Kerala Court September 2005 Judgments
Augustine Vs. Thankamma Thomas
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-30-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT653
R. Bhaskaran, J.1. This appeal is filed against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in A.S.No. 308 of 1995. The 1st defendant in a suit for partition is the appellant in the A.F.A. The trial court dismissed the suit finding that the 1st defendant has prescribed title by adverse possession and limitation with regard to plaint A-schedule properties and has obtained valid title on the basis of a gift deed executed by his mother with regard to plaint B-schedule properties. In appeal, the learned single Judge reversed the findings on both points and has granted a decree for partition of both A and B-schedule properties.2. The plaintiff is the sister of the 1st defendant. Plaint A-schedule properties belonged to the father of the plaintiff and 1st defendant and plaint B-schedule properties belonged to their mother. The defence to the claim for partition of plaint A-schedule properties is adverse possession and limitation and for B-schedule properties is a gift deed executed ...
Tag this Judgment!Tresa Vs. Joseph
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-29-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT435
ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. The landlords are the revision petitioners. They filed the Rent Control Petition under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Rent Control Court dismissed the Rent Control Petition on all grounds. On appeal, the decision of the Rent Control Court was confirmed by the Appellate Authority.2. The building belonged to late Alexander the predecessor in interest of the petitioners. The building was leased out to the first respondent. Whether there was any rent deed is not clear and no party has produced any rent deed.3. According to the petitioners, the monthly rent fixed was Rs. 250/-. It was agreed that the tenant shall not sub-lease the building without the consent of the landlord. Rent was kept in arrears from 1.1.1988 onwards. The first respondent sub-let the building without the knowledge or consent of the landlord to the second respondent. Ext. A2 lawyer notice date...
Tag this Judgment!Janardhanan Pillai Vs. Travancore Devaswom Board
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-29-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT522
R. Bhaskaran, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the judgment of the Mahatma Gandhi University Appellate Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, in Appeal No. 4 of 2003. The petitioner, a Selection Grade Lecturer in the Department of Economics, Devaswom Board College, Sasthamcottah, challenged the denial to him of promotion as Principal and granting promotion to respondents 5 and 6, who according to the petitioner are his juniors in the feeder category of Selection Grade Lecturers. The Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the appeal without adverting to the crucial and basic contention of the petitioner. The facts of the case are not in serious dispute.2. The Travancore Devaswom Board is a Corporate Management having four colleges under the University of Kerala and Mahatma Gandhi University; Section 59 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act which is corresponding to Section 57 of the Kerala University Act reads as follows:'59. Appointment of teachers in private colleges:--(1) Appointments to...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala Hotel and Restaurant Association Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-28-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Ker85; 2005(4)KLT497
M. Ramachandran, J.1. The Taluk Supply Officer, Trichur had issued notices during July, 1998 and the recipients have filed these Original Petitions challenging the same, a specimen copy of which is produced as Ext.P3 in O.P.No. 14891 of 1998. He had brought it to the attention of the petitioners, who are hoteliers, an order (No. Fl.2396/98) of the District Collector, whereby he had classified the hotels, and had fixed the prices of normal food items. The Officer found that excess charges were being levied. For instance, in the case of first petitioner in O.P.No. 14720 of 1998, the price of tea exhibited was Rs. 3/- whereas the prescribed price was Rs. 2.50 and therefore, excess of fifty paise was being collected from the general public. Some other food items also were named and it had been warned that this is illegal. The direction was that price lists published are to be appropriately streamlined with the general directions, and in case of failure, petitioners were liable to be prosec...
Tag this Judgment!Vijayadas Vs. Inspector of Police
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT500
ORDERK. Thankappan, J.1. All these Crl. Miscellaneous Applications in the above appeals are filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking enlargement of time for surrendering before the trial court for execution of the sentence awarded by this Court.2. All the above appeals were disposed of by this Court. Even though the applications filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be legally entertained, taking into consideration the importance of the question, this Court is inclined to entertain the applications and consider the applications on merits.3. It is seen that some of the applicants/accused in the above appeals were not in a position to surrender before the original court on the date fixed by this Court either due to illness or due to the delay in getting certified copy of the judgment from this Court. The jurisdictional power of the appellate court is dealt with in Sections 372 to 394 of Chapter XXIX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). The ques...
Tag this Judgment!Petricia Vs. Purushothaman
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-28-2005
Reported in: II(2006)DMC273; 2006(2)KLT800
K. Hema, J.1. A petition was filed by the petitioner herein before the Magistrate's Court, claiming maintenance to herself under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code' for short). The application was allowed and respondent was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 500/- per month as maintenance to the petitioner as his wife from the date of petition. The said order was challenged in revision before the Sessions Court. It was allowed, setting aside the order of the Magistrate's Court. The legality, propriety and correctness of the said order are challenged in this revision.2. The relevant facts, in brief, are as follows: The respondent married petitioner at Vythiri Sub Registrar's Office, Their's was a love marriage. They executed an agreement of marriage also, as Exhibit P1. They lived as husband and wife in several places and a child was born in the wedlock. The child is in the custody of the respondent. The respondent was originally working in a parallel College and lat...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Thankamma Vs. Sundaresan T.S. and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-28-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD(Cri)51; II(2007)BC559; 2006CriLJ843
ORDERM. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. Petitioner was concurrently convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. He. is challenging conviction and sentence in the revision contending that Courts below did not properly appreciate the evidence.2. Ext P.1 cheque dated 15-9-1997 for Rs. 35.000/- was admittedly drawn in the account maintained by revision petitioner. First respondent presented it for encashment. It was dishonoured under Ext. P2. First respondent sent Ext. P4 notice demanding the amount, covered by dishonoured cheque. Ext. P6 original registered notice was returned unclaimed. Complaint was lodged thereafter, Petitioner pleaded not guilty. First respondent was examined as P.W. 1, Manager of the bank was examined as P.W. 2. Postman was examined as P.W. 3, Petitioner did not adduce any evidence. Learned Magistrate and in appeal learned Additional Sessions Judge appreciated the evidence at length and found that Ext. P1 cheque was issued towards discharge of exi...
Tag this Judgment!Darragh Smail Co. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Wealth Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-27-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT25
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The question raised in this case is with regard to the court fee payable in respect of an appeal filed under Section 27-A of the Wealth Tax Act. Appeal was preferred by the appellant by paying court fee of Rs. 500/-. Registry noted defect to which advocate gave the following reply.Court fee payable in an appeal under the Wealth Tax Act against the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, is under Schedule II Article 3(iii)(c) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. Therefore the court fee paid is sufficient. This is accepted in similar case W.T.A.../04 and 1/05 already admitted.Registry replied as follows:The court fee is to be paid as per the amended Court Fees Act on the basis of income assessed by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Annexure D). Hence court fee is to be paid on the net wealth amounting to Rs. 12,25,000/- Registry has noted that the appellant has to pay 1% of the assessed income when the income assessed by the Commissione...
Tag this Judgment!Malanad Co-operative Tea Factory Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-27-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT507
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of tea and was availing of exemption under notification No. 41/99 CE dated 26-11 -1999 during the financial year 2000-2001. Appellant was served with a show cause notice dated 28-5-2001 by the Superintendent of Central Excise to show cause why penalty under Rule 173 Q of the Central Excise Rules 1944 should not be imposed on it for the contravention of Rule 9(1) read with Rule 173G(1)(a) and 173F of the Central Excise Rules. It was pointed out that an amount of Rs. 1,78,558/- being the duty of excise called CENVAT payable on 89,279 kgs. of tea cleared by the appellant during the period from 1-4-2000 to 28-5-2001 has not been levied and that it has violated the provisions of Rule 9(1) read with Rule 173G(1)(a) and 173F of the Central Excise Rules 1944 by failing to assess the duty payable correctly and by clearing excisable goods without paying the duly payable on the grounds.2. Appellant filed objection to the show cause ...
Tag this Judgment!Chandran Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-27-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT962
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The sole accused in Sessions Case No. 111 of 2002 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc) Fast Track-I, Thrissur is challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in this appeal. The appellant was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Set off was also allowed.2. The prosecution case is as follows: The appellant's wife and children deserted him about 2 1/2 years prior to the date of the incident and were living separately. The appellant believed that his mother was instrumental for the separation of his wife and children from him. He became enmical towards his mother. On account of that enmity, he committed the murder of his mother, Kousalya, a 70 year old woman, at about 11p.m. on 27-5-2001 in the building bearing No. 111/2001 of Puthur Panchayat which belonged to the deceased. The appellant was also residing...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »