Kerala Court June 2003 Judgments
Madhavan Achari Vs. Meenakshi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-24-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT1069
ORDERA. Lakshmikutty, J. 1. C.R.P. No. 1323 of 2000 is filed against the order in I.A. No. 203 of 2000 in A.S. No. 49 of 1995 and C.R.P. No. 1331 of 2000 is filed against the order in I.A. No. 202 of 2000 in A.S. No. 48 of 1995 of the Sub Court, Payyannur. These two applications were filed by the petitioners herein under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellants are the applicants in the above said petitions. The court below disposed of the appeals A.S. Nos.48 and 49 of 1995 as per the common Judgment dated 8th September, 1999. Defendants 1 to 8 and 11 in O.S. No. 184 of 1987 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Payyannur are the appellants in A.S. No. 48 of 1995 and defendants 1 to 11, 14 and 15 in O.S. No. 186 of 1987 on the file of the same court are the appellants in A.S. No. 49 of 1995. The main ground alleged in the Review Petition is that while disposing of the appeal the court below has not considered the written notes of argument submitted by the counsel f...
Tag this Judgment!Kochumon Jacob Vs. Secretary
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-24-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT522
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The petitioner is a stage carriage operator. He is operating on the route Kottayam - Changanacherry on the strength of a regular permit issued to his stage carriage KL-05-A 8096 which is 1992 model vehicle. It is stated that the service is a town service as defined under Rule 2(ca) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which prescribes the minimum seating capacity of the vehicle. The said vehicle is registered with 48 seats inclusive of driver. The petitioner wanted to reduce the seating capacity as well as the standing capacity of the said vehicle for which he made an application dated 20.12.2001 (Ext.P2). The respondent rejected the said application stating that if the application is allowed the quarterly tax of stage carriage with passenger capacity of 39 + 19 will be Rs. 26,250.00 which will result in a loss of Government revenue at the rate of Rs. 4,800.00 for each quarter. It was also stated that the travelling public will be deprived of the present benefit...
Tag this Judgment!Superintendent of Police, C.B.C.i.D. Vs. Boby Varghese
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-24-2003
Reported in: [2004]119CompCas112(Ker); [2004]54SCL229(Ker)
R. Rajendra Babu, J.1. St. Mary's Finance Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act (nidhi company), collected nearly Rs. 18 crores from thousands of depositors. When the money was not repaid, one of the creditors Sri V. Sugandalal, filed C. P. No. 18 of 1999 for winding up of the company. In the meantime the company filed MCA No. 6 of 1999 under Section 391(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, for sanction of a scheme of compromise. This court refused to accept the scheme proposed by the company as it was totally against the interests of the depositors. Instead of passing an order of winding up, as it would cause hardship to the depositors, this court formulated a scheme for running the business without allowing to receive fresh deposits and appointed the provisional liquidator. Though the company challenged the above order by filing MFA Nos. 1250, 1265 and 1266 of 1999, all those appeals were dismissed. The company had diverted Rs. 7.67 crores to another sister company, M/s. St....
Tag this Judgment!R. Rama Iyer Vs. P.K. Jacob and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Ker359
Sankarasubban, J.1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 115 of 1988 of the Principal Sub-Court, Alappuzha. The suit was filed for realisation of the balance amount of Rs. 1.5 lakhs with future interest and costs on the basis of an agreement for sale of property. The case of the plaintiff is as follows :2. The property in Sy. No. 363/8B of Velloor Village in Vaikkom Taluk, which was a coconut grove situate about a furlong east of the Muvattupuzha river, belonged to the father of the appellant who died on 15-11-1984. On the death of the father, it devolved on the members of the family consisting of the appellant and respondents 4 to 7 and the appellant was holding the same as Manager. In 1985, the defendants, who were partners in business approached the appellant for the purchase of the aforesaid property or the soil therefrom for brick making. The first defendant was introduced to the appellant by his brother-in-law as per Ext. A10 letter an...
Tag this Judgment!Department of Telecommunications Vs. Consumer D.R. Forum
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT281
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. Ext. P3 was under challenge at the instance of the appellant, in O.P. 32270/99, but failed. Therefore this Writ Appeal. Ext. P3 was a preliminary order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum deciding a preliminary question as to the maintainability of the petition filed against the appellants, General Manager and others of the Telephone service. There was delay in granting phone connection to the second respondent according to him. He approached the first respondent, Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. It was before that forum the appellant raised a question of maintainability. It was found in Ext. P3 that the petition filed by the second respondent against the appellant was maintainable. This is challenged contending that there is a remedy under Section 7B of the Telegraph Act for Arbitration. Therefore remedy under the Consumer Protection Act, 1996 was not available to the second respondent.2. A reading of Section 7B indicates that arbitratio...
Tag this Judgment!Bhargavan Pillai Vs. Special Dy. Tahsildar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-2003
Reported in: I(2004)BC324; 2003(3)KLT753
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioner, who is a driver employed with KSRTC is challenging revenue recovery proceedings initiated wide Exts.P2, P4 and P6 for recovery of arrears of loan amount defaulted by the debtors for whom petitioner was a surety. The recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner is attachment of salary through the employer namely, KSRTC. The challenge is confined to recovery proceedings by way of attachment of salary through employer, KSRTC over the limits prescribed by Section 60(1) of the Civil Procedure Code read with Section 80 of the Revenue Recovery Act. I heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Standing counsel for the KSFE. While the contention of the petitioner is that Section 60(1)(i) is applicable by virtue of operation of Section 80 of the Revenue Recovery Act and petitioner's salary should not be attached over the limits prescribed under Section 60(1)(i) that too, only within the limited period, the standing counsel appearing for KSF...
Tag this Judgment!Jaimy Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1458
N. Krishnan Nair, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29th January, 2001 of the Ist Addl. Sessions Judge Ernakulam in S.C. No. 68/1997. The appellant and 7 others were charged with the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. After the trial, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge found the appellant (first accused) guilty of the offences punishable under Section 302 and 341 of the IPC. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 302 of the IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 341 of the IPC. The sentences were allowed to run concurrently. Accused Nos. 2 to 8 were found not guilty of the offences and they were acquitted. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant is seriously challenged in this appeal.2. The prosecution story runs i...
Tag this Judgment!Puthiyara Tile Works Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-2003
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ202Ker
A.K. Basheer, J. 1. The short question that arises for consideration in this Original Petition is whether respondents 2 and 3 were justified in the facts and circumstances of the case, in initiating proceedings against the petitioner to recover damages under Section 14-B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, the Act).2. Petitioner which is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, is engaged in the manufacture and sale of tiles and other allied clay products. It is admitted by the petitioner that there was default in making certain remittances to the Employees' Provident Fund, Family Pension Scheme etc., since the petitioner establishment had run into financial doldrums. It is contended by the petitioner that respondents 2 and 3 were very well aware of the predicament and the financial crisis that was being faced by the petitioner during the relevant period and therefore Exhibit P5 and P7 demand notices issued by resp...
Tag this Judgment!Poorna Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-20-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT999
M. Ramachandran, J.1. The petitioner has placed an interesting question, while challenging Ext.P11 notice issued by the Corporation of Trivandrum dated 24.2.2003. Reference is made to the decision of the Council dated 2.8.2001, as also the communication that had been exchanged between the parties. It was on the subject of collection of waste from the Corporation area.2. It had been informed by Ext.P11 that proceedings against the petitioner will be taken if it was found that persons deputed by the petitioner were found collecting refuse and waste from the jurisdictional limits of the Corporation. It is also pointed out that it had come to the notice of the Corporation that the Society represented by the petitioner had through its employees had been collecting such waste from certain areas of the Corporation and were depositing such waste in the receptacles of the Corporation. Reference is made to an earlier notice issued to the petitioner during March, 2002 requiring abstinence from su...
Tag this Judgment!Saiful Islam Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-20-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT384
Kurian Joseph, J. 1. Conflict between pay fixations under Rules 28A and 30 of Part-I KSR is the subject matter of the Writ Petition. Is there any restriction that Rule 28A fixation cannot be granted more than twice and if a third occasion arises it should be under Rule 30?2. Petitioners entered service as Junior Agricultural Officers during 1963-64. In terms of the then existing orders, they secured a first higher grade on completion of 13 years of service in 1979. Thereafter in 1983 they were promoted as Assistant Directors. In both 1979 time bound higher grade promotion and 1983 Assistant Director promotion, the petitioners were granted benefit of fixation under Rule 28A Part-I of the Kerala Service Rules since both promotions involved change in time scale requiring application of Rule 28A. The 1988 pay revision which came into effect from 1.7.1988 provided for time bound second higher grade promotion on completion of 20 years of service. Petitioners were in the scale of pay of Rs. 1...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »