Kerala Court January 2005 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.
Dy. Director Vs. B.P.L. Cellular Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-17-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT775; (2005)IIILLJ74Ker
K.K. Denesan, J.1. Appellants are the respondents in I.C. 40/99 on the file of the Employees Insurance Court, Alappuzha. Respondent herein was the applicant.2. The case of the respondent/applicant was that the demand of Rs. 68,952/-made by the appellant as arrears of contribution for the period from 1/97 to 3/98 is arbitrary and illegal. Respondent further contended that during the period from 1/97 to 3/98 an amount of Rs. 33,961/- was paid in excess of the amount payable by the respondent-employer. Therefore, the respondent was eligible to get refund/adjustment of the excess amount paid.3. The Insurance Court decided the first point against the applicant and held that it was liable to pay Rs. 66,952/- to the Employees State Insurance Corporation for the periods from 1/97 to 3/98. Regarding the second issue viz., adjustment of the excess amount paid by the respondent, the ESI Court found favour with the contention of the respondent and declared that the respondent was eligible to get a...
K.V. Pavithran Vs. the District Superintendent of Police and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-17-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Ker177
ORDERK.M. Joseph, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash part of the order in Ext. P2 rejecting the request for use of loudspeaker from 6 p.m. on 29-1-2005 to 6 a.m. on 1-2-2005 on the occasion of the annual Theyyam Festival. The further prayer is for directing the second respondent to grant permission for using loudspeakers from 6 p.m. on 29-1-2005 to 6 a.m. of 1-2-2005.2. The complaint of the petitioner is that Theyyam is performed in a remote village area and all the people who are the devotees without any objection wanted the loudspeaker to be used for conveniently enjoying the cultural programmes apart from hearing the Thottampattu and Drum beating. It is stated that this year programmes are consisting of Mimics, Ganamela and Opera of Adhimuthachan to be performed by Thiruvithankoor Nadakavethy, Kottayam. Ext. PI is the programme notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext. P2 application was made for permission only for three days to the second responden...
Viswambharan Vs. Dhanya
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-14-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Ker91; II(2005)DMC56; 2005(1)KLT708
R. Basant, J.1. Is an unmarried daughter, who has attained majority, entitled to claim maintenance under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act from her father? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this appeal.2. The relationship between the parties is admitted. Both claimants are daughters of the appellant. The 1st claimant had crossed the age of majority even when she filed the application. She was about 19 years old. The 2nd claimant was aged about 15 years on the date when she filed the claim petition. She has crossed the age of majority during the pendency of the proceedings.3. The claimants contended that the appellant-their father, was not maintaining them. He was residing separately. In the circumstances, the claimants who were unable to maintain themselves claimed that the appellant may be directed to make payment of an amount of Rs. 1,000/- per mensem to each of them as maintenance. The appellant had sufficient means, it was contended. He...
Kochudas Ragesh Vs. Roy Marcose
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-13-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)KLT776
ORDERM. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. The complainant in S.C. 1/94 on the file of Sessions Court, Kollam is challenging the order of discharge passed under Section 245(1) of the Code of Crl.P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge. Respondents 1 to 4 were the accused in the case. Petitioner filed the complaint alleging that the four accused committed the offences punishable under Section 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(ix) and 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The petitioner claiming to be a member of the scheduled caste filed the private complaint alleging that accused who are not members of the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe committed the offences alleged in the complaint. The learned Sessions Judge following procedure provided under the warrant trial after recording the evidence of five witnesses and marking Exts.P1 to P14, as per order dated 6.1.95 discharged the accused under ...
Rajan and ors. Vs. Balan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-13-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Ker111
V. Ramkumar, J.1. The defendants in OS 469/1983 on the file of the Munsiff s Court, Irinjalakuda, are the appellants in this second appeal. The said suit was one for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing upon or planting trees or otherwise interfering with the user by the plaintiff of the plaint schedule pathway alleged to be passing along the northern extremity of the 84 cents of land comprised in Sy. No. 964/2, which will be adverted to in detail hereafter.2. The basis of the plaint claim was a right of way over the plaint schedule pathway given, under Ext. B1 partition dated 9-4-1119 M.E. corresponding to the year 1944 and the plaintiff contended that he has unrestricted right to use the pathway as an easement.3. The defendants/appellants resisted the plaint claim contending inter alia that the plaintiff did not have any subsisting right of easement over the plaint schedule pathway and that whatever rights the plaintiff had, ceased to exist after the exe...
St. Mary's Church Vs. Tahsildar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-12-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Ker158; 2005(2)KLT43
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Petitioner is challenging Ext.P5 order of the Government whereunder Government has denied building tax exemption claimed under Section 3(2) of the Building Tax Act, 1975 in respect of an auditorium owned by the petitioner.2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and have gone through the impugned order Ext.P5.3. The contention of the petitioner is that the building is used for conducting Sunday School and is therefore, entitled to exemption as buildings used for religious purposes are entitled to exemption under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act. The Government Pleader, on the other hand contended that in order to qualify for building tax exemption, the building should be used only for religious purposes and in this case the building is generally let out in all days, whenever there is demand except on Sundays when the building is used for religious teachings. Therefore, accord...
All India Handloom Fabrics Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Mat ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-12-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT191
J.B. Koshy, J.1. The issue for consideration in this case is whether notice under Section 115 of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Multi Societies Act') is necessary for filing an eviction petition under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Act') against a Multi-State Cooperative Society. First petitioner, All India Handloom Fabrics Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd. is having the showroom in a rented premises owned by the respondents. Respondents filed an application under Section 11(3) and 11(8) of the Rent Act before the Rent Control Court for evicting the first petitioner society. Petitioners raised a preliminary objection before the Rent Control Court that since they are a National Cooperative Society within the meaning of the 'Multi-State Co-operative Society' as defined under the Multi Societies Act, it is obligatory that notice under Section 115 of the Multi Societies Act should b...
Krishnankutty Vs. Velayudhan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-12-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Ker124; III(2005)BC430; 2005(2)KLT854
V. Ramkumar, J.1. The plaintiff in OS 262/ 91 on the file of the Sub Court, Palakkad, is the appellant in this appeal. The said suit filed by the respondents herein was one for realisation of a sum of Rs. 30,000/- with interest thereon.2. The case of the plaintiff can be summarised as follows :--Agreeing to repay with 18% interest per annum on demand when needed by the plaintiff or his order, a sum of Rs. 30,000/-was received in cash by the defendants for their business and the defendants executed Ext. A1 promissory note in the handwriting of the 2nd defendant on 14-1-1989 in favour of the plaintiff. Even after repeated demands for the said amount together with interest directly and through Ext.A2 lawyer notice dt. 23-5-1991, the defendants have failed to pay the same, but instead caused the lawyer notice sent in Ext. A3 cover to be returned unserved. Hence the suit.3. Defendants 1 and 2, who are father and son respectively, resisted the suit by filing separate written statements. The ...
Abdul Sathar Vs. Aneesa
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-12-2005
Reported in: II(2005)DMC337; 2005(3)KLT468
ORDERK. Hema, J.1. Can a former/divorcee husband be held liable for offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code (IPC, for short)? Is existence of marriage between accused and the victim, a requirement to constitute offence under Section 498A IPC? Can the Court take cognizance of offence under Section 498A IPC on the basis of a complaint filed by a divorced woman? These are precisely, the questions to be answered in this case.2. A private complaint was filed by a divorced wife against her former husband and his relatives before a Magistrate of First Class. It was alleged in the complaint that petitioner subjected the complainant/first respondent to cruelty during subsistence of their marriage and also after the divorce. Magistrate forwarded the complaint to police under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure for investigation and a charge sheet was filed against the accused under Section 498A and 34 of IPC. Petitioner is the first accused in the case. He seeks to quash the com...
K.C. Vasumathy Amma and anr. Vs. Makkancherry Janaki Amma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-11-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Ker154
ORDERK. Thankappan, J.1. The revision petition is filed against the order dated 12-2-1996 in E.P. No. 221/899 in O.S. No. 2/1958 on the file of the Sub Court, Kozhikode.2. The short facts leading to the revision petition are as follows :- Judgment-debtor is the revision petitioner. After the death of the original revision petitioner, C.M.P. No. 2314/2003 was filed for impleading the legal heirs of the original revision petitioner as additional 2nd revision petitioner and additional respondents 2 to 7. After issuing notice to the supplemental respondents the petition for impleading is allowed. As per the decree, item No. 104 was sought to be delivered. The delivery was obstructed. No delivery affected and the E.P. was dismissed. Subsequently the E. P. was restored to file. By the impugned order symbolic delivery of item Nos. 31 to 34 and actual delivery of item No,. 104 were ordered. The petitioner contended that there was obstruction to delivery of possession to the decree holders and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »