Kerala Court November 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.
Balan Vs. Sivagiri Sree Narayana Dharma Sanghom Trust
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-08-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Ker58; 2006(4)CTC273; [2006(2)JCR94]; 2005(4)KLT865
J.B. Koshy, J.1. In these cases, questions of law referred to be decided by the Full Bench are:(i) Whether an appeal will lie against the order of a single Judge passed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure;(ii) When such proceedings are under consideration can the learned single Judge pass interim orders; and(iii) If interim orders are passed by the single Judge, whether appeals to the Division Bench can be filed from such interim orders.2. No appeal is specifically provided under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'CPC') against orders passed under Section 24. There is also no specific prohibition in CPC against filing of an appeal against such an order. Therefore, appeal can be filed if it is provided under any other law as right of appeal is a creature of Statute. Sections 104 and 105 of CPC prohibit filing of appeals except by express provision in the CPC or any other law. Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 provides for appeal from the judgment or o...
Cheruvannoor Nallalam Grama Panchayat Vs. Ravi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-08-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Ker132; 2006(1)KLT546
ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. These two revision petitions have been filed by defendants 1 and 2 respectively in O.S.No. 160/2002 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Kozhikode-II, The said suit filed by the respondent, Kathalat Ravi was one for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing upon the plaint A and B schedule properties and from altering their present condition and from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same by the plaintiff. Along with the suit the plaintiff also filed I.A.No. 1101/2002 for a temporary injunction on the lines of the perpetual injunction prayed for in the suit. An ad interim order of injunction was granted by the trial court which, after hearing both sides, made the order absolute. Subsequently the plaintiff filed I.A.No. 1295/2002 under Order XXXIX Rule 2A C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. alleging that the order of injunction was violated by the defendants. Even though the said application was opposed by the re...
intelligence Inspector, Intelligence Office, Agricultural Income-tax a ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-08-2005
Reported in: (2008)11VST559(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Intelligence Inspector, Intelligence Office, Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Mattancherry, along with four others--the appellants herein, challenge the judgment of the learned single judge, quashing exhibit P7 notice issued under Sub-section (2) of Section 29A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963.2 Original petition was preferred by the first respondent herein challenging exhibit P7 notice issued under the provisions of Section 29A of the Act. Intelligence Inspector had detained the goods on the ground that the consignor or consignee was not a registered dealer under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 as per the invoice or declaration produced and demanded security amount of Rs. 88,107 for release of the goods.3. Petitioner pressed for the release of the goods on production of regis tration certificates contending that even the goods which were transported without proper documents are liable to be released on production of docu...
Mary Tresa P.J. @ Sr. Teena Jose Cmc Vs. Bar Council of Kerala, Repres ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-07-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Ker69; [2006(2)JCR244]; 2005(4)KLT745
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. These Writ Petitions throw up an interesting point, i.e., whether priests and nuns are eligible to be enrolled as Advocates, for the decision of this Court.WP(C) No. 20635/052. This Writ Petition is filed by a Roman Catholic priest, under the diocese of Irinjalakuda. He has graduated in Law from the Bangalore University. He submitted the application for enrolment before the Kerala Bar Council, after paying all the requisite fees. He also paid a late fee of Rs. 2,000/- for participating in the enrolment, which was scheduled to be held on 21.11.2004. While so, he was served with Ext.P2 communication dated 30.10.2004, calling upon him, to submit certain particulars and also to furnish an affidavit, stating that, presently, he is not holding any post or rendering any service or doing any business or profession in any society or institution. He submitted the requisite documents and also produced Ext.P3 certificate, which stated that he is working as a Parish Pries...
Murali Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-07-2005
Reported in: I(2006)DMC586; 2006(1)KLT90
R. Basant, J.1. The appellant, a prisoner in custody, has preferred this appeal through prison authorities to assail the verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence imposed on him under Sections 498A and 304B I.P.C. He was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of three years under Section 498A and to undergo R.I. for a period of 10 years under Section 304B I.P.C. there was a further direction to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- which was to be released to his only daughter under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. and in default to undergo R.I. for a further period of three years. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently.2. Initially the appellant faced indictment for the offences under Sections 489A and 302 I.P.C. After the commencement of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge altered the charge and included the charge under Section 304B I.P.C. After giving all reasonable opportunity to the accused consequent to the amendment of charge by recalling the witnesse...
Sayeesh Kumar Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-07-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT1027
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The question that is posed for consideration in this case is whether the Government have got power to grant exemption under the Town Planning Act for construction of a non-residential building contrary to the approved development scheme.2. Petitioners are residents of Ward No. IV of Vadakkevila Panchayat in Kollam District, the area which falls within the master plan area under the Kollam Development Authority and is also covered by the master plan sanctioned and notified for the Kollam Development Authority. They are, aggrieved by the Government Order G.O.(Rt.) 1296/97/LAD. dated 5-4-1997 by which exemption was granted to 7th respondent for construction of a hospital building from the zoning regulation of the sanctioned development Plan for Kollam. Counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri. Dinesh R. Shenoy submitted that Government have no power, to grant exemption under the Town Planning Act once the development plan has been approved. Seventh respondent made...
State of Kerala Vs. Surabhi Steels (P) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-07-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT169
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Whether ingot moulds imported by the writ petitioners intended to be used as raw materials at a later point of time would fall within the ambit of SRO.No. 263/98 is the question that has come up for consideration in these cases.2. Original Petitions were filed for a declaration that petitioners are entitled to the benefit of SRO. 263/98 as amended by SRO 702 of 1998 in respect of goods mentioned in the said notification purchased by them from outside the State and used in the manufacture of other goods by them within the State. Petitioners have also sought for a declaration that the inclusion of item No. 9 (Iron and Steel) in the Schedule to the Kerala Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act 1997 with effect from 14-1-97 is unconstitutional and arbitrary. Learned single Judge repelled the challenge against the provisions of the Act. The only question to be considered in these cases is whether petitioners are entitled to get the benefit of the exemption notif...
Sreenivasan Alias Sreeni Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-07-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1485
R. Basant, J.1. The appellant, a person undergoing imprisonment, has preferred this appeal through prison authorities to challenge the verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence imposed on him under Section 304(1) and Section 324 of IPC. He was sentenced under Section 304(1) IPC to undergo R.I. for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default, to undergo R.I. for a further period of six months. For the offence punishable under Section 324, IPC committed against P.W. 1, he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently.2. The crux of the allegation against the appellant is that at about 9.30 p.m. on 9-4-1995 at the scene of occurrence, which is a pathway, the appellant had inflicted injuries on the deceased and P.W. 1 with M.O. 1 knife, a dangerous weapon. The F.I. Statement was allegedly lodged at 2.30 p.m. on 10-4-1995 and the FIR was promptly registered. The deceased, who h...
State of Kerala Vs. Saiful Islam
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-05-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT619
M. Ramachandran, J.1. According to the Government, in respect of pay fixation of a few officers working in the Public Works Department as also the Agriculture Department, an error had been crept in, and it had come to the notice of the Accountant General when fixation was made at the time of conferment of grade promotions on the officers completing 20 years of service. After notice to the persons concerned, recovery steps were initiated in respect of the over payments alleged to have been made. Original Petitions had come to be filed at this juncture. A batch of cases so filed, at the instance of officers of both the Departments, had been disposed of by Mr. Justice M.R. Hariharan Nair on 03-06-2002. The learned Judge had held that the Government had right reserved for ordering refixation, when the Accountant General had noticed the error in such pay fixation. The Original Petitions were thereupon dismissed. It had been held as following:The petitioners are all persons who got the benef...
Phiroskhan Vs. Jabbar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-05-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT38
V. Ramkumar, J.1. The interesting dispute which arises for resolution in this Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is as to whether Ext.P1 instrument dated 5-11-1997 whereunder one of the three partners of a registered partnership firm retired after receiving a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) is a mere agreement chargeable to stamp duty under Article 5(c) of the Schedule to the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 or whether it is a release deed chargeable to stamp duty under Article 48(b) of the Schedule to the said Act.2. The stamp duty actually paid on Ext.P1 instrument is Rs. 200/-. If it is a mere agreement falling under Article 5(c) then the stamp duty payable for such agreement at the relevant time was Rs. 50/- and consequently, the instrument is properly stamped. If on the other hand, the instrument is a release falling under Article 48(b), then the stamp duty payable thereon would be the same as in the case of a conveyance falling under Articles 21...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »