Kerala Court June 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.
Anil Kumar Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-03-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT355
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The first petitioner is an Elected Member of Cheekode Grama Panchayat and the second petitioner is a resident within the limits of the said Panchayat.2. By Ext.P1 dated 19.1.2005, the Secretary to the Government of Kerala in the Department of Local Administration, addressed the Presidents of different Panchayats, including the Cheekode Grama Panchayat, inter alia, communicating the proposal of the Government to bifurcate the Panchayats, including the Cheekode Grama Panchayat.3. Ext.P2 notification is issued by publication in the Gazette dated 13.4.2005, whereby diminishing of certain Grama Panchayats, including the Cheekode Grama Panchayat, has been made, in exercise of power under Section 4(2)(b) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for constituting certain village Panchayats, in exercise of power under Section 4(1)(a) of the Act. By the said notification, the area of the Cheekode Grama Panchayat has been dimini...
Krishnan Vs. Chitran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-03-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT282
ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. The petitioner in Indigent O.P. No. 1 of 1994, on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Vaikom is the revision petitioner. The Court below rejected the Indigent O.P. on the ground that as on the date of the petition, the suit is barred by limitation.2. The petitioner claimed a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as damages in the plaint. It is alleged that the respondents attacked the petitioner with dangerous weapons on 10.5.1985 and caused grievous injuries. The petitioner was taken to the hospital and after the treatment for 41 days, he was discharged from the hospital on 20.6.1985. Criminal proceedings were initiated against the respondents in C.C.No. 344 of 1985. The Criminal Court found the respondents guilty of the offence and convicted and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment. On appeal by the respondents, the Appellate Court acquitted respondents 3 to 7 and a lesser sentence was imposed on respondents 1 and 2. The High Court confirmed the decision of the Appellate...
Thomas George Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-03-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT562
K.M. Joseph, J.1. The writ petitioner claims to be the Convenor of Swasraya Sahakarana Sangam at Maruthoor. Ext.Pl is the Byelaw. Ext.P2 is the Certificate issued by the Kalloorkkad Farmers Co-operative Bank. According to the petitioner, the property of the petitioner's mother was taken on lease for starting a Pig Farm. It is stated that an application was made for licence/consent to the local authority and to the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. It is stated that the Officers of the Pollution Control Board inspected the Pig Farm and as per their direction, heavy investments were made for constructing sceptic tank, gas plant etc. Ext.P3 is the plan approved by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. By letter dated 14-10-2004, the Kerala State Pollution Control Board issued consent also. According to the petitioner, respondents 4 to 10 made complaints before the first respondent to close down the pig farm. The father of the petitioner was made the counter petitioner. A condition...
Ouseph Vs. Alice
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-03-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT309
P.R. Raman, J.1. The above appeal is preferred by the 1st defendant in O.S.No. 412/1988 on the file of the Sub Court, Irinjalakuda. The suit is one for partition of the plaint schedule items and claiming 1/7 share in the said plaint schedule property. Admittedly, the property belonged originally to one Thomman who died in the year 1941 corresponding to 1117 ME. His wife Mariyam also died subsequently in the year 1972, when the plaint schedule property originally belonged to the said Thomman. Thomman had 7 children. Kunjayyathi, Annam, Thressia, Kunhellia and Rossy are his five daughters whereas Ouseph and Devassy are two sons. Kunjayyathi, Annam, Thressia and Devassy died. Plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Thressia, daughter of Thomman. 7th defendant is the only legal heir and son of Kunjayyathi. The 12th defendant is another daughter by name Kunhelia and 13th defendant is Rossy. Defendants 2 to 6 are the legal representatives of deceased Devassy, the other son of Thomman. Defendants 8...
Sivankutty Nair Vs. Secretary to Government
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-02-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT512
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. The petitioner, at the time of filing this Original Petition, was an Office Superintendent (Higher Grade) in the Finance Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram. Subsequent to the filing of the Original Petition, he retired from service.2. The petitioner became an Office Superintendent by promotion from the post of Selection Grade Typist in February 1993, by Ext.P1 order. At that time, the scale of pay of Office Superintendent was higher than that of Selection Grade Typist. Therefore, his pay in the scale of pay applicable to Office Superintendent was fixed and approved by Ext.P-2 and P-3.3. In March, 1995, by Ext.P-4 order, the Government equalised the scales of pay of Selection Grade Typist and Office Superintendent, retrospectively with effect from 1.3.1992, with monetary benefits from 1.4.1995. Consequent to audit objection applying Ext.P-4 order, the pay fixation of the petitioner done as per Exts.P-2 and P-3 on 18.2.1994 was undone and recovery ...
Rajendran Unnithan Vs. Mahadevar (Deity)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-02-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT997
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. The C.M.A. is filed against the order dated 10-8-1999 in O.P. No. 103 of 1998 on the file of the District Court, Kollam. Original Petition No. 103 of 1998 was filed for leave under Section 92 of Code of Civil Procedure.2. The brief facts are as follows: Sree Mahadevar Temple of the Mulavana Mahadevar Devaswom in Mulavana Cherry in Mulavana Village of Kollam Taluk is an ancient temple of repute. The temple is the principal place of worship of Hindus of the Mulavana Village and neighbouring places. The temple is a place of public worship and the Hindus are entitled to enter the said temple and worship there as of right. The Kadalayi Mana had hereditary urainma right for managing the affairs of the temple and the property belonging to it. The urainma right was being exercised by the eldest male member of the said Illom. The urainma is the trustee for managing the temple and its properties. It is further stated that since it became difficult for the Illom to manage t...
Hindustan Coca-cola Beverages (P) Ltd. Vs. Perumatty Grama Panchayat
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-01-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT10
ORDERM. Ramachandran, J.1. This is an application, filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 5 of the High Court Act, supported by an affidavit. It is prayed that the first respondent-Perumatty Grama Panchayat is to be issued with a direction to forthwith renew the licence of the petitioner-company. Further prayer is to take necessary action against the respondents, as may be deemed fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case.2. By judgment dt. 7.4.2005, in Writ Appeal No. 2125 of 2003 and connected cases, we had found that the first respondent--Panchayat was not justified in resorting to steps, whereby renewal of licence of the petitioner-company was rejected before a scientific assessment was made. It had also been found that the Panchayat had no legal authority to cancel the licence for functioning of the unit for any of the reasons pointed out by them from time to time. Consequently, we had directed the Panchayat to consider the applica...
Sarojini Amma Vs. Trivandrum District Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-01-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT655
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Petitioners challenge Ext.P2 by which the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal decided that a revision filed fey the writ petitioners and three others invoking Section 84 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), was highly belated. The revision was accordingly dismissed by the Tribunal, as not maintainable, in view of the inordinate delay.2. Ext.P1 award for realisation of amounts awarded thereby was passed on 28-10-1997, by the Arbitrator under Section 70 of the Act. The revision under Section 84 of the Act was filed on 23-8-1999, more than one year and nine months after the award was passed.3. The Tribunal held that though Section 84 of the Act does not prescribe any time limit for filing a revision, there cannot be any unreasonable delay in doing so. In arriving at its conclusion as stated above, the Tribunal relied on the decision of this Court in Narayanan v. Rent Controller (1988 (2) KLT 74) and the decision of the...
Norasia Lines (Malta) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-01-2005
Reported in: (2005)199CTR(Ker)377; [2005]279ITR268(Ker)
J.B. Koshy, J.1. While challenging the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 1996-97, the appellant-assessee filed this appeal with the following substantial questions of law :'(i) Whether the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Malta are applicable to income arising in India within the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1996-97 ?(ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal went wrong in denying the benefits of the DTAA between India and Malta to the appellant ?'2. Before answering the questions and deciding the appeal, we may refer to the short facts of the case. The assessee is a non-resident company engaged in the business of shipping in international traffic and registered in the Republic of Malta. The appellant, though paid income-tax due in India, filed its return of income on March 25, 1997, for the assessment year 1996-97 claiming relief available under the Double Taxation Avoid...
Muraleedharan Vs. Sreeram Investment Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-01-2005
Reported in: III(2006)BC316; [2006]129CompCas465(Ker); 2006(1)KLT131
ORDERA.K. Basheer, J.1. The short but interesting question that has cropped up in this petition is whether the trial court can condone the delay in filing a complaint under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short the Act) on the basis of an affidavit filed by the counsel for the complainant.2. Relevant facts may be briefly noticed.3. The petitioner is being prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. Respondent No. 1 had filed the above complaint along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of two days in filing the complaint. The application was supported by an affidavit of the counsel for the complainant. When the application came up for consideration, the petitioner contended that the delay was not liable to be condoned, since the application was not supported by the affidavit of the complainant himself. He pointed out that the proviso to Clause (b) of Section 142 of the Act being unambiguous, the affida...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›