Kerala Court December 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.
Business Bankers Vs. Anandan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-08-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Ker128; 2005(1)KLT226
M.N. Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment in A.S. No. 303 of 1985 rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The original suit O.S. No. 29 of 1983 was filed by the appellants against the respondents for realisation of Rs. 28,219/- as the amount due towards the hire purchase transaction. It is the case of the appellants that they had entered into a hire purchase agreement with the defendants in respect of a Benz Goods Vehicle bearing Registration No. KLV 7957 on 1.5.1981 and that the defendants had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,820/- in 18 equal instalments. Since the defendants did not keep the vehicle in good condition and failed to pay the instalments possession was retaken on 24.7.1982. As the defendants did not wipe off the liability notice was issued on 21.12.1982 and the vehicle was sold for a price of Rs. 20,000/-. It is for the balance amount due the suit is filed.2. The defendants would contend that the vehicle was in a good condition and it w...
Mother Superior Vs. Kerala Water Authority
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-08-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)KLT699
K. Thankappan, J.1. The Original Petition is filed for quashing Ext.P1, P2, P3 and P5. Petitioner is the Mother Superior, Avila Convent, Kandanad. Water connection was given to the petitioner for domestic purposes. While so, the 3rd respondent by Ext.P1 informed the petitioner that disconnection of water supply should be effected for the reason that the water charge was paid by the petitioner at domestic rate. By Ext.P2 the petitioner was also informed that as average consumption was very high, the petitioner had to change the connection from domestic rate into non-domestic rate and the petitioner was directed to attend the 3rd respondent's office on 22.4.1997 to settle the matter. By Ext.P3 the petitioner was directed to execute an agreement for changing the connection into non-domestic. Petitioner filed Ext.P4 representation before the 2nd respondent stating that the water was used only for domestic purpose. By Ext.P5 order the 3rd respondent rejected the petitioner's representation ...
K.S.E.B. Vs. Najeeb
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-08-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)KLT406
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Whether unauthorised use of electricity has to be assessed under Section 24(1) of Indian Electricity Act, 1910 read with Regulation 42(d) of the Regulations Relating to Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy or under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.2. Writ Petition was preferred Seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P7 mahazar prepared by the Vigilance and the Anti-Power Theft Section of the Electricity Board and Ext.P8 bill dated 5.10.2004 issued pursuant thereto contending that the invoice has been issued against the provisions of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Learned Single Judge ordered reconnection with a direction to dispose of the appeal. Aggrieved by the judgment the Kerala State Electricity Board and its Assistant Executive Engineer have come up with this Appeal.3. M/s. Chicago Builders and Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. has constructed a seven storied commercial complex...
Sr. Easthala, the Mother Superior, Avila Convent Vs. Kerala Water Auth ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-08-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Ker207
K. Thankappan, J.1. The original petition is filed for quashing Ext.P1, P2, P3 and P5. Petitioner is the Mother Superior, Avila Convent, Kandanad. Water connection was given to the petitioner for domestic purposes. While so, the 3rd respondent by Ext.P1 informed the petitioner that disconnection of water supply should be effected for the reason that the water charge was paid by the petitioner at domestic rate. By Ext.P2 the petitioner was also informed that as average consumption was very high, the petitioner had to change the connection from domestic rate into non-domestic rate and the petitioner was directed to attend the 3rd respondent's office on 22-4-1997 to settle the matter. By Ext.P3 the petitioner was directed to execute an agreement for changing the connection into non-domestic. Petitioner filed Ext.P4 representation before the 2nd respondent stating that the water was used only for domestic purpose. By Ext. P5 order the 3rd respondent rejected the petitioner's representation...
Vimal Arakkal Vs. Corporation of Cochin
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-06-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Ker70; 2005(1)KLT121
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Writ Petition was filed by the appellant challenging Ext.P5 notice issued by the Corporation of Cochin directing him to remove the hoarding put up by him without the permission of the Corporation. It is pointed out that the existing hoarding put up without the permission of the Corporation causes danger to the life and property of the pedestrians and the vehicles. Ext.P5 notice was issued Under Section 275 as well as Section 411 of the Kerala Municipalities Act. Complaining that the Corporation has no power Under Section 272 or Under Section 411 of the act to issue such a notice, Writ Petition has been preferred. Various contentions were raised before the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge found no merit in the contentions and rejected the Writ Petition. However, it was ordered that if the appellant submits a formal application, Corporation would take note of the same and regularise the construction.2. Before the learned Single Judge Corporation has tak...
Thresia Vs. Corporate Manager, C.M.S. Schools
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-06-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)KLT109; (2005)ILLJ1019Ker
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The question posed for consideration in this case is whether the provisions of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960 would apply to all establishments in the State whose activities are mainly educational and hostels attached to such establishments. Learned Single Judge in The Corporate Manager v. P.C. Thresia (1996 (2) KLT 618) against which this appeal arises, has taken the view that it would not. Learned Single Judge, in our view, took the said decision since the notification issued by the Government of Kerala bearing number Ll-290/50DD(2) dated 15.7.1950 in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5 of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960 was not brought to the notice of the learned Judge.2. Appellant here in was a cook in a hostel attached to Baker Memorial High School, Kottayam. According to her, she has got 25 years of service in the said establishment. She took leave for ayurvedic treatment after informing the em...
Antony Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-06-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)KLT984
Kurian Joseph, J. 1. Petitioners who have been working long in the field of education have drawn the attention of this Court to an issue of grave public interest -- the plight of pre-primary school children in the matter of admission to the schools and the course content. According to the petitioners, early childhood education has received only low priority in terms of research facilities and actual funding. It is submitted that the professionals, parents and modern pre-primary schools have totally forgotten the purpose of pre-primary education and the importance of non-formal education. The children are burdened with formal education at a very tender age. The Indian Academy of Paediatrics wherein the petitioners also collaborated had in fact made certain general recommendations. It is relevant to note a few of them.'a. The pre-primary age is a crucial one in the development of the child and hence a developmental approach rather than educational approach must be adopted.b. Pre-primary ...
Appukuttan Chettiyar Vs. Lathikadevi Amma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-03-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)KLT260
V. Ramkumar, J.1. The common appellant in these appeals was the plaintiff in O.S.216/93 and the defendant in OS 220/93 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Varkala. Both the aforesaid suits were for perpetual injunction filed by the appellant and the respondent herein seeking prohibitory injunction against each other. The suits were jointly tried. The Courts below found that the plaint schedule property is not covered by the title deeds of the appellant whereas the same is covered by the settlement deed of 1981 set up by the respondent herein in whom possession was also found. The Courts below also found the existence of a tutorial college run in the property by the defendant. These are all findings of facts from which no question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises. It is true that the land in question is a puramboke land and the State was not made a party in both the suits. But it is well settled that possessory rights can be claimed as between persons who assert...
Bhaskaran Vs. Vijayaraghan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-03-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Ker133
ORDERK.M. Joseph, J.1. The writ petitioner, in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenges Ext. P2 order passed by the Sub-Court, Palakkad. The undisputed facts in this case are as follows:2. The first respondent obtained a decree for a sum of Rs. 49,182/- with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of the suit till realisation with costs of the suit. The decree further provided that the first respondent could realise the decree amount with costs and interest personally from the defendant and also by sale of the mortgaged properties. The defendant in the suit executed a settlement deed in respect of a decree schedule property in favour of the third respondent, his son. This was done in the year 1997, that is, after the decree was passed. The petitioner is an assignee of a portion of the property from the third respondent. The assignment was made in favour of the petitioner only in the year 1999. The suit was filed as early as in the year 1991. It i...
Gurumoorthy Gopalakrishnan Vs. Lakshmi Bai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-03-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)KLT256
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Whether a construction effected by a tenant in the land appurtenant to the building would also fall within the mischief of Section 11(4)(ii) if the landlord establishes that such a construction has the effect of reducing the value and utility of the tenanted premises is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.2. Counsel for the tenant Sri. P.A. Harish contended that even assuming that the construction had been effected by the tenant in the ground appurtenant to the building, since tenant has not used the tenanted building in such a manner as to destroy its value and utility materially and permanently, such an action of the tenant would not fall within the mischief of Section 11(4)(ii) of the Act.3. Counsel appearing for the landlord Sri. K.T. Sankaran on the other hand contended that even if the construction is effected by the tenant in the ground appurtenant to the building and not to the building as such, the conduct of the tenant wo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »