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.
Girilal Vs. Corporation of Cochin
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-19-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT251
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The petitioners are the owners of residential flats in a multistoreyed building named 'Kannarkat Condominium', constructed by the 7th respondent, which is a partnership firm. Presently, the said building has eight storeys with 16 flats. In this Writ Petition, the petitioners challenge Ext.P1(A) exemption order issued by the Government in favour of the 7th respondent under Rule 5 of the Kerala Building Rules, 1984 and also Ext.P10(B) permit issued by the Corporation of Cochin, based on that Government Order. The brief facts of the case are the following:-2. The petitioners and the Managing Partner of the 7th respondent were colleaguesin the Indian Navy. When the 7th respondent started the construction of a residentialbuilding complex named 'Kannarkat Condominium', the petitioners purchased oneflat each. The construction of 8 floors of the building was completed in the year 2001and presently, the petitioners are residing there. They submit, the various faciliti...
Jacobkutty Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-18-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT190
Kurian Joseph, J.1. Whether pensionable service in non-pensionable establishment can be clubbed with the service in Central Government service/service in autonomous bodies in central sector for pension is the question arising for consideration in this case.2. The petitioner retired from the service of the second respondent on 31.8.1998. Prior to joining in the second respondent, he had service as an aided school teacher from 4.9.1961 to 12.2.1973. His prayer is for a declaration that the said service rendered as an aided school teacher is liable to be counted for the purpose of pension. The second respondent has no objection in counting such service for the purpose of pension in case the State Government pays the pro rata pension contribution to the second respondent. It is admitted in the counter affidavit that 'the petitioner has 11 years one month and 23 days service in aided schools from 1.4.1961 to 30.3.1962 and from 16.7.1962 to 11.2.1973. This service is pensionable. But the ser...
Subramonian Vs. Radhakrishnan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-18-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT539
R. Bhaskaran, J.1. This second appeal is filed by defendants 1 to 6 in a suit for partition. According to the plaintiffs, the plaint schedule properties and other items originally belonged to Madan. After his death, the property is inherited by his children Krishnan, Padmanabhari, Pappi Pillai and Parvathi. They partitioned the properties and the plaint schedule properties were allotted to the share of Padmanabhan. According to the plaintiffs, since Padmanabhan obtained the property from his father, they are co-parcenery properties. Sixth plaintiff, Sarojini, Devaki and 1st defendant are the children of Padmanabhan. Plaintiffs 1 to 5 are the children of Devaki and plaintiffs 7 to 10 are the children of Sarojini. Defendants 2 to 5 are the children of 1st defendant. According to the plaintiffs, as the plaint schedule properties are joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendants, they are entitled to equal shares by birth as the suit was filed for partition. The plaintiffs claimed 1...
Dungarsi Ranchhodas Vs. Moolji Visanji
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-18-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Ker314; 2004(2)KLT524
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Whether a petition for eviction filed by an unregistered partnership firm under Section 11 of Act 2 of 1965 is hit by Section 69(2) of Indian Partnership Act, 1932 is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.2. Eviction petition was filed by an unregistered partnership firm represented by a partner on 15.12.1979. While the Rent Control Petition was pending the partnership firm got registered on 21.3.1980. Fact that the partnership firm was not registered on the date of the filing of the Rent Control Petition is not disputed. Rent Control Petition was verified and signed by a partner of the unregistered firm. Contention was raised since the firm was not registered under the Partnership Act the petition was not maintainable in view of Section 69(2) of the Act. Counsel for the tenant placed reliance on the decision of the Madras High Court in Snifuddin Hussainbhoy Siamwala and Ors., AIR 1968 Madras 154. Counsel also submitted landlord was ...
Aisha Kunju Vs. Deputy Director of Education
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-17-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT174
Kurian Joseph, J.1. A few questions affecting the pensioners, both retiring from service and retiring from life arise in this writ petition. What is the situation of a retired employee dying without submitting a formal application for pension? What is the date of effect of family pension under the liberalised family pension scheme? Date of death of the pensioner? Date of application? 1.1.1986 when the scheme was implemented?2. Petitioner has two grievances: (1) non disbursement of the pensionary benefits due to her late husband K. Jaggafar; and (2) non disbursement of family pension under the liberalised family pension scheme with effect from 1.1.1986. Late Jaggafar was a Drill Teacher in an aided school, of which the 3rd respondent is the Headmaster. He retired from service in March 1963. He retired from life on 12.12.1968. Till his death or even thereafter no orders were passed with regard to the pensionary benefits. It is not in dispute that Jaggafar was entitled to pension. The rea...
James Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-16-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT534
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. This Writ Petition raises an interesting question as to what will happen when a person working as a non-teaching staff is appointed as a Teacher for a short term when his term is over. To put it more clearly, the petitioner in this case was a Full-time Menial. He was promoted as a Lower Grade Hindi Teacher, since he was fully qualified for the same in a leave vacancy. After the leave vacancy was over, he came back. But the Management thinks that he cannot come back and he is not entitled to any benefit as a non-teaching staff. The entire question depends upon the interpretation of Rule 43 of Chap.XIVA read with Rule 1(1) Notes 1 and 2 of the same Chapter of the Kerala Education Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the K.E.R.'). Facts of the case are as follows:2. The petitioner - James was appointed as a Full-time Menial in the Devaswom Board High School, Erumeli by the fourth respondent - Management on 23.12.1998. It was a short term vacancy upto 31.3.1999 and the...
Standard Stonewares and Tiles Vs. Appellate Authority
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-15-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT519; (2004)IIILLJ403Ker
R. Rajendra Babu, J.1. The question for consideration was whether the deposit of the entire amount directed to be paid under Section 7(4)(c) of the Payment of Gratuity Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), was a condition precedent for admitting an appeal under Section 7(7) of the Act,2. The petitioner establishment, Standard Stonewares and Tiles, Thaikkattukara, Aluva, was a unit of Sudarsan Clay and Ceramics Ltd., Aluva. Respondents 2 to 15 were employees of the petitioner and they had retired from service. They were paid gratuity. Respondents 2, 3 and 8 to 12 preferred claim before the Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, (for short, 'the Authority'), claiming interest on the gratuity amount alleging delayed payment. Respondents 4 to 7 and 13 to 15 filed claim for arrears of gratuity with interest and also interest on the amount already paid on the ground of delay. The Authority allowed the claim made by R2 to R15 by Ext.P2 order. The petitioner filed an appeal before ...
Rajan Vs. Excise Inspector
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-12-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2991; 2004(2)KLT430
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J.1. Petitioner herein is the second accused in C.P. No. 173 of 2002, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kasaragod. He along with another accused was charge sheeted for offence punishable under Sections 55(a) and 64A of the Abkari Act. The allegation as seen from Annexure A2 charge sheet is that on 6.8.2000 the first accused was transporting packets of arrack from Karnataka State. The total number of packets transporting by the first accused was found 200. The petitioner was arrayed as second accused on the ground that petitioner is the registered owner of the Chetak scooter, bearing No. KL-14/2650. According to the petitioner, as can be seen from Annexure A1, he became the registered owner only after the alleged offence. Whatever may be that, his further contention is that charge against him was framed under Section 64A. Section 64A reads as follows:'64A. Penalty for allowing land, building, room, etc. for manufacturing, sale or storing for sale...
CochIn Refineries Officers Association and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uo ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-12-2004
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Ker)1
P.R. Raman, J.1. In all these writ petitions, common question arises for consideration. Hence, they are taken up together for hearing.2. O.P. 10569 of 2003 and O.P. 8425 of 2002 were taken as the leading cases for argument. In O.P. 10569 of 2002 petitioners are officers of the third respondent scheduled bank. Respondents are (i) Union of India, (2) the CBDT, and (3) the Federal Bank.3. The Federal Bank Officers Association itself filed an original petition before the Karnataka High Court, seeking for a declaration that r. 3(l)(ii) and r. 3(7)(i) notified by Ext. P1 as unconstitutional and unenforceable. The said writ petition was dismissed by a common judgment dt. 17th Feb., 2003. It is thereafter that the present writ petitions were filed challenging the validity of Section 17(2)(vi) of the Act which, according to the petitioners, was not a subject-matter of challenge in the earlier writ petition. Petitioners seek for a declaration that Section 17(2)(vi) of the IT Act, as inserted by ...
V.K. Prasad and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-12-2004
Reported in: [2004]271ITR178(Ker)
P.R. Raman, J. 1. In all these writ petitions, a common question arises for consideration. Hence they are taken up together for hearing.2. O. P. No. 10569 of 2003 and O. P. No. 8425 of 2002 were taken as the leading cases for argument. In O. P. No. 10569 of 2002, the petitioners are officers of the third respondent scheduled bank. The respondents are (1) Union of India, (2) the Central Board of Direct Taxes and (3) the Federal Bank.3. The Federal Bank Officers Association itself filed an original petition before the Karnataka High Court, seeking for a declaration that rule 3(l)(ii) and rule 3(7)(i) notified by exhibit PI as unconstitutional and uneforceable. The said writ petition was dismissed by a common judgment dated February 17, 2003. It is thereafter that the present writ petitions were filed challenging the validity of section 17(2)(vi) of the Act which, according to the petitioners, was not a subject matter of challenge in the earlier writ petition. The petitioners seek for a d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »