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.
Federal Bank Officers Association Vs. Union of India
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-12-2004
Reported in: [2004]140TAXMAN173(Ker)
In all these writ petitions, common question arises for consideration. Hence they are taken up together for hearing.2. O.P. 10569/2003 and O.P. 8425/2002 were taken as the leading cases for argument. In O.P. 10569/2002 petitioners are officers of the third respondent Scheduled Bank. 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(1)(ii) and rule 3(7)(1) notified by Ext. P1 as unconstitutional and uneforceable. The said writ petition was dismissed by a common judgment dated 17-2-2003. 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 Income Tax Act as inserted ...
Anantharajan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-11-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT119
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This Writ Petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the second respondent to return the documents to the Rent Control Court without any further delay.2. Petitioner who is the landlord of a building bearing number T.C. 28/2051 has filed O.P.(RCP) No.26 of 1994 seeking eviction of respondents 3 and 4 under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of Article 2 of 1965. Third respondent - tenant submitted that five cents of property comprised in survey numbers 726 and 727 of Vanchiyoor village where the scheduled building is situate was taken on lease by her husband late Peethambaran Nair during 1954-1955 period from its original jenmi, Pillaveedu family, for commercial purposes and he had constructed a shed for commercial purposes and therefore entitled to protection under Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. She therefore prayed for reference of the matter to the Land Tribunal for adjudication.3. Landlord resisted...
Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Official Liquidator, High ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-11-2004
Reported in: [2006]133CompCas912(Ker); [2007]74SCL221(Ker)
N.K. Sodhi, Actg. C.J.1. This company appeal is directed against the order dated November 28, 2003, passed by the learned judge accepting the report of the official liquidator and rejecting the application filed by the appellant seeking leave to proceed against the company in liquidation under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The facts giving rise to the appeal may first be noticed. 2. M/s. Concert Capital Ltd. (hereinafter called 'the company') is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Act and is presently under liquidation. The company and its sister concern M/s. Concert Securities Ltd. had jointly taken a loan from the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd., the appellant herein and it is stated that the properties of the company had been mortgaged to secure that loan. It is the common case of the parties that the charge created on the properties of the company had not been registered with the Registrar of Companies under Section 125 of the ...
State of Kerala Vs. Jayasree
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-10-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT98
N.K. Sodhi, Ag.C.J.1. Jayasree K.N. (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) was appointed a Drawing Teacher in Seethathodu High School, Seethathodu, Pathanamthitta (for short the School) with effect from 1.6.1992. By order dated 19.8.1992 the District Educational Officer, Pathanamthitta fixed the staff strength of the School for the academic year 1992-93 and created one additional post of a Drawing Teacher in the pay Scale of Rs. 845-1570. On a scrutiny of the staff fixation, the Deputy Director (Education) by his order dated 30.1.1993 (copy of which is Ext.P3 on the record) abolished the newly, sanctioned post of the Drawing Teachers against which the petitioner had been appointed. Before passing the order a notice was issued to the Manager of the School and also to the petitioner who was the affected teacher to show cause why the post should not be abolished. The Deputy Director found that the School was having six Divisions in Standard VIII and five Divisions in Standard IX and ...
Rasi Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-10-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT282
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. Appellants in these appeals, accused 1 to 7, in S. C. No. 301/2001, on the file of the Sessions Court, Kozhikode, have been charged for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 506(ii) and 302 IPC read with Section 149 I.P.C., and also for the offences punishable under Section 27 (2) and (3) of Indian Arms Act, 1959. Accused 1 to 5 were convicted for all the offences charged against them under I.P.C., and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years respectively under Section 148 and Section 506(ii), and for life imprisonment under Section 302 I.P.C., with a fine of Rs. 25,000 in default of which to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. They also have been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 341 I.P.C. Accused 6 and 7 were convicted for all the offences charged under I.P.C., except 302 I.P.C., and sentenced on same terms as above. Accused 2 to 7 were also convicted under Section 27 (2) ...
Varghese Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-10-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1297; 2005(1)KLT635
ORDERR. Basant, J. 1. Is the accused vendor entitled to succeed in his plea of warranty under Section 19(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' notwithstanding the fact that he has not proved that the manufacturer from whom he purchased the article of food is duly licensed to sell the article of food which was sold to him? This is the only question canvassed before me in this revision against the concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence.2. On facts, there appears to be no serious dispute. The petitioner is the 1st accused. He allegedly sold adulterated corriander powder to the Food Inspector at 12.30 P.M. on 13.5.1990. Even at the time of sale to the Food Inspector he took up a plea that he had purchased the article in sealed packets from a manufacturer who had issued to him the requisite warranty as insisted by Section 19 of the P.F.A. Act. The Courts below do not appear to have entered any finding of fact against the assertion...
Naseera Beevi Vs. State Election Commission
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-09-2004
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT1108
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The petitioners are the members of Navaikulam Grama Panchayat in Thiruvananthapuram istrict. They are challenging Ext.P11 order of the Election Commission. By the said order, the Commission has held that they have voluntarily given up the membership of their political party and therefore, they have ceased to be the members of the above said Panchayat and are disqualified to be candidates to contest any election to the local bodies for a period of 6 years. The brief facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioners are the following:-2. In the election to the committee of Navaikulam Grama Panchayat held in September 2000, the candidates mainly belonged to two political fronts. For convenient reference, the fronts are called 'A' and 'B' fronts and the party of the petitioners is described as 'C' Party. The petitioners belong to 'C' party and they contested in the symbol of that party. Their party is part of 'A' front and the rival political group is the 'B' front...
Eanu Haji Vs. Mustafa
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-09-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT668
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The question that has come up for consideration is whether the commencement of new business during the pendency of the rent control proceedings would spell out lack of bona fides in a petition under Section 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965.2. Rent Control Petition was preferred by the landlord seeking eviction of two tenanted premises for the purpose of conducting business in auto garage, spare parts and a workshop. Tenanted premises is situated in Pookkayil Bazar Junction by the side of Unnial Road. Landlord started other business by name 'Siddique Hardwares' in a tenanted premises in Tirur-Tanur Road. Contention was raised by the tenant that by starting another business during the pendency of the tent control proceedings the bona fide need urged by the landlord as far as tenanted premises is concerned stood extinguished.3. Petition schedule building RCP 4/96 was entrusted to one Alavi on 1.4.1993. Petition schedule building in RCP. 10/96 was entrusted to one Musta...
Krishnan Nair Vs. Mohammed
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-09-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT546
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Is failure to mention the need for own occupation in the lawyer notice issued pertaining to Section 11(4)(ii) fatal to the claim under Section 11(3) is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.2: Landlord sent lawyer's notice dated 3.12.1991 contending that the tenant has used the premises in such a manner as to destroy its value and utility materially and permanently. Two weeks later he sent another notice dated 17.12.1991 seeking eviction on the ground of bonafide need for own occupation. Contention was raised by the tenant that non mentioning of bonafide need in the notice sent on 3.12.1991 would show that there is no bona fides in the plea raised under Section 11(3) and therefore the same has to be rejected. Rent Control Court repelled the contention of the tenant, but was accepted by the Appellate Authority holding that non-mention of the bonafide need in the first notice would show that there is no bona fide. Legislature has conte...
Gopi Vs. Joseph
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-08-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Ker231; 2004(2)KLT241
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The question that has come up for consideration in this case is whether failure to sign a registered notice intimating contravention of the conditions of lease 11 (4)(i) of Act 2 of 1965 would render an application for eviction non-maintainable.2. Section 11 (4)(i) of the Act enables the landlord to apply to Rent Control Court for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building if the tenant after commencement of Act 2 of 1965 without the consent of the landlord, transfers his right under the lease or sub-lets the entire building or any portion thereof if the lease does not confer on him any right to do so. The proviso to the said section obliges the landlord to send a registered notice to the tenant intimating the contravention of the condition of the lease if he seeks an order of eviction under Section 11(4)(i) and within thirty days of the receipt of notice of the contravention the tenant could terminate the transfer or s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »