Kerala Court November 2004 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.
N. Krishnan Nair Vs. Sivasankaran Pillai and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-08-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Ker121
ORDERS. Sankarasubban, J.1. Plaintiff has approached this Court through this revision challenging the order passed by the Court below in I.A. No. 2183 of 2002. Defendants in this case were made ex parte. Subsequently, an ex parte decree was passed and thereafter Order 9, Rule 13 petition was filed to set aside the ex parte decree. Now that has been allowed by the Court below on costs. But learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Order 8, Rule 1 prescribes time within which written statement has to be filed. According to the learned counsel, at any rate under Order 8, Rule 1 the period of time does not exceed 90 days. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents brought to my notice the decision reported in Nachipeddi Ramaswamy v. Buchi Reddy, AIR 2003 AP 409. That decision says that the mentioning of 90 days does not prevent the Court from extending time as under Section 148, the Court has got power to extend the time. According to me, under Order 9, Rule 13, the Cou...
Muhammed Kunhju Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-05-2004
Reported in: 2005ACJ1356; 2005(1)KLT325
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The defendants of a victim in a railway accident have come up with this appeal, as their petition for compensation was dismissed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. The untoward incident occurred on 16.8.1997, when the deceased Muhammed Ashraff was travelling in a train between Thiruvananthapuram and Karunagappally. He fell out of the train. The train was stopped. Immediately, he was taken to the hospital by the fellow passengers. On the way to the hospital he succumbed to the injuries. Compensation was claimed by the appellants. Necessary evidence to show that he was a passenger was produced in the form of Ext.P5, a photocopy of the identity card issued by the Railways and Ext.P6, the original thereof. The Tribunal found that the accompaniment to Ext.P5, the season ticket, had not been produced and therefore, it cannot be taken that he was a bona fide passenger. The claim petition was dismissed.2. It is contended by the appellants that in the light of Ex...
Antony Vs. Rana
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-05-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT1010
N.K. Sodhi, C.J.1. Whether the Division Bench before which the contempt petition is posted after a Single Judge has found that a prima facie case is made out against the respondent, is bound to proceed with the trial or can it dismiss the petition at that stage and drop the proceedings is the question which arises in the two contempt cases (civil) Nos. 807 of 2003 and 854 of 2004 which are being disposed of by this order. Since the question has to be answered in the light of the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), it is not necessary at this stage to refer to the facts of either of the two cases.2. Rr. 6,9,10,12,13, 14 and 16 are relevant for our purpose and these may first be noticed.'6. Taking cognizance:- Every proceeding for contempt shall be dealt with by a Bench of not less than two Judges.Provided that a proceeding under Section 14 of the Act shall be dealt with by the Judge or Judges, in whose presence or hearing the offence...
Paul Mathew and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-05-2004
Reported in: (2005)196CTR(Ker)504; [2005]274ITR220(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioner is challenging exhibit P8 revisional order of the Commissioner of Income-tax issued under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), confirming the cancellation of registration of the firm by the Assessing Officer under Section 186(1) of the Income-tax Act. The partnership was constituted vide deed dated March 28,1971, and application for registration filed in Form No. 11A for the assessment year 1971-72 was allowed. Registration was also renewed for the subsequent assessment years 1972-73 to 1976-77. However, the Assessing Officer thereafter noticed that the partnership deed produced by the petitioner on which registration was granted was signed only by one partner, for himself and for other partners who are his sons by forging their signatures. It was also noticed that one of the partners was a minor who did not even attain the age of majority during the assessment year 1971-72. Cancellation of registration unde...
Muhammed Kunju and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-05-2004
Reported in: 3(2005)ACC415
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The dependents of a victim in a railway accident have come up with this appeal, as their petition for compensation was dismissed by the Railway Claims Tribunal Ernakulam. The untoward incident occurred on 16.8.1997, when the deceased Muhammed Ashraff was travelling in a train between Thiruvananthapuram and Karunagapally. He fell out of the train. The train was stopped. Immediately, he was taken to the hospital by the fellow passengers. On the way to the hospital he succumbed to the injuries. Compensation was claimed by the appellants. Necessary evidence to show that he was a passenger was produced in the form of Exh. P-5, a photocopy of the identity card issued by the Railways and Exh. P-6, the original thereof. The Tribunal found that the accompaniment to Exh. P-5, the season ticket, had not been produced and, therefore, it cannot be taken that he was a bona fide passenger. The claim petition was dismissed.2. It is contended by the appellants that in the light ...
State Bank of Travancore and ors. Vs. Judy Thomas
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-05-2004
Reported in: [2005(105)FLR206]
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Father of the respondent (Petitioner in O.P.), who was an employee of the appellant bank, expired on 28.6.1999. Respondent filed Ext P.I application for appointment in the dying-in-harness scheme. Application in the prescribed form was submitted on 20.9.1999. It was rejected by Ext. P 8 on the ground of mother's income and overage of the petitioner. Ext. P8 reads as follows:With reference to the above, we are advised by our Head Office that the object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis due to the death of the bread-winner. The object is to offer compassionate appointment only when the Bank is satisfied that the financial condition of the family will not be able to meet the crisis. Considering the family income of Smt. Josephine Thomas, wife of late Sri K.F. Thomas, the competent authority has rejected your representation. Moreover, you are over aged for compassionate appointment.In the counter affidavit, it was ...
Haji Abdul Salam Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-04-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT826
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Will the benefit of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India be available to a single philanthropic individual if he being a member of the minority community has established and maintained an Institution2. The Apex Court in State of Kerala v. V.R.M. Provincial, (1970) 2 SCC 417, while considering the scope of Article 30(1) held that the right to establish an institution would include a case where 'a single philanthropic individual with his own means, founds the institution'. The said view was followed by the Apex Court in St. Thomas U.P. School v. Commissioner and Secretary to Government, 2002 (1) KLT 655 (SC).3. Learned Single Judge of this Court in Unaided Recognised Schools Parents Association v. State of Kerala, 2000 (2) KLJ 54, held that only a corporate body can manage a minority institution and not an individual and the individual would not get the benefit of Article 30(1) of the Constitution is, in our view, not the correct enunciation of law. Learned...
Subaida Beevi Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-04-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)KLT426
J.B. Koshy, J.1. The short question to be considered in these Writ Petitions is whether the ratio of 1:1 fixed between diploma holders and certificate holders for promotion to the post of Head Computer in the computing branch of the Government Presses governed by the Government Press Subordinate Service Rules, 1976 is correct or not. Petitioner in O.P. No. 16867 of 1995 is a diploma holder in Printing Technology. Petitioners in O.P. Nos. 12952 and 17419 of 1995 are certificate holders. All petitioners were working in the same feeder category of Computing Supervisor. According to the special rules issued vide G.O.(P)No. 327/76/P D dated 22.9.1976, qualification of diploma in Printing Technology was prescribed as one of the essential qualifications for supervisory posts like General Foreman, Head Computer etc. Thereafter, there were several representations in order to minimise the hardships of the non-diploma holders who were in service. Government, subsequently, amended the Special Rule...
Ramachandran Vs. Dinesan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-04-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD(Cri)38; I(2006)BC526; 2005CriLJ1237; 2005(1)KLT353
ORDERK. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The revision petitioner was found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 35,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. He filed Crl.A.122 of 1999 before the Sessions Court challenging the conviction and sentence. The learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence to that of a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner.2. The first respondent filed a complaint against the revision petitioner alleging that he borrowed an amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- from him and when a demand for repayment of that amount was made, Ext.P1 cheque was issued. It was also alleged that when the cheque was presented for collection, the same was dis...
Aided Higher Secondary School Teachers Association Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-04-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)KLT94
J.B. Koshy, J.1. All these Writ Petitions relate to the appointment of Principal in Higher Secondary Schools (Government and aided private) in Kerala. The Kerala Education Act, 1958 and the Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as K.E.R.) are governing the Aided Private Schools. Special Rules are framed for Government Schools. At the time when the Kerala Education Act was passed, in the schools for general education there were two categories, primary, which consists of standard I to VII, and secondary, which consists of standards VIII to XI, as can be seen from Chapter II K.E.R. When National Education Policy was implemented making school education as 10+2, the 11th standard was taken away from the High School and Pre-Degree course of two years was started in colleges. However, as an experimental measure in 55 schools Higher Secondary section was started as standards XI and XII, commonly called Plus Two Course. When the Higher Secondary section was started there was no statutory rules f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »