created under the Panchayat Raj Act has no jurisdiction 'over areas within the limits of the Corporation of Cochin'. The Act does not extend to Municipal Corporations. A body ...
Thomas Vs. Kerala State and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-04-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1273
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J.1. Petitioner was the accused in ST 53/94 on the file of the First Class Magistrate Court, Pala. He was found guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000 in default simple imprisonment for 3 months. It was further directed that if the fine amount is paid, Rs. 15,000 be given as compensation to the complainant. The Sessions Court found that Magistrate Court cannot impose a fine exceeding Rs. 5,000. The Sessions Court upheld the conviction but set aside fine of Rs. 20,000 of the Magistrate and modified the sentence to pay of compensation Rs. 15,000 only under Section 357(3) of the Cr. P.C. Admittedly the petitioner did not pay the same. Now the contention of the petitioner is that the impugned order cannot be executed by arrest warrant if the judgment cannot be complied with and compensation can be realised only by following revenue recovery pro...
Kerala State Co-operative Coir Marketing Federation Ltd. Vs. the Deput ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-03-2003
Reported in: [2004(102)FLR273]; 2004(2)KLT126
R. Rajendra Babu, J.1. The short question for consideration was whether the Showroom Manager of the Kerala Co-operative Coir Marketing Federation Limited was an employee entitled to subsistence allowance under the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act.2. The 2nd respondent, Sri N.M. Mohandas was working as the Showroom Manager of the Kerala Co-operative Coir Marketing Federation in its Bangalore Showroom and was responsible for selling the stock of goods in the Showroom. He was suspended from service, pending disciplinary proceedings on 21st April 1995 alleging misappropriation of an amount of Rs. 2,15,603.93. On 3rd July 1997 he remitted back Rs. 20,000 and the Executive Committee of the Federation decided to reinstate him subject to the condition that he should remit the balance amount and the period of suspension shall be treated as break in service. Accordingly he was reinstated. Later the 2nd respondent filed a claim before the competent authority under the Payment of Subsistence A...
Girish Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT419
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. The concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner/ first accused under Section 394 IPC are assailed by him in this R.P.2. The charge against the petitioner/first accused is that he along with the second accused waited outside the house of PW.1 on the night of 20.5.89. When PW.1, a woman aged more than 60 years, came out of her house to go to toilet at about 1.15 a.m., he along with the second accused caught hold of her, gagged her mouth and took away. MO.1 gold chain, MO.2 gold studs and MO.3 silver waist cord worn by her. Both the accused were working as employees of the brother-in-law of the victim PW. 1. She was hence able to identify both of them. She lodged an FIR before the police on the very next day i.e. at 9 p.m. on 21.5.89 while she was undergoing treatment at the Hospital. In the attack, she had suffered injuries and was hospitalised for treatment of such injuries. Later both accused persons were arrested. MO.2 ornament ...
Mini Vs. Leela
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT195
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Landlady is the revision petitioner. Eviction was sought for under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(ii) of Act 2 of 1965. Rent Control Court allowed eviction under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(4)(i) and dismissed the claim under Section 11(4)(ii). First respondent -tenant took up the matter in appeal before the Appellate Authority as R.C.A. No 19 of 1995. While the appeal was pending, first respondent died. Consequently his legal representatives, wife and children got themselves impleaded. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and set aside the finding under Section 11(4)(i). Aggrieved by the same this revision petition has been preferred by the landlady.2. Petition schedule building was rented out on 1.1.1993 by Ext. A2 rent chit on a monthly rent of Rs. 400/-. Petitioner stated that first respondent had defaulted payment and that he had subleased the premises to respondents 2 and 3 and caused damages by reducing its value and utility of the premise...
Velayudhan Vs. Chandran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT980
ORDERA. Lekshmikutty, J.1. The revision petitioner is the judgment-debtor in E.P.No. 34/2003 in O.S.No. 589/1995 on the file of the Sub Court, Palakkad. The suit was filed for specific performance of an agreement dated 4th August, 1994. The suit was decreed allowing specific performance. Since the judgment-debtor has not executed the sale deed in pursuance of the decree in favour of the plaintiff within one month from the date of deposit of the balance sale consideration before Court, the decree holder got it executed through Court on 2nd January, 2002. But in spite of the execution of the sale deed, the judgment-debtor has not handed over possession of the plaint schedule property to the decree-holder. Hence, E.P. was filed for recovery of possession.2. The judgment-debtor filed objection resisting the execution. He contended that Order 21, Rule 35 C.P.C. is not applicable since there is no specific decree for delivery of the property. It is further stated that the decree-holder is no...
Nandanan Vs. Jyothish Kumar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-01-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT142
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J.1. Can the period of training, which does not count for probation or grant of increment, be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of promotion of a Technical Assistant to the post of Assistant Geologist? The learned Single Judge has answered this question in the affirmative and allowed the Writ Petition filed by the first respondent. Aggrieved by the order, respondent Nos. 5 and 7 in the Writ Petition have filed these two appeals. The facts may be briefly noticed.2. The first respondent was selected for appointment as a Technical Assistant by the Public Service Commission. On August 8, 1991 he was advised by the Commission to join as a Technical Assistant in the Office of the Director, Mining and Geology. He had reported for duty on September 23, 1991. However, he had to undergo training for a period of six months. On completion, the probation had commenced on March 23, 1992. It was declared that he had completed the period of probation satisfactorily on ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›