Kerala Court July 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.
Siby Joseph Vs. State Election Commission
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-30-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT1106
M. Ramachandran, J.1. In respect of a charge under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner had been subjected to prosecution. On conviction, the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Idukki had sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. Against the conviction and sentence, the petitioner had filed an appeal as Criminal Appeal No.65 of 2004 before the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha. The Sessions Judge has suspended the sentence in Criminal M.P. No. 872 of 2004.2. The petitioner was holding the position of an elected member of Ward No.3 of Vathikudi Grama Panchayat in Idukki District. The second and third respondents herein, who were respectively a voter and a Panchayat member, had submitted a petition before the State Election Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram pointing out that in view of the above development, the Panchayat member is liable to be disqualified. This was by way of an application under ...
Cherinjumpatty Thampuratty Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-23-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR94]; 2004(3)KLT303; (2005)ILLJ32Ker
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The question that has come up for consideration in this case is whether the Government has got the power to refer a dispute between an employee and a temple governed by the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 to the Industrial Tribunal in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. This Writ Petition has been preferred by the Trustee of Pandamangalam Devas worn questioning the legality of the Government Order dated 20.12.2003 referring the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal. Fifth respondent was working as a Vazhipadu Clerk in the Pandamangalam Sreekrishna Temple. He was suspended by the Devaswom by its order dated 25.4.2002 pending enquiry into the allegations of misbehaviour and financial misappropriation. Fifth respondent submitted his reply which was found unsatisfactory and charge sheet was served on him. The explanation given by the 5th respondent to this charge sheet wa...
Ashokan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-23-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT104
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J. 1. The petitioner was the successful bidder for auto rickshaw bearing Registration No. KL-8/L-8943 in the auction for sale conducted by the 3rd respondent Assistant Excise Commissioner. One Mr. Saji was the registered owner of that vehicle. It was purchased by him, availing the finance provided by the 4th respondent. So, there was an endorsement of the hypothecation arrangement in the R.C. book of that vehicle. Later, the vehicle was involved in an abkari offence and the 3rd respondent confiscated the vehicle under Section 67B of the Kerala Abkari Act. Thereafter, it was sold in public auction. The petitioner purchased it and moved for registration of the vehicle in his name. The same was allowed by the 2nd respondent, but the hypothecation arrangement with the 4th respondent was also endorsed in the R.C. book. The petitioner caused to issue Ext.P4 lawyer notice to the 2nd respondent to delete that endorsement. When there was no response from the part of the sa...
Kurian Thomas Vs. Sreedharan Menon
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-23-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT326
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Is it necessary that the tenant should abandon the building so as to attract Section 11(4)(v) of Act 2 of 1965, is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.2. Rent Control Court concluded that mere cessation of occupation is not sufficient to attract Section 11(4)(v), but there must be an abandonment of the building. Rent Control Court held that since tenant has not abandoned the building and continued to pay rent, there is no cessation of occupation by abandonment and hence Section 11 (4)(v) would not be attracted. The order of the Rent Control Court was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. Hence this revision petition by the landlord.3. Petition schedule building was rented out to the respondent-tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 80/- in the year 1972 for lodging purposes. Respondent was a stenographer in the judicial department and he retired from service in the year 1986. According to the landlord, after retirement tenant continued to occu...
University of Kerala Vs. Molly Francis
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-21-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Ker11; 2004(2)KLT1157
R. Bhaskaran, J.1. This appeal is filed by the University of Kerala represented by its Registrar. The suit was for damages. The plaintiff was a student of Alphonsa Women's College, Palai during the year 1981-1984 for B.A. Degree Course. She wrote her final B.A. examination in April, 1984 and she was declared failed in subsidiary subject 'Indian History'. The plaintiff applied for revaluation and after the revaluation she was declared passed as she secured 36 marks. The result was not declared before the September examination in which she obtained 55 marks in Indian History. The result of the revaluation was published only in June, 1985. According to the plaintiff she suffered serious loss and mental agony by reason of the failure of the defendant in not publishing the result before the September examination and she lost one year on account of the default of the University. She therefore claimed damages to the extent of Rs. 33,000/-. Since the university refused to pay the amount even a...
Reghunath Vs. Thiruvalla Municipality
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-21-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT75
M. Ramachandran, J. 1. As a tenant the petitioner had been occupying building No. 232 of Ward No. 10 of Thiruvalla Municipality. This was one of the rooms in a three storied building consisting of six rooms. The case of the petitioner is that he had obtained the premises on lease from one K.V. Gopalan Achari, the father of the third respondent but from 1988 onwards the landlords were attempting to evict him. R.C.P.No. 3 of 1998 met with no success, and the judgment had been confirmed in C.R.P.No. 639 of 1993. When there was forcible demolition attempted, in view of the intervention of the Munsiff s Court, by way of O.S.No. 280 of 2003, the third respondent, who had come to the shoes of his father by that time, had been constrained to give an undertaking that he will not take any steps for forcible eviction/demolition. As at present, R.C.P.Nos. 4 and 6 of 2004 also have been filed by the landlord, for the purpose of eviction and they are yet to attain finality.2. In the meanwhile, by su...
Abdul Rasheed Vs. Tahsildar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-21-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT819
G. Sivarajan, J.1. Petitioners two in number are running a hospital at Perinthalmanna in Malappuram District in the name and style 'Moulana Hospital'. Initially the petitioners constructed a building consisting of two floors for the purpose of conducting the hospital in the year 1992 and the same was assessed to building tax under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 (for short, 'the Act') as per proceedings dated 24.1.1992. The petitioners had subsequently constructed three more floors to the said building. The plinth area of the entire building including the one which is assessed as per Ext.P1 came to 7119.04 sq. metres and the building tax was assessed at Rs. 8,36,400/-. After deducting the tax assessed as per Ext.P1 Rs. 2,54,050/- and paid the balance tax was assessed at Rs. 5,82,350/-. Being aggrieved by this assessment order (Ext.P2), the petitioners took up the matter in appeal before the 2nd respondent which was rejected by order dated 30.3.1998 (Ext.P3). The same was confirmed in...
Mulloor Chit Fund Vs. Pathumma Beevi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-20-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT1078
ORDERR. Bhaskaran, J.1. Today Adv. Sri. T.M. Mohammed Yousuff appears and takes notice for the respondents and requests for time for arguments. On the last posting when it came up for admission, I felt doubt as to whether I shall order notice to the respondents in the Review Petition direct as the counsel for the respondents who appeared in the appeal was not present in Court. Since it is a general question which may arise frequently and the other advocates also will be interested to address arguments, this Court by order dated 17.6.2004 directed the office to issue notice on this Review Petition to the Secretary, Kerala High Court Advocates Association also. It was to address arguments on the question whether a notice to the counsel appearing in the case will be sufficient notice after the appeal is finally disposed of and when the Review Petition is filed or is it necessary to order notice to the parties direct.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner in the Review Petition relied o...
Krishnan Nair Vs. Vasudeva Panicker
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-20-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT124
Pius C. Kuriakose, J. 1. The defendants 2 to 5 and one of the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant in a suit for partition are the appellants. The first respondent filed the suit alleging that the plaint B schedule properties originally belonged to one Paru Amma, the mother of defendants 1 to 4 and one Sinnammu Amma, the mother of defendants 5 to 10; Paru Amma and Sinnammu Amma obtained these properties along with certain other properties by virtue of a Will executed by one Velayudhan Nair, their uncle; the Will dated 30.11.1930 is a registered Will; upon the demise of the testator the Will came into effect and the properties were being possessed and enjoyed by Paru Amma, Sinnammu Amma and their children. Thereafter Sinnammu Amma's share in the properties were assigned to one Kunhilekshmi Amma as per assignment deed No. 2918 of 1944 of the S. R. O., Feroke; who assigned the properties to Paru Amma, i.e. Sinnammu Amma's sister under assignment deed No. 4581 of 1944 of t...
Mohammed Ismail Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-19-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT322
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The point to be decided in this Writ Petition is whether the Judicial Magistrate, before whom a vehicle seized under the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, is produced, is competent to give interim custody of the same to the registered owner. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are the following:2. The petitioner is the owner of a lorry bearing Registration No. KL5/F-7051. The driver of the said vehicle was taken into custody by the Forest Officials on 16.6.2004. His driver confessed that on 13.6.2004, the said lorry was used for transporting forest timber worth Rs. 75,000/-. On the basis of the said confession, the petitioner's vehicle was taken into custody under Ext.P2 mahazar. As per Ext.P2, the value of the logs transported is Rs. 2,50,000/- and the value of the lorry is Rs. 3 lakhs. The petitioner submits, the goods and the lorry were seized under Section 52(1) of the Forest Act, for action under Section 61A of the...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »