Kerala Court June 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.
Venugopal Vs. Krishnankutty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-30-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT855
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. This writ of habeas corpus has been moved by the father of two minor children for their release from the custody of respondents 1 and 2. Respondents 1 and 2 are the grand parents of the two minor children, children were born to the petitioner and third respondent. Elder daughter is aged 8 years and the younger son is aged 6 years.2. Petitioner and third respondent are living separately. Marriage was solemnized on 21.4.1994. Complaint of the petitioner is that third respondent eloped with another person leaving the children in the custody of her parents. Petitioner therefore approached fourth respondent, Deputy Superintendent of Police, for return of the children from the custody of respondents 1 and 2. Complaint of the petitioner is that respondents 1 and 2 are illegally detaining the children at the instance of the third respondent and his wife. Grand parents, according to the petitioner, are putting the children to considerable agony and for the welfare of t...
Sainaba Vs. Shamsudeen
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-30-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT863
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Can a tenant remaining in possession of the tenanted premises challenge the legality of a Muslim gift deed executed in favour of the landlord on the ground that there has not been a delivery of property, is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.2. Petition schedule building was gifted in favour of the present landlord by the father as per gift deed No. 3689/95 of Sub Registry Office, Aluva. Landlord-tenant relationship existed between the petitioner's father and the respondents before the execution of the gift deed. Petitioner's father died on 18.9.2000. Subsequent to his death petitioner continued the C class business conducted by his father. Landlord wanted the tenanted premises so as to conduct a stationary shop and ladies store. Rent Control Petition was filed under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965. Tenant resisted the petition contending that there is no bona fides in the plea. It is stated that the petition was not...
Ambikadevi Vs. Easwari
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-30-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Ker349; 2005(2)CTLJ87(Ker); 2004(2)KLT1056
R. Bhaskaran, J.1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No. 267 of 1994 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam. The suit was for specific performance of agreement for sale of the plaint schedule property. The suit was dismissed by the trail court on the ground that the plaint schedule, shows an extent of 8 cents of land whereas the land actually available with defendants 1 to 3 has only 6.9 cents.2. The case of the plaintiff is that by Ext.A1 agreement dated 7.12.1993 defendants 1 to 3 agreed for sale of approximately 8 cents of land as described in the schedule to the agreement to the plaintiff. The consideration fixed was Rs. 5500/- per cent and a sum of Rs. 5000/- was paid as advance sale consideration on the date of the agreement. It is stated that the agreement also stipulated that the property should be measured at the expense of defendants 1 to 3 to fix the boundaries and that the plaintiff should be convinced about the title and documents in respect of th...
Rukhiya Beevi Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-30-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT938
M. Ramachandran, J. 1. The second respondent, who is the Secretary of the Marady Grama Panchayat, had issued a notice to the petitioner on 25.2.2004 asking her to show cause as to why the industrial activities carried on by her in the 6th ward (Ward No. 2) of the Panchayat should not be stopped and the licence cancelled, since she had not obtained the No Objection Certificate (consent) from the Pollution Control Board, as stipulated in the licence. The petitioner, by Ext.P4, had given a detailed reply, but by Ext.P5 dated 4.3.2004, she had been advised that since the complaints were subsisting, she was obliged to produce a certificate from the Pollution Control Board, latest by 10.3.2004. The Writ Petition had been submitted by the petitioner pointing out that even though there was no pollution as alleged, a certificate had been applied for from the Pollution Control Board, and in the meanwhile enforcement of Exts.P3 and P4 orders should be interdicted. During the pendency of the Writ ...
Rosamma Mathew Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-30-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR96]; 2004(3)KLT723
G. Sivarajan, J.1. Both the petitioners, at the time of filing this Writ Petition were werking as Senior Supervisors in the 5th respondent society. It is the case of the petitioners that they were entitled to get promotion to the said post based on their seniority in the post of Senior Supervisor as per the rules of the 5th respondent. The petitioners' grievance is that their juniors (respondents 6 to 12) were promoted to the post of AMPOs ignoring the superior claims of the petitioners based on seniority. Proceedings dated 30.12.1994 (Ext.P8) is the promotion order issued by the 5th respondent by which respondent No. 6 and respondents 10 to 12 were promoted as AMPOs. Similarly/by another order dated 6.7.1992 (Ext.R5(a)) respondents 7 to 9 were also promoted as AMPOs earlier. The petitioners have filed this Writ Petition seeking for a writ of mandamus directing respondents 2, 3 and 4 to direct the 5th respondent to rescind the promotion granted to respondents 6 and 10 to 12 and direct ...
MartIn Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-29-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3766; 2004(2)KLT1037
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J.1. This bail application was referred to by a learned single Judge disagreeing with the direction of another learned single Judge in Usman v. S.I. of Police (2003 (2) KLT 594). The above order was already overruled by a Division Bench of this Court in Balan v. State of Kerala (2003 (3) KLT 472). But direction No. iii in Usman's case was not considered specifically by the Division Bench. The direction No. iii is as follows:'iii. Every application for bail/anticipatory bail must be disposed of by the respective subordinate courts in the State on the date of receipt of the application itself ideally if moved with sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor. At any rate all Courts including the Sessions Courts shall scrupulously ensure that bail applications are disposed of within the outer limit of three working days of their filing without fail.'It is true that bail applications should be disposed of expeditiously and if a person applies for bail, it is the obligation of...
Rejimol Vs. Asst. Educational Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-29-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT899
Kurian Joseph, J.1. Rule 34 Chapter XIV-A KER provides for a combined seniority list of Upper Primary and Lower Primary School Teachers. Rule 1(b) of Chapter XXIII KER in the matter of fixation of staff strength provides that in any L.P. School there shall be as many posts of Lower Primary School Assistants as the number of class divisions reduced by one and that one is the Headmaster. Rule 5 of the said Chapter provides that in an Upper Primary School there should be one post of Headmaster, as many posts of Upper Primary School Assistants as the number of class divisions reduced by one and as many posts of Lower Primary School Assistants as there are divisions in the Lower Primary School classes. The post of Lower Primary School Assistant and Upper Primary School Assistant is not interchangeable. In a situation where the Headmaster of the Upper Primary School is a teacher qualified to teach only in the Lower Primary School, whether the consequential reduction of posts should be in the...
Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board Vs. William Raynold
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-29-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT1083
N.K. Sodhi, C.J.1. This order will dispose of W.A. No. 1197 of 2002 arising out of O.P. No. 1213 of 1998 and also W.P.(C) No. 9677 of 2004 which has been referred to be heard by a Division Bench along with the Writ Appeal as common questions of law- and fact arise in both the cases. While allowing O.P. No. 1213 of 1998 (William Raynold v. Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund Board ((2002 (3) KLT 377)) the learned Single Judge has held that the amount due from an employer in pursuance of the provisions of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act') is not 'public revenue due on land' within the meaning of Cl.(j) of Section 2 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (hereinafter called 'the Revenue Recovery Act'), and therefore the same could not be recovered by arrest of the defaulter and his detention in prison under Section 65 of the latter Act. The correctness of this view has been doubted by a learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 9677 of 2...
Praveen Vs. Ismayil
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-29-2004
Reported in: II(2005)BC525; 2005CriLJ1644; 2005(1)KLT559
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The prosecution launched under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ended in acquittal of the 1st respondent. Therefore, this appeal at the instance of the complainant. The reason for the acquittal was that the complaint was filed beyond the period of limitation provided for in Section 142(b) as it then stood, before the amendment by Act 55/2002. .2. The facts relating to the issue are as follows. Statutory notice was tendered for delivery on the accused and he refused it on 3.8.96. Notice was received back by the complainant on 9.8.96. On the 45th day from 9.8.96, complaint was filed on 23.9.96. Whether this is a belated complaint is the moot question. As per clause (b) of the proviso to Section 13 8 of the Act, the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, shall make a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of informatio...
Joseph Vs. District Collector
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-25-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT1029
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.A question of considerable importance arises for decision in this Writ Petition. The question is whether to maintain an application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act for redetermination of the amount of compensation payable to a party who had not made an application to the Collector under Section 18, it is necessary that the Court award relied on by the applicant should be one passed on a reference made by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 18 at the behest of some other owner whose land was also acquired under the same Section 4(1) notification. Incidentally the question is whether the expression 'award of the Court' employed in the heading and body of Section 28A(1) can include an award made by the Court in a reference case registered under Section 28A(3) also2. The short facts are that the petitioner's property extending to 9.20 Acres was acquired on the basis of an award passed by the 2nd respondent, Land Acquisition Officer for the Muvattup...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »