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.
Lissie Asupathri Thozhilali Union and ors. Vs. Dy. Registrar of Trade ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-24-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)SLJ479(Kerala)
ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J 1. An unregistered trade union by name 'Lissie Asupathri Thozhilali Union', represented by its Secretary one K.L. Paul and six others who claimed to be members of the said union being aggrieved by the order passed by the Registering Authority under the Trade Unions Act (The Deputy Registrar of Trade Union, Office of the Labour Commissioner, Trivandrum) preferred an appeal under Section 11(1)(b) of the Trade Unions Act before the Statutory Appellate Authority, the District Judge, Ernakulam. The appeal was unsuccessful and hence the present revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C.2. Registering Authority had the application enquired into by the Assistant Labour Officer of Ernakulam 1st Circle area in which the employer hospital and the applicant trade union are situated. It was reported by the Assistant Labour Officer that none of the applicants were employees of the Lissie Medical Institutions at Ernakulam. Accordingly a show cause notice was issued to the Secr...
Venugopalan Vs. Moosa
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-23-2004
Reported in: II(2004)BC566; [2005]128CompCas1003(Ker); 2004CriLJ2220; 2004(1)KLT1079; [2004]53SCL199(Ker)
R. Basant, J.1. Does the use of the word 'guarantee' in Ext.P7 complaint convey that the cheque was not issued for the due discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability? This is the question which is raised for the consideration of this Court in this appeal.2. The complainant - the Regional Officer, Sports and Youth Affairs, Central Government of India, alleged that the respondent/accused - a close friend of his, had borrowed an amount of Rs. 20,000/- from him and had issued Ext.P1 cheque for Rs.22,000/- dated 19.2.1991 for the due discharge of the said liability (including interest). The cheque, when presented for encashment, was dishonoured on the ground of 'insufficiency of funds'. Thereafter, the complainant came to court after scrupulously observing the statutory time table.3. Cognizance was taken. The accused entered appearance and denied the offence. Thereupon, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 5 and proved Exts. P1 to P12. PW1 is the complainant. PW2 was the Mayor of Calicu...
Ameer Ali Vs. S. Koder
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-20-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT104
ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J.1. The landlords are the revision petitioners. Their application for eviction of the tenant on the ground of requirement of reconstruction, Section 11(4)(iv) of Kerala Act 2 of 1965 (for short, the Rent Control Act), was allowed by the Rent Control Court and confirmed in appeal, in revision and ultimately in a proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India at the instance of the tenant. The landlords did not carry out reconstruction within the time specified in the eviction order. The tenant took another building in the neighbourhood on lease paying a much higher rent. Ultimately the landlords completed the reconstruction of the while building, but did not induct the tenant into the building. The tenant filed two separate I.As, I.A. No. 2616 of 1999 for induction of the tenant into possession of the reconstructed building and I.A.No. 420 of 1996 seeking award of damages under the second proviso to Section 11(4)(iv).2. The Rent Control Court allowed ...
Surendran Vs. Ramachandran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-20-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2999; 2004(2)KLT263
G. Sasidharan, J.1. Petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in G.P. 183 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Payyannur. A complaint was filed in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Payyannur, the copy of which is Annexure-1 on the basis of which the above case was taken on file. This petition is filed for quashing the proceedings in the above case.2. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in the complaint there is no allegation that the occurrence took place in a public place and hence Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not attracted. Learned counsel points out the statements in paragraph 2 of Annexure-1 complaint which would go to show that the assault was made in a property near to the house of Kunjamina Umma. Section 3(1)(x) of the Act says that whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe intentionally insults or intimi...
Kerala Students Union Vs. Sojan Francis
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-20-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT378
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Article 19 of the Constitution of India is not a carte-blanche enabling any citizen to exercise a fundamental right so as to encroach upon similar rights guaranteed to other citizen.2. Managements of various Educational Institutions, Principals, Teachers and parents are aggrieved by the organizational activities of the various students organizations like SFI, ABVP, AISF, NSC, PSU, KSU (I), KSC. MSF etc. within the college campus which according to them violate the fundamental right guaranteed to the Managements under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. They are also concerned with the constant call for strike, gherao, dharna etc. within the college campus disrupting the academic discipline. Several writ petitions questioning the interference of those students organisations were pending before this court when this court decided Sojan Francis's case, reported in 2003 (2) KIT 582. Those writ petitions were not taken up along with Sojan Francis's ca...
Supra Hi-tech Electro Equip. (P) Ltd. Vs. Dy. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-20-2004
Reported in: 2005(184)ELT17(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioner is challenging Ext. P2 order dated 25-8-2000 which is an adjudication order under the Central Excise Act passed more than three years. The petitioner did not file appeal. Since statutory appeal is provided there is no scope for entertaining the Writ Petition. The fact that the petitioner slept over the matter and did not file appeal is not a ground for entertaining the Writ Petition. The petitioner's case is that the issue is covered by decision in another case by the Tribunal. According to the Standing Counsel the decision of the Tribunal in another party's case does not apply to the petitioner and does not have the effect of superseding Ext. P2 order. He has also pointed out that Special Leave Petition is filed against the order of the Tribunal and so long as the Department has not accepted the Tribunal's order, the Department will not follow the same and if Ext. P2 remains unchallenged they will proceed to recover the duty assessed. In the...
Sreekumar S. Menon Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-19-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT53
ORDERN. Krishnan Nair, J.1. This revision is directed against the Order dated 31.3.2003 of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur in CMP No. 231/2003, rejecting a complaint filed by the petitioner against the second respondent.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this petition may be stated as follows: The second respondent herein was working as a Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department. The petitioner who is the Secretary of the Kerala People's Forum filed a complaint against the second respondent alleging that he had amassed huge wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income. It is alleged that he has constructed a house which will cost Rs. 60 lakhs in violation of the approved plan. It is also alleged that he owns 8 tanker lorries and 4 jeeps which are plying for hire. The further allegation is that two of his children are studying in posh schools where a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month for a student will have to be s...
George Issac Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-19-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3508; 2004(2)KLT644
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. In all these cases, the petitioners are faced with a threat of prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for short 'the Act'. We will take O.P.No. 2255/1994 as the leading case.2. It is submitted that the petitioners are the manufacturers of 'Pickles in Oil'. They seek a declaration that the Sub-clause (m) of Clause (ia) of Section 2 of the Act as constitutional. They also challenge entry A. 16.16 in Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'. They submit that compulsory imprisonment envisaged in terms of Section 16 of the Act is unreasonable, and therefore, unconstitutional. Exts.P4 and P4(a) in O.P.No. 2255/94 and similar communications produced in other cases are also under challenge. In these communications, the Food Inspector concerned has intimated them about the report by the Public Analyst, informing that they can make use of the provisions under the Act to get another samp...
Food Inspector Vs. Subramanian
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-17-2004
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT1044
R. Basant, J.1. Who effected the sale? Is it PW.1 - the employee who handed over the sample to the Food Inspector or is it the respondent/1st accused, allegedly the Managing Partner, who received Form VI notice, received the price thereof, signed in Ext.P1 mahazar and also signed on the sample as required under the P.F.A. Act/Rules. This is the crucial question that arises for consideration in this appeal against an appellate judgment of acquittal in a prosecution under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the P.F.A. Act.2. Initially, there were two accused. The respondent herein was arrayed in dual capacity as accused in the proceedings initiated by the Food Inspector. He was present in the shop when the sale was effected. According to the Food Inspector, the establishment is a partnership firm by name 'Viswam Agencies'. The 1st accused is the Managing Partner of the said partnership 'Viswam Agencies'. He also represents the partnership, the second accused, in his capacity as Managing Partner. When...
Francis Vs. Sarada
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-17-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Ker187; 2004(1)KLT952
R. Bhaskaran, J.1. In S.A.No. 887 of 1999, defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No. 466 of 1992, on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Thrissur, are the appellants. In S.A. No. 205 of 1999, the defendant in O.S.No. 2002 of 1990 before the same court is the appellant. The suits were tried separately and decided by separate judgments. Appeals were also filed separately and decided by separate judgments. Since common questions are involved and the plaintiffs in the two suits are sisters and plaint schedule properties are adjacent buildings, both the second appeals are heard and disposed of by this common judgment. The plaint schedule properties belonged to the plaintiffs' mother. The plaint schedule in O.S.No. 2002 of 1990 is a shed having a length of 68 feet and a width of 151/2 feet, with walls and tiled roof. According to the plaintiff, it was given to the defendant's father on a licence arrangement for running a workshop. After the death of defendant's father, the defendant was allowed to run the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »