Kerala Court March 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.
K.P. Sadanandan Nair and ors. Etc. Vs. M. Vimala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-31-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Ker278
A. Lekshmikutty, J.1. These two appeals arise from the common judgment in O.S. Nos. 33/76 and O.S. No. 57/77 before the Sub Court, Manjeri.2. Both these appeals arise from the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 33/76. A.S. 439/1993 is filed by the third defendant and A.S. No. 525/1993 is filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 33/76. The late father of the appellant in A.S. No. 525/1993 filed O.S. No. 33/76 for a decree of declaration to the effect that he was in possession of the plaint schedule properties and also to set aside the attachment and orders made in execution proceedings in pursuance of the decree in O.S. No. 259 of 1973 on the file of the Sub Court, Palakkad. For the sake of convenience the parties can be referred as plaintiff and defendants as in O.S. 33/76. Plaintiff Sri Parameswaran Nair died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives were impleaded as additional plaintiffs. The plaint schedule property belonged to late Parameswaran Nair. The said property w...
Sreedharan Namboodiri Vs. Devaki Antharjanam and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-31-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Ker308
ORDERKumari A. Lekshmikutty, J.1. The first respondent is the decree holder in O.S. No. 294 of 1987 on the file of the Sub Court, Irinjalakuda. The suit was filed by her against the petitioner and the second respondent for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and it was confirmed in appeal and Second Appeal. The first respondent herein filed E.P. No. 331 of 1999 for execution of the decree. The trial Court had decreed value of improvements. The petitioner has claimed additional value of improvements. A Commissioner was appointed in the execution proceedings to assess the value of improvements and the Commissioner has assessed the value of improvements as Rs. 12,15,000/-. The first respondent herein filed Ext. P1. E.A. No. 1829 of 2003 to allow her to deposit Rs. 6,78,566/- before the Execution Court and take delivery of the property immediately. The petitioner and the second respondent filed Ext. P2 counter-statement in E.A. No...
Lizy Kurian Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-31-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT442
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J.1. Petitioner is the second accused in of 1986 of Excise Range Office, Kottayam. There were two accused in the said case. The offence alleged against the petitioner and the first accused is under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. The Prosecution case is that on 31.12.1986 at 4.30 p.m. CWs 1 and 2, the preventive officers of the Excise Range, Kottayam on getting information conducted search in a shed situated in Kanjavu Kavala at Thottakkadu, Puthupally on the basis of a search memo and at the time the accused were in unauthorised possession of ten litres of toddy in plastic can, 850 ml. of 3 bottles and a glass. Annexure A is the charge sheet. The notice was served on the petitioner. She was not arrested. But, her case was split up and refiled. The first accused then faced trial and he was acquitted by Annexure B judgment. The only allegation against the petitioner is the confession of the first accused that the toddy was entrusted to him by the petitioner. Petitioner...
Kadeeja Vs. Chandrika
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-31-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)KLT434
ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J.1. The judgment-debtor-re vision petitioner seeks revision of the order of the execution Court by which that Court enlarged the time for making deposit of the balance purchase money for the property that was sold in auction for realisation of the decree-debt and purchased by the 1st respondent who was the wife of the principal functionary of the 2nd respondent-decree-holder.2. The auction was held on 4.2.2002 and the property which is portion of a larger building in which the revision petitioner is conducting an STD booth was bid in auction by the 1st respondent for a sum of Rs. 20,100/-. On the date of the auction the auction purchaser deposited a sum of Rs. 5100/-, being 25% of the purchase money in view of Rule 84 of Order XXI C.P.C. The balance purchase money together with stamp paper value which ought to have been deposited within 15 days was not so deposited. The instant application, E.A.No. 186 of 2002 dated 18.2.2002, seeking enlargement of time for su...
Manager, K.A.M.U.P. School Vs. Deepa
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-30-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT441
Cyriac Joseph, J.1. This Writ Appeal arises from W.P. (C). 31617 of 2003 which was allowed by the learned Single Judge as per judgment dated 30.1.2004. The appellant is the first respondent in the Writ Petition. The first respondent herein is the petitioner in the Writ Petition. The second respondent herein is the second respondent in the Writ Petition.2. The Writ Petitioner, Deepa K.K., was appointed as Assistant Teacher in K.A.M. U.P. School, Chorode by the Manager of the said U.P. School in an existing vacancy for the period from 12.12.1995 to 15.2.1996. Ext.Pl is the copy of the appointment order dated 12.12.1995. Ext.Pl appointment order shows that the petitioner was appointed in the vacancy of K.K. Sreeja, Assistant Teacher, who had gone on maternity leave from 18.11.1995 to 15.2.1996. The appointment was subject to the provisions of the Kerala Education Act and the Rules thereunder and such other Rules or Orders as issued from time to time by the Government or other competent au...
Moosa Vs. Lakshmanan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-30-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT438
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Can the jurisprudential concept of co-ownership that in every infinitesmal portion of subject matter each of the co-owners has a right of possession is sufficient to holdthat one of the co-owners has in his possession a building within the meaning of Section 11(4)(iii) of Act 2 of 1965?2. Landlord claimed eviction under Section 11(4)(iii) contending that tenant Moosa is a co-owner along with one Pokker Haji of a nearby shop room as a co-owner and consequently landlord is entitled to the benefit of Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act. Tenant Moosa is in possession of the shop room belonging to the landlord situated in Kakkattil bazaar wherein he is conducting a grocery shop. Landlord produced Ext. A3 assignment deed dated 10.8.1989 by which tenant Moosa along with Pokker Haji and one Avulla purchased another building. While Ext. A3 was executed Moosa and Pokker Haji were doing business in the northern room in that building while Avulla was doing business in the s...
Raghunathan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-27-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT403
N.K. Sodhi, C.J. 1. Challenge in this Writ Petition is to the appointment of respondent 4 as Vigilance Tribunal, Kozhikode solely on the ground that he was more than 50 years of age on the date of appointment. The short question that arises for consideration is whether any upper age limit is prescribed for appointment to this post and whether the 4th respondent was over age at the time of his appointment. Since the question involved is purely legal, it is not necessary to refer to the facts in detail.2. The 4th respondent had been working as Additional Legal Advisor and was attached to the Vigilance Court, Thiruvananthapuram. His date of birth is 18th May 1952. By Order dated 14th July, 2003 (Ext.R-4(a) with the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent), he was appointed as Vigilance Tribunal, Kozhikode. It is common case of the parties that he was more than 50 years of age at the time of his appointment.3. The Kerala Public Services Act, 1968 has been enacted by the State Legisla...
George Mathew Vs. Poulose Varkey
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-26-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT162
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is preferred by the sole accused in a private complaint filed by the complainant alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 447 and 323 I.P.C.2. The fundamental facts are not in dispute. The alleged incident took place on 13.10.1990. An F.I. statement was promptly filed and a crime was registered. In that F.I.R. there was allegation only against the petitioner herein. Within six days of the commencement of investigation, the police filed a report before the Magistrate that their investigation has revealed that the petitioner herein, the original accused, is not involved in the crime. Instead, the police proceeded on the allegation that two other persons, allegedly workers of the petitioner herein, were the accused in that case. On getting information of the report filed by the police, the complainant on 13.12.1990 filed a private complaint against the petitioner herein, wherein he reiterated the allegations in ...
Guleri Vs. Director General, C.i.S.F.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-26-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR92]; 2004(3)KLT410
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. Ext.P1 is under challenge. By Ext.P1, the petitioner a Deputy Commandant in Central Industrial Security Force (C.I.S.F.) has been compulsorily retired from service invoking the power conferred on Government under 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules. Of course, the said rule confers power on Government on subjective satisfaction to dispense with the services of any Government Servant in public interest. It is exercising that power, the petitioner has been compulsorily retired with effect from 6th May 1997 when he attained the age of 55 years. The order reads as follows:'Whereas the President is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so;NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (j) of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules, the President hereby retires Shri P.C.S. Guleri, Deputy Commandant, C.I.S.F. Unit, FACT (CD), Cochin with immediate effect, he having already attained the age of 55 years on 6th May 1997. The President also directs tha...
F.A.C.T. Vs. Gopinatha Panicker
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-26-2004
Reported in: III(2004)ACC32; 2004(2)KLT455; (2004)IIILLJ470Ker
N.K. Sodhi, Ag. C.J.1. This order will dispose of two Writ Appeal Nos. 2095 and 2096 of 2003 in which common questions of law and fact arise and are directed against the same judgment of the learned Single Judge disposing of the two Writ Petitions filed by the respondents in these appeals. For the sake of convenience facts are being taken from W.A. No. 2096 of 2003.2. The respondent was an employee of the Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Limited (for short 'the Company') which is a Government Company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. On 26.12.2001 when he was proceeding from his home to the Company on his motorbike he met with an accident and sustained severe injuries on his head. He was taken to the hospital and on the following day he underwent surgery for temporo-parietal acute extradural haematoma and was discharged from the hospital on 17.4.2002. Thereafter he underwent physiotherapy for three months. He was using crutches to walk. While he was unde...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »