Kerala Court July 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.
Crown Maritime Co. (i) Ltd. Vs. Dy. Superintendent of Police
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-18-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT1021
M. Ramachandran, J.1. This is an application for police protection. The first petitioner has a subsisting agreement with the Cochin Port Trust. One of the works so assigned is the construction of Rubble Mount reclamation wall and dredging and filling the area on the western side of Bolgatty. The agreement is dated 27-6-2005. There is an upper time limit prescribed for execution of the work. According to the first petitioner, part of the said work has been given on sub contract to the second petitioner. The second petitioner is fairly experienced in such work and pleadings indicate that almost regularly he was engaging a set of workmen. The claim of the petitioners is that when the second petitioner had entered into an agreement with respondents 4 and 5 Unions, and a ratio had been agreed upon in between them about right of engagement, third parties had no right to insist that they are also to be inducted to the work.2. According to the second petitioner, the required strength of workme...
Hareendran Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-15-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT681
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.1. Petitioners in both these cases challenge the proceedings initiated for acquisition of land for the purposes of conversion of Kollam-Punalur meter-gauge railway line as broad-gauge. Petitioners in both the cases concede that notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act has been promulgated as per Ext.P1. The petitioners have now received notices under Section 9(3) of the Act which are produced as Ext.P2 in these cases. The petitioners apprehend that in exercise of the emergency powers under Section 17(4) of the Act, they are going to be dispossessed of their properties immediately. According to them, in these cases, the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act has not been made and they are not liable to be dispossessed till such time as declaration under Section 6 is promulgated.2. When these Writ Petitions came up for admission, I granted stay of dispossession temporarily and directed the Government Pleader to get instructions fro...
Pramod Vs. C.K. Velayudhan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-15-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD(Cri)23; II(2006)BC172; 2005CriLJ4572
ORDERK. Hema, J.1. What are the minimum requirements to be satisfied before a Court issues process to a company, firm, an association of individuals or a person who are arrayed as an 'accused' for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (the Act, for short)? Under what circumstances, persons referred to in Section 141 of the Act be proceeded against, for offence under Section 138 of the Act? Can a person who does not issue any cheque and who does not even maintain an account be held guilty of offence under Section 138 of the Act? These are the important questions which I shall decide in this case.2. Respondent-Assistant Executive Engineer, a Government official filed a complaint before Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court alleging offence alleged against a registered society and its President under Section 138 of the Act. The society represented by its Secretary is described as first accused and its President who is alleged to be the person in charge of and responsible...
Labour Commissioner Vs. Joshua
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-15-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT241
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The appeal is by the State of Kerala with a delay of 163 days. The appeal was filed in the month of March, 2002. When it came up for consideration for the first time in June, 2005, the Government Pleader was asked to give notice to the first respondent/ writ petitioner. Thus, the service is complete. We find that the delay has been satisfactorily explained. After hearing the respondents, we condone the delay. We also proceeded to hear the appeal as both sides were ready.2. The State is impugning the judgment wherein the claim of the writ petitioner/ first respondent for seniority over respondents 3 to 5 in the Original Petition, was allowed and the petitioner was declared senior to them. It was contended before the learned Single Judge by the Appellant/State that respondents 3 to 5 were given seniority among the Lower Division Clerks in the Labour Department over the writ petitioner, placing reliance on the latter part of Ext.P18 Government Letter, which reads t...
Cyriac Vs. S.i. of Police
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-13-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ4322; 2005(3)KLT673
ORDERK. Hema, J.1. Can a person be said to have abetted another person to commit suicide under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code (IPC, for short) by merely telling the other in public, 'why can't you go and die etc.'? What is meant by 'abetment' What is 'instigation' What is the scope of such expressions in Sections 306 and 107 IPC? My endeavour in this case will be to decide these questions in the factual back ground of this case.2. Petitioners seek to quash proceedings initiated against them by a Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court in so far as charge under Section 306 IPC is concerned. He is charge sheeted for other offence also. According to prosecution, deceased Joseph owed Rs. 200/- to one of the accused/petitioners, on account of purchase of certain articles from his bakery. He did not pay back the money and hence on the date of occurrence, accused/petitioners called deceased Joseph to the bakery of accused, wrongfully restrained him and abused him in public. Second accused a...
Commissioner of Income Tax and anr. Vs. Dr. C. Balakrishnan Nair and a ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-13-2005
Reported in: (2005)199CTR(Ker)279; 2006(3)KLT251
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Petitioners are husband and wife. First petitioner herein was a professor in Pathology of the Calicut Medical College and was running a proprietary concern by name 'Santhosh Clinic'. He is an assessee with P.A. No. 46-007-PX-7697. Second petitioner, wife of the first petitioner, retired as a professor of Dermatology and is a private practitioner and is an assessee with P.A. No. 46-007-PQ-9485.2. IT Department had received information that one Hamza, proprietor, Hotel Sagar, Mavoor Road, Calicut had purchased the residential house belonging to the petitioners at Mavoor Road, Calicut, for a consideration of Rs. 72 lakhs in the name of his children and the petitioners in turn purchased another residential property at Sathram Road, Calicut, belonging to Dr. N.M. Mathai and his son George Mathai for a sum of Rs. 59 lakhs. Enquiry conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Department revealed that petitioners had sold their residential house with 11.5 cents of land a...
Cit Vs. Dr. C. Balakrishnan Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-13-2005
Reported in: (2006)199CTR(Ker)279
Radhakrishnan, J.Petitioners are husband and wife. First petitioner herein was a Professor in Pathology of the Calicut Medical College and was running a proprietary concern by name 'Santhosh Clinic'. He is an assessee with P.A. No 46-007-PX-7697. Second petitioner, wife of the first petitioner, retired as a Professor of Dermatology and is a private practitioner and is an assessee with P.A. No 46-007-PO-9485.2. Income Tax Department had received information that one Hamza, Proprietor, Hotel Sagar, Mavoor Road, Calicut had purchased the residential house belonging to the petitioners at Mavoor Road, Calicut for a consideration of Rs. 72 lakhs in the name of his children and the petitioners in turn purchased another residential property at Sathram Road, Calicut belonging to Dr. N.M. Mathai and his son George Mathai for a sum of Rs. 59 lakhs. Enquiry conducted by the investigation wing of the Department revealed that petitioners had sold their residential house with 11.5 cents of land at Ma...
Leby Issac Vs. Leena M. Ninan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-12-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Ker285; 2005(3)KLT665
K. Hema, J.1. Does a Family Court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit filed by a husband for recovery of money as compensation and damages from his wife and father-in-law? What are the requirements to invoke jurisdiction under Section 7(1) read with explanation (d) of the Family Court's Act (the Act for short)? What is meant by the expression, 'in circumstances arising out of a marital relationship' used in Explanation (d) to Section 7(1) of the Act? Do such 'circumstances' include only those occurrences which transpired during marital relationship alone? These are the main questions which arise in this appeal for consideration.2. Facts in this case briefly, are as follows: Appellant filed a suit before the Family Court against his wife, father-in-law and alleged adulterer of his wife as defendants 1 to 3. They are respondents 1 to 3 in this appeal. Relief sought for in the suit is to recover Rs. 10 lakhs as compensation and damages from respondents 1 and 2 with costs. As per the ave...
Cam Transports Vs. Saidalavi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-11-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT679
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The point that arises for decision in this case is whether the State Transport Appellate Tribunal can direct the Regional Transport Authorities to grant a permit. The brief facts of the case are the following :2. The petitioner is operating stage carriages on the route Valancherry-Pattambi and Pattambi-Valancherry. The 1st respondent applied for a regular permit on the route Valancherry-Cherplassery, which overlaps the route Valancherry-Pattambi. The R.T.A., by Ext.P1 proceedings, rejected the application on the ground that the vehicle offered is not registered in the name of the applicant therein. The first respondent applicant appealed and the appeal was allowed by Ext.P2 Judgment. The operative portion of the said Judgment reads as follows:-'In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order under appeal is set aside and the R.T. A. is directed to grant regular permit to the appellant on the aforesaid route for the stage carriage provided he is in lawful p...
Suresh Chandran Vs. District Collector
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-08-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT538
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The petitioner, who is the Pastor of a Christian Religious denomination called Assemblies of God, has approached this Court, alleging that his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India, have been infringed by the official respondents, by prohibiting the holding of prayers of that religious denominations at Panthavila Church. The brief facts of the case are the following:2. The above said congregation purchased 8 cents of land as per Ext.P2 deed. A prayer hall was constructed there, roofed with sheets, in the year 2004. The prayer is held on three days in a week, in the hall with the following time schedule: On Fridays from 10 a.m. to 12 a.m., on Saturdays from 6.30 p.m. to 8 p.m. and on Sundays from 8 a.m. to 11.30 a.m. It is submitted that no loud speakers or other instruments for amplifying sound are used. There are no residential buildings in the neighbourhood of the hall, it is pointed out. It is also submitted th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »