Kerala Court January 2005 Judgments
Joy Joseph Vs. D.F.O.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-25-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2405; 2005(2)KLT456
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Revision petitioner is the registered owner of a mini lorry bearing registration No. KL-7/Q-8946. Lorry was seized by the Sub Inspector of Police, Erattupetta while it was transporting timber logs without any valid documents and handed over to the Forest Ranger Officer, Erumely for further action as per Forest Act. Articles were produced before the Authorised Officer, Divisional Forest Officer, Kottayam on 23.8.1999 for initiating proceedings under Section 61A of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961. During the course of investigation revision petitioner filed O.P.22578/99 for getting the vehicle released and this Court vide judgment dated 7.9.1999 directed release of the vehicle on furnishing sufficient security. Vehicle was released on the original title deed No. 431 relating to 4 acres of land owned by the petitioner and encumbrance certificate issued by the Sub Register, Rajakumari and after executing a bond.2. Enquiry revealed that the timber logs transported ...
Tag this Judgment!EdwIn Tomson Vs. Kunhalikutty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-25-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT380
B. Subhashan Reddy, C.J.1. These three Writ Petitions have been filed as pro bono publico seeking action against Mr. P.K. Kunhalikutty who was a Cabinet Minister in the present Government till first week of January of this year, but later resigned. He is the 2nd respondent in W.P.(C)No. 33821/2004, 1st respondent in W.P.(C)No. 34015/2004 and 4th respondent in W.P.(C) No. 34301/2004. Allegations are common to him to the effect that he is involved in the offences committed under Crime No. 282/1997 of Nadakavu Police Station, Kozhikode. The above crime was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by Anweshi Women's Counselling Centre alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 361, 366(A) and 377 of the Indian Penal Code.2. One Ms. Sreedevi was alleged to be running commercial sex centre under the guise of running an ice cream parlour. Now, it is famously called as 'Ice cream parlour sex scandal'. No others were specifically named except the above lady and basing upon t...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Mohandas
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-25-2005
Reported in: [2006(106)FLR791]; 2005(2)KLT534; (2005)IILLJ538Ker
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. First respondent herein had retired from service as Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise on 28.2.2001. After his retirement an order dated 26.3.2002 was passed by the President imposing penalty of 15% cut-in-monthly pension in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 9 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules. Aggrieved by the said order first respondent filed O.A. 332 of 2002 which was allowed by the Tribunal and the order was set aside. Aggrieved by the same this Writ Petition has been preferred by the Union of India and others.2. Respondent was functioning as Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Kurnool Division of Hyderabad Collectorate, while so, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on various charges including the charge that while he was working as Assistant Collector during the period from 29.1.1990 to 7.1.1994 he had approved classification lists and price lists in favour of M/s. Premier De...
Tag this Judgment!Unit Trust of India and anr. Vs. Indian Overseas Bank and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-25-2005
Reported in: I(2006)BC92; [2005]127CompCas219(Ker)
K. Thankappan, J.1. This revision petition is filed by a public limited company against the order passed by the Sub-Court, Kottayam, in I. A. No. 512 of 2000 in O. S. No. 455 of 1993. The revision petitioners are defendants Nos. 4 and 5 in the suit. The suit was filed by the first respondent for realisation of an amount of Rs. 1,27,984 from the defendants. As per the plaint averments, the plaintiff wanted to realise the amount due from defendants Nos. 1 and 2. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 availed of a loan of Rs. 75,000 from the first respondent-bank, plaintiff in the suit, for domestic purpose on May 10, 1990, on executing a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, promising to pay off the said amount on demand with interest at the rate of 17.5 per cent, per annum. It is also averred in the plaint that as security for the loan, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 secured Unit Certificate No. 872307690 of the revision petitioners, valued for Rs. 1,00,000 as constituted by 1,000 units of Rs. 1...
Tag this Judgment!Aluminium Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-24-2005
Reported in: III(2005)BC395; [2006]133CompCas530(Ker); 2005(1)KLT889; [2005]62SCL261(Ker); (2008)11VST516(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Writ Petition was preferred by the appellant seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 revenue recovery notice issued by the Tahsildar for recovery of an amount of Rs. 76,138.50 in realisation of the decree amount in O.S.No. 1064 of 1972 of the Munsiff's Court, Quilon.2. Suit was instituted by the writ petitioner for a declaration that the initiation of recovery proceedings against it for recovery of damages is illegal. Suit was originally decreed and the same was confirmed by the Appellate Court. In S.A.No. 281 of 1978 judgment was set aside and the Trial Court was directed to consider the matter afresh. Suit was then dismissed. State took up the matter in appeal, A.S.No. 154 of 1981. Appellate Court set aside the judgment and later the suit was decreed as prayed for Writ petitioner then took up the matter in second appeal, S.A. No. 1029 of 1989 which was dismissed and the decree has become final.3. Counsel appearing for the appellant Sri. Antony Dominic co...
Tag this Judgment!Cherootty Vs. Purushothaman
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT84
ORDERK. Thankappan, J.1. Two questions raised in this Revision Petition are: (1) Whether under the provisions of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the Court itself has got power to determine the court fee after the closure of evidence or completion of the pleadings; and (2) whether the value shown in the suit is on the basis of the annual income of the property as per Order VII, Rule 11(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 7 of the Act.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per the decision in Janakiamma v. Krishnan (1978 KLT 463) the Court can determine the court fee only at seven stages mentioned in that judgment. All these stages are prior to the closing of evidence. Hence after the closure of evidence the Court has no power to determine the court fee. It is further contended that under Sections 12, 13 and 18 of the Act the Court shall not suo motu determine the court fee to be payable by the pla...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Matha
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-20-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)KLT788
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The short question that has come up for consideration in this case is whether the period of limitation for filing an application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1994, begins to run from the date of passing of the award by the Court in a reference filed by the land owner, other than the applicant, whose land was acquired by common notification under Section 4 or from the date of knowledge by the applicant of the passing of the award by the Civil Court.2. The above mentioned question is no more res Integra. Apex Court in State of A.P. v. Marri Venkaiah and Ors., 2003 (7) SCC 280, answered the question and held that the limitation begins to run from the date of passing of the award and not from the date of knowledge of the award.3. A Division Bench of this Court in Indira Devi v. Special Tahsildar, 1991 (1) KLT 33, interpreting Section 28A of the Act held that the knowledge of the award is imperative before the land owner can exercise his right unde...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Rajmohan Cashew (P) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-20-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Ker141; [2005]127CompCas744(Ker); 2005(2)KLT131; [2005]142STC283(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Whether the Debt Recovery Tribunal has got the jurisdiction to determine the preferential claim of the Government of Kerala over the properties mortgaged to the Banking Institutions is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.2. State Government and the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes have approached this Court seeking writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings initiated by the Recovery Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal for sale of the various properties belonging to respondents 1 to 5. On enquiry made by the second petitioner it was noticed that some of the properties of respondents 1 to 5 were attached on behalf of Indian Overseas Bank on the basis of the proceedings initiated by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam. State maintains the stand that it has got first charge over the various properties brought to sale by the Recovery Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal. An amount of Rs. 9,73,64,415/- is due from the first re...
Tag this Judgment!Joseph Vs. S.i. of Police
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-20-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT269
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. Thirty-five accused persons were convicted in S.C. No. 187 of 1999. They have filed the above appeals except Crl.A. No. 877 of 2002. Crl.A. No. 877 of 2002 is by the sole convicted accused in S.C. No. 241 of 2001. At the outset we may mention that the facts relating to both the cases emanate out of the same occurrence of alleged kidnapping, wrongful confining, procuration of a minor girl and rape and gang rape of the victim, P.W.3, in this case. P.W.3 was reported missing from 16.1.1996. Initially the case was registered under the caption 'man missing' based on information furnished by P.W. 1, the father of the victim on 16.1.1996 itself. For about 40 days, in spite of the investigation conducted by P.W.82, the local Asst. Sub Inspector, the whereabouts of the girl could not be found out. The girl later appeared in the office of her father P.W.1 on 26.2.1996. Next day she gave a statement to P.W.82 revealing information about the commission of cognizable offence...
Tag this Judgment!Kesavan Nair Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-20-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT391
K. Hema, J.1. If articles which are in possession of a person are removed by another with intention to evict the former from a building in which the articles are kept, will an offence under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC, for short) be attracted? This question arises for considseration in this case.2. Petitioners are accused of offences under Ss. 380, 451 and 34 IPC. The third respondent/de facto complainant, who is a practising advocate filed a complaint before Judicial First Class Magistrate alleging that after his senior's death, he was in possession of the building owned by petitioners 1 and 2 and he was running his office in the building. First and second petitioners demanded eviction of the building. The complainant agreed to vacate the building when he gets another building for occupation. But, before that, all the petitioners went to the office of the de facto complainant and asked him to vacate the building. He was also told that or else, articles which are kept in ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »