Kerala Court December 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.
Prakasini Vs. Joint Registrar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-05-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT199
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The Board of the second respondent Co-operative Bank resolved on 6-2-2003, among other things, to promote the writ petitioner with effect from 1-1-2003. Following that Ext.P1 proceedings No. 1/2003 was issued by the President of the Co-operative Bank on 10-2-2003.2. Before the said PI decision was taken, amendments made as per Act 1 of 2000 to Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act were given effect to, with effect from 2-1-2003. Thereby Clause (d) of Sub-section 2 of Section 69 brought all disputes in connection with the employment, including their promotion and inter se seniority under the canopy of the word 'disputes' for the purpose of Section 69(1). The last limb of Section 69(1) provides that such disputes shall be decided by the arbitration court or the Registrar, as the case may be and no other court or authority shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceeding in respect of such dispute. In my considered view; this is a ...
Mechanical Assembly Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-05-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT947; [2006]144STC536(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. These revision petitions arise out of the common order passed by the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kottayam in T.A. Nos. 261, 520 and 625 of 2003. Common issues arise for consideration in all these cases. Hence we are disposing of these cases by a common judgment. For convenient sake we may refer to the facts in S.T.R. No. 291 of 2005.2. Petitioner is a private limited company engaged in the manufacture of combustible paper cartridge cases for use of the defence force. On April 15, 1999 the petitioner-company entered into an agreement with another company by name Mas Combustible Pack Ltd. (MCP), Cherthala, with its factory at Hyderabad for providing technology for production of combustible cartridge cases (CCC) and to help continuously by undertaking the repairs and maintenance required for machinery of the said company. Petitioner-company hasalso agreed to depute suitable personnel to MCP factory at Hyderaba...
P.L.S. Kannan Vs. K. Vijayan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-05-2005
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ426
M. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. The judgment debtor in E.P. 272/98 in O.S. No. 48/98 on the file of the Sub Court, Trichur is challenging the dismissal of this petition to set aside the sale filed under Rule 90 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter referred to as the Code) as per order in E.A. 654/01 dated 11-12-2002. Appellant filed the petition to set aside the Sale contending that the property was sold for Rs. 5,01,000/- on 4-9-2001 and purchased by the decree holder and the sale is vitiated by material irregularities and fraud in publishing and conducting the sale and sale is liable to be set aside. It was contended that appellant had only 1/2 right in a plot of land measuring sixteen cents in R.S. No. 91/16 as per settlement deed No. 562/67 of S.R.O. Nenmara and the remaining extent belongs to his brother Sivakumar and the property was sold without disclosing this fact and it is a material irregularity. It was also contended that the property sold is worth Rs. 25 la...
Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Managing Director, Transmati ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-2005
Reported in: [2006(111)FLR953]; (2006)2LLJ990Ker
J.M. James, J.1. Opposite Party, the Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation, Thrissur, in short 'the Corporation', in Insurance Case No. 2/2003, on the file of the Employees' State Insurance Court, Kollam, in short 'the Insurance Court', is the appellant. The Corporation issued ExhibitB1 notice dated October 28, 2002, claiming an amount of Rs. 64,266/-, as damages, on the failure of Transmatic System Ltd., the applicant, in short 'the Establishment', in paying the insurance contribution due to the Corporation, for period from October 2000 to March 2001 and from April 2001 to September 2001. The stand of the Establishment was that it could not remit the same, due to financial constrains, as the establishment was faced with loss, during the above period. However, the defaulted amount was paid on June 12, 2002, as well as on June 19, 2002, with interest, as per Exhibit A2 challan. But the Corporation issued Exhibit Al notice dated July 10, 2002, demanding the insurance contribution and int...
Solaris System Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-2005
Reported in: IV(2006)BC536; 2006(3)KLT121; [2006]72SCL168(Ker)
ORDERA.K. Basheer, J.1.(A) Can a secured creditor enforce a security interest invoking the provisions contained under Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 (for short, the Act), even after obtaining a recovery certificate from the Debts Recovery Tribunal in respect of the very same secured asset?(B) Does a 'borrower' under the Act lose such status if an order has been passed against him by the Debts Recovery Tribunal for recovery of the debt(C) Is a Chief Judicial Magistrate in a non Metropolitan area debarred from exercising the powers under Section 14 of the Act to take possession of the secured asset2. These and certain other ancillary questions have come up for consideration in this petition filed by a borrower/judgment debtor under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.3. The petitioner had availed of a loan from M/s. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ernakulam Branch (for short, the Bank). It is not ...
Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-01-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT77
ORDERK. Thankappan, J.1. Petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the court below to release him on bail on the same day of his appearance in court. Petitioner is the sole accused in crime No. 45/2004 of Kodukon Police Station registered under Section 8(1) and (2) of the Abkari Act. In the complaint it is alleged that on 8-4-2004 at about 5.20 P.M. the 2nd respondent recovered a cannas containing one litre of spirit from a water course near to the petitioner's house. The investigation of the above case is over and final report has been already filed before the court. The case was numbered as C.P.No. 163/2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Adoor. The petitioner submits that though the case was registered against the petitioner and the investigation is over, no summons has been served on him. The petitioner also submits that now the court below issued non-bailable warrant against him for his non-appearance.2. Considering the facts and circumstan...
Sasisekharan Nair Vs. Registrar of Co-operative Societies
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-01-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT255
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. W.P(C).22100/05 is by two members of the Board of Directors of Kottukal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No. T 196, hereinafter referred to as the 'Bank'. W.P(C).31344/ 05 is by the President of the said Bank.2. W.P(C).22100/05 is filed challenging the legality of a resolution of the Board of Directors of the Bank, stating that the petitioners in W.P(C).22100/05 are disqualified and have lost their membership in the Board of Directors of the Bank. The primary contention raised in support of the said Writ Petition is that under Rule 44(3) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules', the Joint Registrar, exercising powers of the Registrar, has to take a decision on the question of disqualification and it is only following such a decision by the said statutory authority, would a member be treated as disqualified.3. Though the petitioner in W.P(C).31344/05 is not a respondent in W.P(C).22100/05, I have heard his learned...
United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Velayudhan and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-01-2005
Reported in: IV(2006)ACC44
J.M. James, J.1. The United India Insurance Company, the 2nd respondent in O.P. (MV) 2277/2000 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, is the appellant. The accident occurred on 23.1.2000, involving a goods autorikshaw, bearing registration No. KL-8/D 7044, in which the claimant, the first respondent herein, was travelling, accompanying the goods, firewood, as the owner of the firewood, and he sustained injuries. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 35,480 and directed to realise the amount from the insurance company, the appellant. The same is under challenge.2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant, insurance company, is that there is no provision in Ext. B1 policy of insurance for carrying any passenger in the goods autorikshaw. Thus, the claimant was a gratuitous passenger. Therefore, as the goods autorikshaw is not covered under the policy for carrying any gratuitous passenger, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehic...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›