Kerala Court March 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.
Vijayan Vs. High Court of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-07-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT914
Kurian Joseph, J.1. 'Reputation is what men and women think of us: Character is what God and Angels know of us' is the observation of Thomas Paine. A Government servant is bound to maintain absolute integrity at all times. Does it extend to his private life? If so, to what extent and how does it affect the reputation of his Master - the Government? What should be the charge in such circumstances? Should the charge be only in respect of the prescribed misconduct? Does it make any difference in the matter of punishment if the proceedings are initiated at a time when an employee is a probationer? These are some of the interesting questions arising for consideration in this Original Petition.2. The issue relates to disciplinary proceedings taken against the petitionerculminating in termination. The petitioner while undergoing probation in the post ofL.D. Clerk and working at Sub Court, Thodupuizha was issued Ext. P1 memo ofcharges. The sole charge reads as follows:'That you, Sri. A.K. Vija...
Abdul Gafoor Vs. Saktan Kuries and Loans (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-07-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Ker235; 2003(1)KLT1019
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. This matter has been placed before us on a reference made by one of us, K. Padmanabhan Nair, J. doubting the correctness of the decision in Sreedharan Nair v. Marakkar, 1987 (2) KLT 492. The learned single Judge who decided Sreedharan Nair's case took the view that Rule 277 of the Civil Rules of Practice would give the decree holder six months time from the date of receipt of the decree by the transferee court to apply for execution even if 12 years period as contemplated under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1960 for execution of the decree is over. Court below applying the dictum laid down in the above mentioned case held E.P. 323/99 is maintainable even though filed after a period of 12 years, the correctness of which is under challenge in this case. 2. Respondent herein filed O.S. 5/86 claiming an amount of Rs. 12,232. An ex pane decree was passed on 19.8.1987 in favour of the plaintiff. Decree holder plaintiff filed E.P. 1181/99 on 18.8.1999 befor...
Metro Studio Vs. Canara Bank
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-07-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT629
ORDERK. Padmanabhan Nair, J. 1. The respondents in a proceedings initiated by the Estate Officer, Canara Bank, Thiruvananthapuram are the revision petitioners. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against an order passed by the Estate Officer under Section 5(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971('Act' for short) and confirmed by the District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in C.M.A. 238 of 2000. 2. The first revision petitioner is a partnership firm registered under the provisions of the Partnership Act having its office at Canara Bank Building, M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram, second revision petitioner is the Managing Partner and the third revision petitioner a Partner of the firm. The building bearing No. T.C. 26/281situated near M.G. Road in Thiruvananthapuram City, is owned by Canara Bank. Originally the property belonged to a firm by name Trivandrum Permanent Fund. In the year 1936, a building situated in the property was let out to Mr. H.E. Lopez for ...
Maharashtra Distilleries Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-07-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT786
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J.1. Are the conditions laid down by the Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation Limited vide its notice dated February 11, 2002, for execution of rate contract by the Suppliers arbitrary and illegal? Is the Corporation not entitled to insist upon the earnest money deposit; restrict the brands to the maximum of 8 and levy the fees as mentioned in the impugned notice? These are the questions that arise for consideration in these bunch of writ petitions. Learned counsel for the parties have referred to the facts in O.P. No. 6705/2002. These may be briefly noticed.2. The petitioners are licensed under the Abkari Act, 1967 and the Rules to manufacture Indian Made Foreign Liquor within the State of Kerala. On May 11, 1983, the State Government took a policy decision to establish a Public Sector Corporation to procure spirit; arrange blending; bottling; selling and supply of arrack and also for dealing with sale of foreign liquor. It appointed a ...
Kesavan Nambeesan Vs. Madhavan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-07-2003
Reported in: III(2003)ACC39; 2004ACJ315; 2003(2)KLT785
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. This appeal is by the owner of a motor vehicle involved in an accident. The owner is made liable for the entire amount of Rs. 38,150/-, less Rs. 15,000/- which was found to be the limited liability of the insurer.2. It is contended that in terms of Section 147(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there cannot have any limitation of liability, so far as the insurer is concerned, in respect of payment of compensation to an injured passenger. Of course, this contention sounds good to be considered in an appeal under Section 173 of the Act.3. It is contended by the respondent that this appeal itself is not maintainable as the appellant has not complied with the required condition as mentioned in the proviso to Section 173(1). The proviso reads as follows:'Provided that no appeal by the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall be entertained by the High Court unless he has deposited with it twenty-five thousand rupees or fifty per cent of...
Paulose Vs. Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-06-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT270
R. Rajendra Babu, J. 1. The petitioner - the third defendant in ARC. 392/2002 pending before the 1st respondent - the arbitrator, filed this Original Petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari or an order quashing the above proceedings in ARC 392/2002 and for a declaration that the first respondent has no jurisdiction to proceed with the above arbitration proceedings.2. The petitioner obtained a loan from the 2nd respondent, Bank, the Peoples Urban Co-operative Bank No. 51, Tripunithura, and defaulted in repaying the same. The Bank filed ARC 392/2002 before the first respondent for realisation of an amount of Rs. 21,00,916.50 under Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioner raised a contention before the first respondent that the first respondent had no jurisdiction to decide the above matter and the Debt Recovery Tribunal alone had jurisdiction to adjudicate the above claim. As no orders have been passed by the first respondent regarding the above question of jur...
Gangadharan Vs. James Joseph
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-06-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT619
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J. 1. The plaintiff in a suit for specific performance is the revision petitioner. The Civil Revision Petition is filed against an order passed by the learned Sub Judge rejecting an application filed by the revision petitioner for setting aside the order passed by the court below on 24.3.1999 rejecting the plaint for non payment of balance court fee and restore the suit to file after condoning the delay in filing the petition. The short facts for disposal of the Revision Petition is as follows. 2. The revision petitioner filed a suit for specific performance alleging that the respondent had entered into an agreement for sale of suit property to him for a total consideration of Rs. 7,40,000/- and received an amount of Rs.4,94,000/- as part of sale consideration on different occasions. It is further averred that the defendant/respondent had committed breach of the agreement and is not executing the sale deed after receiving the balance of sale consideration. The resp...
State of Kerala Vs. C.M. Meerannan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-06-2003
Reported in: [2004]137STC304(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The State is the revision petitioner in both these cases. The respondent-assessee is also the same. The assessment years concerned are 1978-79 and 1979-80. The respondent-assessee in fact had stopped the business as early as in 1990 itself. Though the assessee had filed monthly return for one month for the assessment year 1978-79, he did not file any annual return for the two assessment years. No notice calling for annual returns for the aforesaid two years is seen to have been issued. The assessing authority completed the assessment for the two years as ex parte as per order dated October 18, 1997 in both the cases. These assessment orders were confirmed in appeal by the first appellate authority. However, in the second appeals, the Tribunal held that the assessment for both the years are barred by limitation. Hence these revisions by the State.2. We have heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner in both the cases and Dr. K.B. Muhamed Kutty, ...
V.P. Narayanan Nair S/O. Chinnammu Amma, Commission Agent, Chinthamany ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-05-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2569; 2003(2)KLT419
Koshy, J.1. 'Can the Food Inspector, or is he obliged to, add a preservative to a sample of food grain purchased by him notwithstanding the absence of specification of any such preservative under the rules?' This is the question referred to us by the learned Single Judge (Mr. R. Basant, J.) in this case. According to the learned Single Judge, Full Bench (5 Member Bench) in Mathukutty v. State of Kerala (1987 (2) KLT 867) did not consider the effect of Rule 19 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to 'The Act'). Before going into the contentions raised, we may refer to the facts of this case. 2. The first accused, as commission agent of the Chinthamani Stores, of which the second accused is the Manager/licencee, had sold to the food Inspector 750 grams of Bengalgram for analysis at 1 P.M. on 29-3-1989. The said sample on analysis conducted on 4-5-1989 was found to be adulterated by the Public Analyst initially and the Director in the Central Food Laborat...
Ramakrishnan Vs. Parthasaradhy
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-05-2003
Reported in: III(2003)BC241; 2003(2)KLT613
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J. 1. Is the plea of limitation available to the accused in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this Revision Petition, which has been referred to a Division Bench. A few facts may be noticed. 2. On May 31, 1991, the petitioner-accused had given a cheque for an amount of Rs. 75,000/- to the 1st respondent-complainant. It was presented to the Bank. It was returned with the remarks - 'funds insufficient'. The position was conveyed to the 1st respondent by a letter dated June 6, 1991. On June 17, 1991, the 1st respondent issued a notice to the petitioner. It was accepted by him. However, the amount was not paid. Thus, the 1st respondent filed the complaint against the petitioner in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kottayam. 3. After trial, the court vide its judgment dated April 26, 1995, held that the petitioner-accused was guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the N...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »