Kerala Court August 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.
John Vs. Manuel
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-20-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT318
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Tenant is the revision petitioner. Eviction was sought for under Sections 11(3) and 11(8) of Act 2 of 1965. Rent Control Court treated the petition as one under Section 11(8) of the Act and ordered eviction, which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. We are therefore concerned in this case only with the question as to whether eviction ordered under Section 11(8) of the Act is legal or not.2. The petition schedule building is the southern most room in the ground floor of a two storeyed building known as 'Anjiparambil buildings'. There are seven shop rooms in the ground floor of the said building. On the southern side of the building there lies the road to south railway station. Petition schedule building faces to south railway station road. Three rooms on the northern side of the petition schedule building are occupied by a firm and they are conducting leather business. Landlord is in possession of the room which situates immediately north of those thr...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. John Mathew Lr of Late N.J. Mathew
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-20-2004
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Ker)17; [2005]272ITR243(Ker)
K.K. Denesan, J.1. The question of law referred is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and considering that a search was conducted on the premises of the assessee under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, is the Tribunal right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled for the benefits under Amnesty circular ?'2. The assessee filed the return of income for the asst. yr. 1985-86 claiming the benefits of Amnesty circulars. The AO rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that no full disclosure was made and, therefore, the assessee was not entitled to the benefits under the Amnesty circulars. The Dy. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO. The assessee took up the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the benefits under the Amnesty Scheme.3. The question whether an assessee in whose premises a search was conducted by the Departmental officers will not be entitled to the benefit of the Amnesty...
Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-19-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT228
M. Ramachandran, J.1. The petitioners were in possession of 7.60 Ares of land in Re.Sy. no.37 of Block No. 172 of Kollam Village. The property as above is situated adjacent to NH47. Petitioners submit that they had proposed intention for building a shopping complex and though the plan had been submitted to the Corporation in 1993, the project had to be abandoned since they were advised that the Authority had a master plan on their sleeves. The land with a high commercial potential was remaining unproductive.2. By Section 4(1) notification dated 25.5.2000, under Land Acquisition Act a portion of the properties had been earmarked for acquisition and later has been taken over. The petitioner has produced a rough sketch of his holdings as Ext. P1. It shows that entire road frontage had been divested for a public purpose. It is proposed for a bus bay, and the rest of his holding skirts the taken over portion, at its entire length. ,3. Petitioners, had no basic objection about such acquisiti...
Devi Vs. Haridas
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-19-2004
Reported in: I(2005)BC273; 2004CriLJ4710; 2004(3)KLT355
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Is a person who has not signed the cheque, nevertheless a joint holder of the account which can be operated by any of the account holders, culpably liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act? This is the short question that arises for determination in this Revision Petition.2. The petitioner - a woman, has a joint account with the bank. She and her husband are competent to operate the account separately. The cheque in question was issued by her husband, the 1st accused. Such cheque was issued to the complainant for the discharge of a liability of the 1st accused. The cheque was dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of funds. Notice of demand issued to both the accused did not succeed in securing payment. The petitioner herein (the 2nd accused) specifically asserted in the reply notice that he has no liability under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The complainant filed a private complaint to initiate criminal proceedings against both the accused un...
Valsakumar Vs. Supreme Financiers
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-19-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Ker342; 2004(3)KLT378
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Would the continuance of the landlord as a partner of the sublessee firm amount to a positive act of consent to sublease the premises is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.2. Landlords are the revision petitioners. Eviction was sought for under Sections 11(2), 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of Act 2 of 1965. Rent Control Court dismissed the petition on all the grounds. Landlords took up the matter in appeal. Appellate Authority also dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision.3. First respondent, stated to be a partnership firm by name 'Supreme Financiers', was inducted into the schedule building as per Ext.A1 rent deed dated 1.2.1983. Subsequently adjacent building was also built and handed over to the first respondent. The wall between the two rooms was demolished and the two rooms were being kept in the possession of the first respondent. Monthly rent of the building was Rs. 500/-. Later upstair portion was constructed arid the first respon...
All India Lawyers Union Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-19-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)KLT629
J.B. Koshy, J. 1. This Writ Petition is filed by the All India Lawyers Union, Kerala State Committee as a public interest litigation challenging Ext.P2 order of Taluk Land Board, Kozhikode in so far as it exempted 35 acres of land from the property owned by late P.V. Sami and family in the suo motu land revision case. Petitioner has also arrayed as respondent Mr. M. Ratna Singh, Advocate General and Mr. Raj an Joseph, Additional Advocate General by name as respondents 3 and 4 in this case imputing mala fides and impropriety on their parts. Apart from the prayer for issuing a writ of certiorari for quashing Ext. P2 there was also a prayer for directing the State Government to take appropriate steps by filing a regular Civil Revision Petition to protect Government land from being given to unauthorised persons. Shri G. Janardhana Kurup, a very senior member of the Bar argued on behalf of the petitioner. We have heard Senior Government Pleader M. Ajay for respondents 1 to 4 at the time of ...
Radha Vs. Dy. Director Education
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-18-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT206
Kurian Joseph, J.1. The question to be decided in these two cases is whether a teacher temporarily promoted as Headmaster in the absence of a qualified teacher under Rule 45C of Chap.XIV-A KER is entitled to the scale of pay attached to the post of Headmaster.2. In order to understand the legal position it is necessary to appreciate the factual background. Therefore, reference is made to the facts of the former case,3. The petitioner Smt. Radha entered service as LPSA on 8.6.1966. There arose a vacancy of Headmistress in the school under the third respondent on 22.11.1996. There were no qualified hands available for promotion. Petitioner was the seniormost teacher. To quote from the counter affidavit at paragraph 4, 'since no qualified teachers for the Headmaster post were available in the school the appointment of Smt. A.G. Radha, the seniormost teacher was approved as Headmistress temporarily with effect from 22.11.96 under Rule 45C..... Smt. A.G. Radha has more than 30 years of qual...
Koshy Titus Vs. Crystal Biscuits India Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-18-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD(Cri)15; 2004(3)KLT882
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. The prosecution initiated by the appellant/complainant alleging the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the first respondent ended in acquittal. Therefore this appeal. Acquittal was only on the ground that the complaint was filed beyond the period of one month after the cause of action had arisen. It is submitted that the finding of the Court below that the complaint was filed beyond the period of limitation is not justified. The appellant, in order to substantiate his case relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in Central Bank of India v. Saxons Farms (1999 (3) KLT 484 (SC)) and of the Delhi High Court in Padmini Polymers v. Unit Trust of India (2003(3) KLT SN 8 Case No. 10).2. On the other hand, it is submitted by the counsel for the accused that, when admittedly there were two notices issued by the complainant/appellant, it was up to the complainant to prove that the first notice did not contain any d...
Sobhana Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-18-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT131
Kurian Joseph, J. 1. Counting of provisional service for the purpose of increment has always been a subject matter of head ache not only to the Government, but this Court also. In view of the decisions in Hussain v. Kerala Water Authority, 1996 (2) KLT 555 and Jose Jacob v. State of Kerala, 1998 (2) KLT 873, it is now well settled that provisional service prior to 1.10.1994 followed by regularisation or regular appointment with or without break in the same category of posts is liable to be counted for the purpose of increments and that by the revision of pay scale, the identity of the post and its scale of pay will not be lost. There remains still a question to be tackled -- whether the regularisation of provisional service or regular appointment followed by the provisional service should be before 1.10.1994.2. Petitioners in the two cases are Junior Public Health Nurses. They have provisional service prior to 1.10.1994. But they entered regular service in the same post only after 1.10...
Anitha Vs. Kanjirappilly Block Panchayat
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-18-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT211
M. Ramachandran, J.1. Nine members of the Erumely Grama Panchayat have filed this Writ Petition, inter alia praying that Ext.P1 proceedings are to be quashed. Ext.P1 series have been issued by the Secretary to the Kanjirappilly Block Panchayat, who had been the authorised Officer by the State Election Commission, for presiding over a meeting of a No Confidence motion, and in the course of his above duties. By the notices, the members had been advised that a meeting was to be convened on 7th of August, 2004 for considering the No Confidence motion, which had been received by him against the President and Vice President of the Grama Panchayat. It is not disputed that a meeting had been convened thereafter. The petitioners had refrained from participating in the meeting, on the plea that notice, as issued by the second respondent, was not in consonance with law. The motion as above had been carried and thereafter the members had elected a fresh President and Vice President. The Writ Petit...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »