Kerala Court June 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.
Jayalakshmi Vs. Avara
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-09-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT901
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. This C.M.A. is filed against the order passed in LA. No. 2508 of 1999 in O.S. No. 696 of 1996 of the Sub Court, Palakkad. That was the suit filed against the present petitioner for return of the advance amount paid by the plaintiff. When the suit came up for hearing on 14th September, 1998 the defendant was absent. Counsel for the defendant reported 'no instruction'. The defendant was set exparte. Then an exparte order was passed. An affidavit was filed by the plaintiff. The suit was decreed on 14th September, 1998. Thereafter a petition was filed to set aside the ex pane decree. There, petitioner stated that she could not contact her lawyer because she was not well due to her heart operation. She also stated that she had developed problems on her right leg which prevented her from undertaking journey and in such circumstances she could not appear before the Court. She came to know about the decree when she received notice in the execution proceedings.2. There is...
Babu Vs. Public Service Commission
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-09-2003
Reported in: 2004ACJ292; 2003(3)KLT146
J.B. Koshy, J. 1. This Writ Petition is referred to us by the learned single Judge by reference order dated 12.6.2002. The facts and questions referred to is clear from the reference order itself, which is as follows:'The petitioner challenges Ext.P2 communication issued by the Public Service Commission rejecting his application for appointment as Driver in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation on the ground that he does not have the prescribed qualification. 2. The petitioner obtained Light Motor Vehicle Driving Licence on 30.8.1980. He got endorsement to drive Heavy Transport Vehicle on 4.7.1981. The last date of receipt of application was 5.8.1992. After that date the petitioner got endorsement enabling him to drive Heavy Goods Vehicle and Heavy Passenger Vehicle on 1.4.1996.3. The prescribed qualifications for appointment as Driver in the K.S.R.T.C., which reflect in the notification regarding driving licences are the following:'Must possess a valid Motor Driving Licence with...
Ramachandran Nair Vs. Kerala Permanent Fund Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-09-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT352
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. C.M.A. No. 54 of 2003 is filed against the order in I.A. No. 1027 of 2002 while C.R.P. No. 2446 of 2002 is filed against the order in I.A. 1026 of 2002. I.A. No. 1927 of 2002 was filed for setting aside the ex parte decree while the other is filed for condoning the delay in filing I.A. No. 1027 of 2002.2. In the suit, notice was given to the defendant. Defendant appeared. He did not file any written statement even after four or five adjournments. The suit was posted for payment of balance court fee and evidence. Since no balance court fee was paid and there was no representation, the plaint was rejected. It is now seen that a restoration petition was filed and that was allowed without notice to the petitioners. It is submitted by the defendants that they came to know about the ex parte decree only when they received notice in the execution proceedings. Hence the present application was filed to set aside the ex parte decree and the petition to condone the delay.3...
Joy Paul Vs. Sibi Mathew
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-09-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT343
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The 1st respondent herein filed Election O.P.No. 10/2000, before the Munsiff's Court, Moovattupuzha, which is the designated Court for trial of the election disputearising from Kavilangadu Grama Panchayat challenging the result of the election by which the petitioner in this Original Petition was declared elected. After the trial has started, the learned Munsiff wrote a letter to the District Judge for transfer of the case from Munsiff Court, Moovattupuzha to any other court in Ernakulam District. The learned District Judge without hearing the parties transferred the election petition on the administrative side from the file of Munsiff Court, Moovattupuzha to Munsiff Court, Kolenchery. That order is under challenge in this O.P.2. Section 88 of the Panchayat Raj Act deals with the Courts which are competent to trial election petitions.Section 88. Court competent to try election petitions. The Court having jurisdiction to try an election petition shall be:-(a) i...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K. Ravindranathan Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-06-2003
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Ker)46; [2004]265ITR217(Ker)
1. The GIT, Thiruvananthapuram, has filed this appeal against the order of the Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in ITA No. 457/Coch/95, dt. 20th March, 1999. While admitting the appeal notice was ordered on the following questions of law :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and the Tribunal having found that 'the CIT(A) further held that the assessee's representative could not point out that the assessee's case came under any of the exceptional cases specified in Rule 46A,' the Tribunal is right in law in holding that 'the CIT(A) was not justified in straightaway refusing to entertain the confirmation letters' ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on an interpretation of Rule 46A of the IT Rules, the Tribunal is right in law in interfering with the order of the CIT(A) and in remitting the case to the assessing authority for examination of the alleged creditors ? (3) Whether, on the facts an in the circumstances, of the case, the Tribuna...
NaziruddIn Vs. Hajirambee
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-06-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT896
1. A.S. No. 196 of 1990 is filed by the plaintiff. A.S.No. 243 of 1990 is filed by the first defendant and A.S.No. 299 of 1990 is filed by the second defendant. The suit was filed for partition.2. According to the plaintiff, she is the daughter of late K.B. Sheik Yusuf Saheb. First defendant is the son of K.B. Sheik Yusuf Saheb. Defendants 1, 2, 3 and 4 are the sons of K.B. Sheik Yusuf Saheb. Seventh defendant is the daughter-in-law of Sheik Yusuf Saheb. Defendants 8 to 14 are the children of late K. Sheik Abdul Hasim and 7th defendant. All are Muslims. Defendants 12 to 14 are minors. 15th defendant is the daughter of Mariambee and wife of late Shariff. 16th defendant is the son of late Mohammad Kashim Saheb and the 17th defendant is the wife of Aziz Saheb.3. The plaintiff and defendants are related to one another as shown in the geneology given in Schedule A. K.B. Sheik Yusuf Saheb, father of the plaintiff died on 24th December 1964. Her mother Zulekhabi died on 16th February 1959. Za...
Cit Vs. K. Ravindranathan Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-06-2003
Reported in: [2003]131TAXMAN743(Ker)
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram has filed this appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in ITA. No. 457/Coch/95, dated 20-3-1999. While admitting the appeal notice was ordered on the following questions of law :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and the Tribunal having found that 'the Commissioner (Appeals) further held that the assessee's representative could not point out that the assessee's case came under any of the exceptional cases specified in rule 46A,'the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in straightaway refusing to entertain the confirmation letters ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on an interpretation of rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, the Tribunal is right in law in interfering with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and in remitting the case to the assessing authority for examination of the alleged...
Rev. Fr. Daniel Kuzhithadathil Vs. Jose
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-05-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT858
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J.1. Is Section 57(3) of the Kerala University Act, 1974 ultra vires Article 30 of the Constitution? This is the primary issue that arise for consideration in this set of six writ petitions. The broad facts on which there is a consensus among the counsel for the parties may be briefly noticed.2. The post of Principal, Mar Ivanios College, Trivandrum was to become vacant on March 31, 2000 on the retirement of Dr. Antony Eapen. In anticipation, the Manager had issued an order dated March 27, 2000 by which Rev. Daniel Kuzhithadathil, who was working as Lecturer, was ordered to be given charge of the post of Principal. It was further directed that he would also act as the Drawing and Disbursing Officer. Feeling aggrieved by this order, Dr. Varghese M. Mathunni filed a petition viz. O.P. No. 10111 of 2000. In this petition Rev. Daniel Kuzhithadathil was impleaded as the 4th respondent. The matter was considered by a learned Single Judge. The Writ Petition was admitted. ...
Cyril Britto Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-05-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Ker259; I(2004)BC291; 2003(2)KLT879
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J.1. Is Section 56 of the Code of Civil Procedure which protects women from arrest or detention in execution of a money decree ultravires Articles 14 and 15? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this appeal. The learned Single Judge having answered this question in the negative, the writ petitioner has filed the present appeal. The facts, as relevant for the decision of this case may be briefly noticed.2. The appellant is a Government contractor. On March 24, 1995, he filed a civil suit for the recovery of Rs. 63, 250/-. On November 10, 1998, the Subordinate Judges passed an ex parte decree for the amount of Rs. 63, 250/- with interest at the rate of 18%. The appellant alleged that the judgment-debtor was staying in Chennai and that she does not hold any property. Thus, it was difficult for him to execute the decree. He further alleged that it would be impossible to 'have a personal execution' by virtue of Section 56 of the Code of Civil Proc...
thekkan and Co. Vs. Anitha
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-05-2003
Reported in: I(2004)BC435; 2004CriLJ58; 2003(3)KLT870
R. Basant, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against the acquittal of the respondent/accused by the learned Magistrate.2. The complainant alleged that the accused had borrowed an amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- in two instalments of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 1,25,000/- and had issued Exts. P3 and P4 cheques for the due discharge of the said legally enforceable debt/liability. The said cheques when presented for encashment were dishonoured by the Bank on the ground of insufficiency of funds. The complainant caused registered notices of demand to be issued to the accused as insisted by law. These notices were duly served and acknowledged, but there was no response. No payment was made as demanded. It is in these circumstances that the complainant came to Court with the complaint. In this appeal we are not concerned with the acquittal of the accused in respect of the allegations regarding Ext. P3 cheque. The acquitta...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »