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.
Ratheesh Babu Vs. U.G.C.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-13-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT158
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Can the action of the State Government in not making any reservation for the physical handicapped persons for selection to the posts in Class I and Class II categories in Government service including Universities in the State of Kerala be justified under Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights with Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), is the question that has come up for consideration before this Court.2. Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, the second respondent, invited applications from eligible candidates for various posts vide Ext.P1 notification, including the post of Lecturer in Social Work. Appellant is a physically handicapped person suffering from post polio residual paralysis of both the lower limbs with secondary scoliosis with 80% disability. Complaint of the appellant is that Ext.P1 notification does not contain any reservation for physically handicapped or disabled perso...
Raghava Poduval Vs. Special Tahsildar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-13-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT261
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.1. The grievance of die appellant is that the Land Acquisition Officer dismissed the application under Section 28A filed by him on the ground that Ms property is registered as other dry lands while the property which is subject matter of the judgment relied OB in the application stood registered in the revenue records as garden land. Upon his application, the Land Acquisition Officer made a reference under Section 28A(3) to the Court. The Court permitted the parties to adduce evidence. A Commissioner was deputed and he filed a report which indicates that appellant's land was a land planted with cashew trees and the trees were not high yielding ones. In other words the Court took the view that the lands covered by the judgment relied on by the appellant and the appellant's own land are not similar.2. It is transparently clear from the award of the officer and from the award of the Court that the appellant's property and the property which was the subject matter of t...
Dr. V. Mohandas Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-12-2004
Reported in: (2004)191CTR(Ker)445; [2004]271ITR558(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J. 1. Question of law referred in this case is as follows :'(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the conversion of the proprietary concern of the assessee into a partnership involved a gift which was not exempt under Section 5(1)(xiv) of the GT Act, 1958?'The facts of the case are as follows :2. Assessee, Dr. V. Mohandas, is a medical practitioner. From 1969 he has been running a nursing home at Attingal under the name 'V.V. Clinic'. On 1st April, 1984, he formed a partnership with his wife Dr. Molly M. Das and their son M. Vinod and daughter M. Veena to take over the hospital as partnership business. Till then Dr. Molly Das was working in the hospital as a salaried employee. The son Vinod was a final year MBBS student and the daughter Veena was studying for B.D.S. (Dentistry). Though the partnership deed was drawn on 12th Dec., 1984, it is stated in the deed that the partnership shall be deemed to have come i...
Mohandas Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-12-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT343
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. Question of law referred in this case is as follows:'(1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the conversion of the proprietory concern of the assessee into a partnership involved a gift which was not exempt under Section 5(1)(xiv) of the Gift Tax Act, 1958?'. The facts of the case are as follows:2. Assessee, Dr. V. Mohandas is a Medical Practitioner. From 1969 he has been running a Nursing Home at Attingal under the name 'V.V. Clinic'. On 1.4.1984, he formed a partnership with his wife Dr. Molly M. Das and their son M. Vinod and daughter M. Veena to take over the Hospital as partnership business. Till then Dr. Molly Das was working in the Hospital as a salaried employee. The son Vinod was a final year MBBS student and the daughter Veena was studying for B.P.S. (Dentistry). Though the partnership deed was drawn on 12.12.1984, it is stated in the deed that the partnership shall be deemed to have come into effec...
Thalavoor Grama Panchayat Vs. Salim
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-12-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT835
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. Secretary of a Panchayat, when the prosecution initiated by him failed, has approached this Court with this appeal. The prosecution initiated by the appellant was because of the default made by the first respondent in not remitting a portion of the bid amount to occupy a meat stall owned by the Panchayat for a particular year. The learned Magistrate found that the Panchayat has not substantiated that the first respondent has committed any offence punishable under Section 210 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, as the Panchayat had not provided the slaughter house facilities and did not even produce the agreement from which the liability to pay the bid amount arises.2. Assailing the acquittal, it is submitted that, existence of the agreement was admitted by the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that, the notification issued in terms of erstwhile Panchayat Act and the Rules framed there under have been saved in terms of Section 284 (2)...
Aiswarya Cashew Co. Vs. Krimpexx Overseas (P) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-12-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT1111
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The respondent appears and as agreed to by both sides, this Writ Petition itself is heard.2. The petitioner is the first defendant in O.S.82 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Kollam, a suit for money, filed by the first respondent. The suit was posted for trial on 13.2.2003 and then adjourned to 25.2.2003. On 25.2.2003 the parties were directed to file proof affidavit and the case was adjourned to 10.3.2003. On 10.3.2003 the defendants did not appear and contest. Hence the defendants were set ex parte and ex parte decree was passed. On the very same day the petitioner filed an application under Order IX, Rule 13 to set aside the ex parte decree. It was averred that the petitioner was physically present in the Court at the time of roll call and the case was called and kept aside; but subsequently when the case was called, the petitioner did not hear the number and hence he was set ex parte. The first respondent-plaintiff filed an objection conten...
Kunjamma Cheriyan Vs. Soloman
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-11-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD(Cri)5; IV(2005)BC140; 2005CriLJ1588
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The appellant/complaint initiated prosecution against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This ended in acquittal. Therefore, this appeal.2. The case put forth by the complainant was that a cheque for an amount of Rs. 11.775/- issued by the accused in favour of the complainant in consideration of the amount taken as loan by him bounced. Statutory notice did not result in payment. Therefore, the accused committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The case of the accused was that there was some transaction between him and one Maman, the brother of the husband of the complainant and towards the amounts due to him the cheque was issued. It was a blank cheque. That cheque was being made use of by the complainant. It was not supported by consideration. Moreover, there was material alteration in the cheque. The amount written in words and the name of the payee had been written admittedly by ...
E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Joseph
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-10-2004
Reported in: IV(2005)BC550; 2005(1)KLT648
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. Employees State Insurance (E.S.I.) Corporation is the appellant. First respondent issued a cheque to the E.S.I. Corporation for an amount of Rs. 21,120/- stated to be towards the contribution due as demanded in Ext.P3 series recovery notices. It was presented to the bank on 19.6.1995. The cheque was bounced. Statutory notice was issued. It did not result in payment of the money. So prosecution was initiated alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the 1st respondent. The main contention of the first respondent was that he had already objected to the recovery by filing I.C.88/95 in EX Court on 20.6.1995. The E.I. Court passed a conditional order of stay against recovery directing him to remit Rs. 5,000/- towards the amount demanded. He paid the said amount. Therefore, there was no cause of action to initiate the prosecution based on bouncing of Ext.P2 cheque. Appreciating this contention, the Court below acquitted t...
Ayyappan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-09-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ57; 2004(3)KLT254
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Is information furnished by an accused in his confession statement that he has handed over the stolen articles for disposal to another accused admissible in evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act? Is there any irreconcilable conflict between the decisions in Joseph v. State of Kerala, 1997 (1) KLJ 764, and Raveendran & Ors. v. State, 1989 (2) KLJ 534? These questions are thrown up for consideration in this revision petition.2. This revision petition is preferred by the petitioner - a person in custody, challenging the concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence imposed on him in a prosecution under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. He was granted the assistance of a legal aid counsel.3. Three persons faced indictment initially for the offences punishable under Sections 457, 380, and 414 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Accused 2 and 3 were convicted only for the offence punishable under Section 414 of the IPC. The petitioner/accused wa...
Sulaikha Clay Mines Vs. Alpha Clays
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-09-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Ker3; 2005(1)ARBLR237(Kerala); 2004(3)KLT192
J.B. Koshy, J.1. For procedural violation, can an arbitral award be set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and whether Court has power to remit back the award to the same arbitrator or any other arbitrator vis-a-vis or dehors the power under Section 34(4) of the Act are some of the important questions discussed in this judgment.2. Appellant and first respondent in this case are partnership firms engaged in the business of mining of china clay. Their mines are contiguously situated with a common boundary, running in the north-south direction. They have jointly secured an order for supply of china clay to M/s. English Indian Clays Limited. Since the appellant firm did not get sales-tax registration certificate, the two firms agreed that mining can be started from the respondent's firm. Mining was started from first respondent's firm on 23.11.1995. 23.11.1995, appellant firm also got sales-tax registration and joined...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »