Kerala Court February 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.
Sundaram Vs. Rajeev
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-27-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT613
A. Lekshmikutty, J.1. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 82 of 1990 on the file of Sub. Court, Cherthala, this appeal is filed by the first defendant. The first respondent as plaintiff filed the above suit for recovery of arrears of rent. The case of the plaintiff is that shop room bearing Door No. 397 in Ward No. 23 of Cherthala Municipality belonging to the plaintiff was rented out to the late Padmanabhan Achari on 7.10.1980 for a monthly rent of Rs. 350/-. The 7th respondent is the widow and appellant and respondents 2 to 6 are the children of the late Padmanabhan Achari. The defendants were in possession of the shop room as the legal representatives of the late Padmanabhan Achari. On 5.11.1980 late Padmanabhan Achari filed a petition before the Rent Control Court as R.C.A. No. 24/1980 for fixation of fair rent. The Rent Control Court fixed the fair rent at the rate of Rs. 218.50 per month. Against the said order, both the plaintiff and late Padmanabhan Achari preferre...
Thomas and Anr. Vs. Subordinate Judge's Court and Ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-27-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Ker338
ORDERA. Lekshmikutty, J.1. This writ petition is filed to issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ order of direction to quash Ext. P2 order of the first respondent and permit the petitioners to mark Ext. P1 document without paying the penalty of the bond in the trial of the suit O.S. No. 1037/1997 pending before the Sub Court, Thrissur.2. The petitioners are the plaintiff in O.S. No. 1037 of 1997. The suit is for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,19,800/- from respondents 2 and 3. The case of the petitioners is that the second respondent has availed a loan of Rs. 2,19,000/- for enabling him to purchase a bus. Later, the second respondent has resiled from his promise to repay the amount even after the passage of time. So, the petitioners have approached the third respondent, father of the second respondent. The third respondent has voluntarily came forward to settle the matter by executing a 'Vyavastha' for the discharge his son's debt in favour of the petitioners. The said Vyavas...
Varnana Jewellery Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-26-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT259
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The assesses is the revision petitioner and revenue is the respondent. The assessment year concerned is 1993-94. The assessee is a jeweller having main business place at Kunnamkulam and a branch at Kozhikode. There was an inspection of the main business place at Kunnamkulam on 2.6.1993 and inspection of the branch at Kozhikode on 21.2.1994. In the inspection conducted at the main business place it was found that the actual new gold ornaments available were 1557.300 grams and silver ornaments were 1627.500 grams. Two business slips were also recovered. Subsequent verification of the books of accounts with reference to the F.I.R. revealed shortage of 4.750 grams of new gold ornaments and excess quantity of 45.150 grams of silver ornaments. The seized slips also revealed unaccounted sales of gold ornaments of 17.200 grams. The inspection conducted in the branch showed the quantity of new gold ornaments at 11350.250 and old gold at 71.00 grams. Subsequent scrutiny of the...
Ashraf Vs. Fathima
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-26-2004
Reported in: III(2004)ACC953; 2005ACJ275; 2004(2)KLT598
J.B. Koshy, J.1. This appeal is filed by the second respondent in O.P.(MV) No. 259 of 1995. He was the registered owner of the motor cycle, bearing No. KRC 8054, ridden by the first respondent (seventh respondent in the appeal). The claim was filed by the widow and children of the motor accident victim. According to the claimants, the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the motor cycle, KRC 8054. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred as alleged. It was also found that the driver of the motor cycle had no driving licence at that time. A contention was taken up by the insurance company that since driver of the motor cycle had no driving licence, they are not liable to pay compensation, notwithstanding the fact that the vehicle was covered by policy of insurance. The appellant, registered owner was the second respondent in the claim petition. He entered appearance through one O.G. Premarajan, Advocate. According to the appellant, even though he entrusted the...
Ariamma Sachariah Vs. Rose Elizabeth Kurian
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-26-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT988
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. This C.M.C. had been referred to a Division Bench by a learned Single Judge by order dated 18th December, 2002. The petitioners in the C.M.C. have filed this case for transfer of two suits pending in the Munsiff's Court, Kottayam to the Sub Court, Kottayam to be heard along with another Suit viz., O.S. No. 186 of 2000 of the Sub Court, Kottayam. Before approaching this Court, the petitioners approached the District Court, Kottayam for the same relief. The District Court, Kottayam by Order dated 18th September, 2000 dismissed the petition. It is thereafter that the C.M.C. has been filed under Section 24 of C.P.C.2. Respondent would submit that since the power under Section 24 has been exercised by filing petition before the District Court, Kottayam, the same power cannot be exercised before this Court. Aggrieved party can challenge the order passed by the District Judge under Section 24 of C.P.C. The learned Single Judge referred the matter to the Division Bench o...
Sali George Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-26-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT1051
A.K. Basheer, J.1. Can the educational authorities under the Kerala Education Act and Rules reduce the number of class divisions and cancel the post of School Assistant in an Aided school in midstream during the academic year? This is the short question raised by the petitioner in this original Petition. A brief reference to the essential facts is necessary to consider this issued.2. The petitioner is stated to be working as Lower Primary School Assistant in the aided school under the management of respondent No. 3. She states that she is a Rule 51-A claimant as provided under Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules.3. By Ext.P1 proceedings of the Asst. Educational Officer, Thodupuzha dated July 30, 1993, the staff strength and class divisions in St. Peter's U.P. School for the academic year 1993-94 were fixed. The staff fixation was done by respondent No. 2 after visiting the school on June 28, 1993. Two divisions were sanctioned for Standard III since it was found that the roll s...
P and P Rubber Co. Vs. Intelligence Officer, Squad No. I and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-26-2004
Reported in: (2008)11VST158(Ker)
Kurian Joseph, J.1. Petitioner is aggrieved by exhibit P16 order passed by the first respondent. This is an order imposing a penalty under Section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. Exhibit P16 has a chequered history. Against the earlier order of penalty imposed by the second respondent, the petitioner had pursued the matter up to the level of revision before the Commissioner. That revision was dismissed as per exhibit P 11. Though it is stated as dismissal, it is actually seen that the Commissioner had made it clear that the case was one of open remand before the original authority, interpreting the orders passed by the first revisional authority. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of exhibit Pll order makes the position clear, which read as follows:5. The Deputy Commissioner, Ernakulam, in the order read as second paper above has set aside the order imposing the penalty and remanded the case to the Intelligence Officer Squad No. I, Ernakulam, for fresh disposal in accordance with law. E...
A.C. Ashraf Vs. M.P. Fathima and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-26-2004
Reported in: III(2004)ACC74
J.B. Koshy, J.1. This appeal is filed by the second respondent in O.P. (MV) No. 259 of 1995. He was the registered owner of the motor cycle, bearing No. KRC 8054, ridden by the first respondent (seventh respondent in the appeal). The claim was filed by the widow and children of the motor Accident victim. According to the claimants, the Accident caused due to the negligence of the driver of the motor cycle, KRC 8054. The Tribunal found that the Accident occurred as alleged. It was also found that the driver of the motor cycle has no driving licence at that time. A contention was taken up by the Insurance Company that since driver of the motor cycle had no driving licence, they are not liable to pay compensation, notwithstanding the fact that the vehicle was covered by policy of insurance. The appellant, registered owner was the second respondent in the claim petition. He entered appearance through one Mr. O.G. Premarajan, Advocate. According to the appellant, even though he entrusted th...
Paduppu Ksheerolpadaka S.S. Ltd. Vs. Varghese
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-25-2004
Reported in: [2004(102)FLR204]; 2004(2)KLT244; (2004)IIILLJ388Ker
R. Rajendra Babu, J.1. Ext.P1 order passed by the authority under the Minimum Wages Act is under challenge at the instance of the Padappu Ksheerolpadaka Sahakarana Sangham Ltd. C.49(D), Padappu, (hereinafter referred to as the Sangham). The 1st respondent was working as a milk tester under the petitioner Sangham, a co-operative society in the category of Anand model co-operative societies registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. The Sangham was engaged in the collection of milk from small farmers and was distributing among the public with very low financial resources. The 1st respondent filed a claim petition before the authority appointed under the Minimum Wages Act (Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kannur) under Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act alleging that the petitioner had not paid the minimum wages for the period from 1.1.93 to 1.1.94. The petitioner Sangham contended that it was not a scheduled employment coming under Section 2(g) of the Minimum Wages Act. It was also ...
Sukesini Amma Vs. Nagarajalu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-25-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT427
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Landlady is the revision petitioner. Eviction was sought for under Section 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965. Rent Control Court found that the need is bonafide and genuine and also found that tenant is not entitled to get the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3). Consequently eviction was ordered. On appeal by the tenant, Rent Control Appellate Authority found that there is no bonafide in the plea of the landlord and the claim was disallowed, consequently the plea under the second proviso was not considered. Aggrieved by the same this petition has been filed by the landlady.2. Petition schedule shop room was taken out on rent by the tenant in the year 1964 and is conducting business in the name and style 'Parthas Textiles'. Rent was periodically enhanced. A small scale industrial unit by name 'Bintech Enterprises' was started by the landlady at Ambalamukku, Trivandrum in the year 1981 in a tenanted premises. She wanted to start Branch Office of the SSI uni...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »