Kerala Court September 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.
E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Babu Rao
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-17-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT805; (2004)ILLJ679Ker
R. Rajendra Babu, J. 1. The important question that had come up for consideration was whether the E.S.I. Corporation could claim contribution from the employers in respect of the workers deployed by the Committee constituted under Section 18 of the Headload Workers Act for doing headload work in establishments. 2. Sri. N. Babu Rao, the respondent herein was conducting the business of processing of pepper and was engaging headload workers for doing the headload works. The E.S.I. Corporation demanded contribution in relation to the period from 3/1992 to 9/1992 and from 10/1992 to 3/1993. The respondent challenged the above order before the E.I. Court in I.C. No. 118/93 and prayed for a declaration that the establishment could not be covered under the E.S.I. Act and Scheme. The E.I. Court allowed the above petition partly. Aggrieved by the above order, the E.S.I. Corporation had filed this appeal.3. The respondent was running an establishment of processing of pepper. He had attached headl...
Sarada Bai Vs. Suresh Chander Chawhan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-17-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT610
R. Bhaskaran, J.1. When this second appeal came up for admission, I heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, who took notice in the appeal. This second appeal is filed by the 1st defendant in a suit for redemption of mortgage. The case of the plaintiff is that he executed a mortgage in respect of the plaint schedule property for Rs. 3,000/- in favour of one Thankappan Aasari in 1965. The defendants took assignment of the mortgage right in 1969. Thereafter, the plaintiff executed a purakkadam for Rs. 500/- from the defendants and extended the period for mortgage for one year. Subsequently, another loan of Rs. 3,000/-was also taken by the plaintiff from the 1st defendant by executing purakkadam deed No. 1907 of 1972 and when the plaintiff requested for redemption of mortgage, the defendants did not comply with the request and therefore the suit was filed.2. The 1st defendant in the written statement contended that the pl...
Kunhimon Vs. Block Development Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-16-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT664
M. Ramachandran, J. 1. The question that has been raised in this Writ Petition is as to whether the Block Development Officer, Chavakkad (1st respondent herein) was disabled from drawing up Ext. P2, which had resulted in prejudice to the petitioners. The first petitioner was functioning as the President and rest of the petitioners are the Members of the Vadakkekadu Grama Panchayat. A no confidence motion came to be presented in the Panchayat. Though initially the officer had declared that the motion stood defeated, he had shortly thereafter declared that the motion stood carried. If the contentions of the petitioners are accepted, it would be possible for the first petitioner to continue as President of the Grama Panchayat, otherwise he will have to vacate office. The brief facts could be narrated herein below.2. The no confidence motion had been tabled by the opposition. Consequently, a meeting by the competent authority was specially convened on 26th August, 2003. The meeting had com...
Suresh Bhatt and anr. Etc. Vs. S. Brahmanand and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-16-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ker101
Pius C. Kuriakose, J. 1. These two appeals are preferred separately by defendants 3 and 4 and 1 and 2 respectively in O.S. No. 647 of 1995 of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kozhikode. Respondents 1 to 3 in both these appeals are the plaintiff in the suit.2. The suit was instituted for specific performance of an agreement for sale (Ext. A1) in respect of the suit schedule property consisting of two shop rooms and a hall/ godown. It was alleged in the plaint, that the suit property belonged to defendants 1 and 2; while so, they were restrained from alienating the suit property by an order of injunction passed in two injunction suits, O.S. Nos. 98 and 99 of 1987 of the Kuzhikode Sub-Court, filed by one Moosakutty; defendants who were interested in disposing of the property approached the plaintiffs who were also interested in purchasing the same; accordingly on 10-3-1989 Ext. A1 agreement was executed between plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2, stipulating a total sale consideration of Rs....
Abbas Vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-15-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ker152; 2004(1)KLT182
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The writ petitioner is the appellant before us. He is the beneficiary of a Wakf. According to him, certain properties of the Wakf had been appropriated by certain individuals and they have mortgaged the property in favour of a co-operative society, the second respondent. He filed a complaint before the first respondent. The matter was enquired and based on the report of enquiry, Ext. P5 communication was issued to the appellant stating that as per the enquiry report, the title of the property concerned was in favour of the mortgagor. Therefore, his petition was rejected. Thereupon, he applied for a copy of the report made mention of in Ext. P5. That was also rejected. He filed the original petition impugning Exts. P5 and P6 and seeking a direction to render him a copy of the report referred to in Ext. P5. Learned Single Judge dismissed the original petition stating that even Rule 24 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules did not give him an entitlement to ge...
Medical Trust Hospital Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-04-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT139
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioner is a limited company running a hospital by name, Medical Trust Hospital, at Ernakulam. The Tahsildar issued notice to the petitioner proposing building tax assessment on the hospital building vide notice Ext. P1 dated 16.4.1999. The petitioner filed a detailed reply claiming exemption from building tax in respect of the hospital-building on the ground that the building is principally used for charitable purposes and hence exempt from building tax under Section 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, hereinafter called the 'Act'. Since the question of exemption was raised by the petitioner, the Tahsildar referred the matter to the Government for decision under Section 3(2) of the Act. The Government after hearing the petitioner's objections issued Ext. P4 order whereunder building tax exemption chimed by the petitioner in respect of the hospital building was rejected for the reason that the petitioner was not rendering 'free medical reli...
Keltron Controls Vs. the Workmen of Keltron Controls
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-04-2003
Reported in: [2004(101)FLR49]; 2004(1)KLT509; (2004)IILLJ167Ker
R. Rajendra Babu, J.1. The common question that had arisen for consideration was whether a settlement entered into between the employer and the employees represented by the unions otherwise than in the course of a conciliation proceedings and where a copy of the settlement had not been forwarded to the Government and the Conciliation Officer was enforceable under law.2. A settlement was entered into between the Keltron Controls, Aroor, with the unions on 5th December, 1989. The above settlement provided for the regularisation of 11 workmen with J.T.I., qualifications who were taken for training on completion of their training period and 3 expeditor trainees. Further it provided for absorption of certain canteen workers to the regular service of the company as and when vacancies arose. As the management did not comply with the above terms of settlement, the following industrial disputes were raised and were referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Alappuzha as I.D. 13/93 for adjudication:'1...
All Kerala Federation of Petroleum Traders Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-04-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT1017
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Petitioner, an Association of Petroleum Dealers, is challenging Ext.P2 clarification issued by the Government of Kerala clarifying that the Building housing a petrol outlet, called as canopy by the petitioners is a 'Building' assessable to tax under the Kerala Building Tax Act, is liable to be assessed under the Act. In fact, the assessment and demand of tax in the case of a petroleum dealer, who is a member of the petitioner-association, is produced in the W.P. as Ext.P3, which is also under challenge.2. I heard Counsel for the petitioner Sri. Jaju Babu and Government Pleader, Sri. Sojan James, appearing for the respondents. Counsel for the petitioner relied on another clarification issued by the Government vide Ext.P1 wherein the Government has stated that a canopy constructed by the petrol bunks will not be treated as a building for the purpose of Rule 59(3) of the Kerala Building Rules. Accordingly the Government has stated that a distance of 3 metres f...
Thilakan Vs. Kunhalankutty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-04-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ker95; 2004(1)KLT235
ORDERG. Sasidharan, J.1.The main question which arises for consideration is whether a revision will lie against the judgment in a civil miscellaneous appeal filed challenging the order made by the trial court in an application for temporary injunction.2. Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code which deals with the revisional powers High Court is having was amended in 1976 and before the amendment there was no restriction on the powers of the High Court and any order made by any Court subordinate to it was liable to be revised if there was any of the circumstances mentioned in that section. The order of a subordinate Court should be revised by the High Court if the subordinate Court appeared to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or to have acted in exercise of its jurisdiction, illegality or with material irregularity.3. By the amendment made in 1976 Section 115 was divided into two sub-sections. Sub-section (1)...
Sumit Vs. Payyannur Municipality
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-04-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT438
K.K. Denesan, J.1. Petitioner is the Secretary of Janakeeya Parisara Raksha Samithi, Moorikkovval-Edakkovval functioning at Moorikkovval, within the limits of Payyannur Municipality. He has filed this Writ Petition for and on behalf of himself and on behalf of the members of the general public in Moorikovval area. Respondents 2 to 5 are respectively, Payyannur Municipality, its Chairperson, its Vice Chairman, and the Health Inspector. Respondent No. 6 is the District Collector, Kannur. Respondent No. 7 is the Kerala State Pollution Control Board and the 8th respondent its Environmental Engineer. Additional respondents 9 to 19 got themselves impleaded stating that they are interested in the outcome of the Writ Petition.2. Petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing respondents 2 to 5 to refrain from dumping or burning waste materials in Moorikovval ground and for a further direction to prevent all types of pollution on account of the dumping or disposal of waste materials in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »