Kerala Court January 2005 Judgments
Jamal Vs. Safia Beevi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-31-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT359
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Can a landlord unite different causes of actions against different tenants in a single Rent Control Petition in the event of which such a petition will be bad for misjoinder of causes of actions or misjoinder of parties due to multifariousness, is the question that has come up for consideration in these cases.2. A Division Bench of this Court in C.R.P. Nos. 714 of 1992 and 573 of 1993, to which one of us (K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.) was a party has taken the view that rent control legislation does not contemplate a single application against separate tenants holding separate lease arrangements. However it was opined that Rent Control Court can order consolidation of such applications for the purpose of collecting evidence if the Court deems it expedient to do so either because common questions are involved in all of them or on account of any other reason. Another Division Bench of this Court consisting of P.K. Balasubramanyan, J. (as he then was) has considere...
Tag this Judgment!Sreedevi Amma Vs. Radha Devi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-31-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT796
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The first respondent was appointed as an High School Assistant (H.S.A.) on 15.7.1974 in an aided school. The petitioner was appointed as an H.S.A. in that school on 15.7.1976. Both of them had continuous service of more than 12 years immediately preceding 31.3.1999, on which date the post of the Head Master of the School fell vacant on superannuation of the then incumbent. Both of them possessed the requisite qualifications for being promoted to the post of the Head Master.2. The unfortunate fate of the School in question is that, in view of the disputes between the participants in the educational agency, at that time there appears to have been an arrangement whereby there would be a change of management between rival groups during every financial year (academic year).3. By Ext.P1 dated 31.3.1999, the then Manager of the School appointed the petitioner as the Headmistress.4. By virtue of the aforesaid arrangement as regards management, a new Manager ca...
Tag this Judgment!Sheela Vs. Gopalakrishnan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD(Cri)41; [2006]129CompCas93(Ker); 2005CriLJ3274; 2005(1)KLT877
J.M. James, J.1. The receipt of a registered notice by the wife of the respondent, hereinafter referred to as 'the accused', with acknowledgement due, sent by the appellant-complainant under proviso (b) to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in short 'the Act', whether is sufficient notice and dismissal of complaint by the Magistrate as the said notice is invalid is sustainable under the Act, are the points that arise for consideration.2. The complainant filed a complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mavelikara, as Ext. P1 cheque dated 20.12.1999, has been dishonoured, when presented for clearance. She, therefore, sent Ext.P4 registered notice. It was received Crl. A. No. 643 of 2004. Decided on 28th January, 2005. by the wife of the accused. The learned Magistrate accepted the contention of the accused that the receipt of the notice by the wife, is not a sufficient notice as contemplated under the Act. The Court also accepted the principle contain...
Tag this Judgment!Kochukunju Stephen Vs. Ashia Ummal
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)KLT944
R. Bhaskaran, J.1. This appeal is filed by the additional 26th defendant in O.S.No. 237 of 1963 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Nedumangad. The suit was filed for partition of 13 items. The Trial Court passed a preliminary decree on 23.5.1967 in respect of items excluding items 1,2,6 and 20 in item No. 4. The plaintiff was granted a decree for partition of 119/576 shares. The appeal and second appeal against the preliminary decree ended in dismissal. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed an application I.A.No. 253 of 1977 for final decree. Pending the final decree application, the 13th defendant died on 1.2.1980. His widow and children filed I.A. 1345 of 1981 for impleading them as additional defendants. That was allowed. Defendants 22, 23, 25, 26 and 29 filed C.R.P. No. 2108 of 1983. This Court disposed of the C.R.P. in the following words:'10. When a defendant dies and if no legal representative is impleaded within time the result according to Order 22, Rule 4(3) is that the suit as ...
Tag this Judgment!Dataware Design Labs (P) Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-28-2005
Reported in: III(2005)BC177; [2005]127CompCas176(Ker); 2005(2)KLT96
ORDERP.R. Raman, J.1.Both these Writ Petitions raise common questions of fact and law and hence they are disposed of by this common judgment.2. Petitioner in WP(C) 19073/2004 is a Private Ltd. Company who is a respondent in O.A. 335/2002 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as DRT), Ernakulam. The said O.A. was filed by the first respondent -- State Bank of India, for obtaining a certificate of recovery under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The said O.A. was filed by the Bank on 10.7.2002. On 11.11.2002, petitioner herein filed a written statement in which he also raised a counter claim. By Ext.P1 proceedings under date 21.10.2003, the Debt Recovery Tribunal directed the defendants to pay court fee on a counter claim. Thereupon, petitioner preferred I.A. 1047/2003 seeking review of the said order contending that in the absence of any statutory provision for levying court-fee on the counter claim on the dat...
Tag this Judgment!Jacob Joseph Vs. Devassy
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-28-2005
Reported in: 2005ACJ1962; 2005(2)KLT259
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Appellant is the claimant in O.P. (M.V.) No.809 of 1993 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. The said claim petition was filed seeking compensation of Rs. 9.25,000/- for the death of an elephant owned by the claimant in a road accident occurred on 18.2.1993 at about 8.00 p.m. at Thrissur-Kunnamkulam Public road. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the second respondent and the vehicle involved in the accident was owned by the first respondent and insured by the third respondent insurance company. However, no compensation was awarded as third respondent insurance company which insured the offending vehicle itself has insured the elephant involving in the same accident also and the insurance company has paid compensation for the death of the elephant in full satisfaction of the claim. Ext.B2 is the subrogation deed. Ext.B3 is the insurance policy by which the elephant was insured. The Tribunal found that ...
Tag this Judgment!Omana Vs. Kesavan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-27-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)KLT893
R. Bhaskaran, J.1. The questions of law formulated in the second appeal on which learned counsel on both sides were heard read as follows:1. Whether the Courts below were right in interpreting Ext.A1 as a gift deed?2. Whether the suit had not abated as a whole when the petition to implead the legal heirs of the 1st plaintiff was dismissed?After hearing the learned counsel on both sides at length I feel that both questions are substantial questions to be considered in the appeal.Question No. 12. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The first defendant Kalyani was the admitted owner of the plaint schedule property. Kalyani has no issues. The plaintiffs are the children of Kalyani' s sister and defendants 3 and 2 are the son and daughter-in-law respectively of Kalyani's brother. Ext.A1 is the alleged gift deed executed by Kalyani in favour of plaintiffs. Ext. A3 is the cancellation deed of Ext. A1 by Kalyani and Exts. A2 and A4 are the sale deeds of portions of plaint schedule proper...
Tag this Judgment!Aboobacker Vs. Punjab National Bank
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-27-2005
Reported in: III(2005)BC390; [2005]127CompCas519(Ker); 2005(1)KLT947; [2005]64SCL42(Ker)
K.M. Joseph, J.1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging Exts.P4 and P7. Ext.P4 is a notice issued to the petitioner by the respondent Bank under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. To Ext.P4 the petitioner filed Ext.P5 dated 16.11.2004. Ext.P6 is a notice issued by the Bank referring to the representation given by the petitioner whereunder it is inter alia stated that if the petitioner does not comply with the notice issued by the Bank, the Bank will proceed with further steps under the Act for taking possession. A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein there is reference to the proposal made by the petitioner for one time settlement and its rejection by the Bank and the request to improve the offer. It is stated in Ext. P5 also that there is a request for one time settlement. Even though there is a proposal for Rs. 8 lakhs, no amount was deposited contends th...
Tag this Judgment!Hajara Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-27-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT206
P.R. Raman, J.1. Petitioners were assessed to building tax in respect of the building bearing Nos. 6/990A, A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5 of Mattancherry Village. The land was purchased by the petitioners in 1982 and thereafter the building in question was constructed in 1983-1984. The building has a ground floor, first floor and second floor. For the purpose of assessment, the plinth area of all the floors were taken into account and the entire building was taken as the unit of assessment. Though the petitioners had a contention that each floors should be separately assessed treating it as a separate building, the said contention was not accepted by the authorities and the matter has already become final. As such, this question does not arise for consideration. The building tax was assessed under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 based on the return filed by the petitioners. It was assessed to tax at Rs. 9,853 fixing the total capital value of the building at Rs. 3,33,608/-. Petitioners were s...
Tag this Judgment!Karthiyani Vs. Ramanathan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-25-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Ker241; 2005(2)KLT115
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Revision petitioners have invoked Section 415 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the orders rejecting their applications filed under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. seeking amendment of the plaint. Court took the view that if those applications are allowed the same would alter the nature of the suit and also cause prejudice to the defendants. Respondents took up a preliminary objection stating that these Revision Petitions are not maintainable in view of the CPC Amendment Act, 46 of 1999. In view of the amendment, interlocutory orders passed by Courts subordinate to High Court which does not have effect of final disposal of suit or proceedings cannot be challenged before High Court under Section 115 of the CPC.2. The question whether under such circumstance the power under Articles 226 and 227 can be exercised came up for consideration before me Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, 2003 (3) KLT 490 (SC). Apex Court has laid down various guideline with r...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »