Kerala Court September 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.
Ahammed Vs. Antony
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-05-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT361
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Does the omission to provide any consequence for an action or inaction would make the provision of an election statute directory or mandatory is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.2. The design of all election laws is to uphold the right to vote, a precious personal prerogative to be sedulously guarded. We are confronted with such a situation in the instant case, Petitioner's vote east in the meeting to consider the no-confidence motion against 5th respondent was rejected by the Election Commission on the ground that the petitioner had failed to write his name and affix signature on the reverse side of the ballot paper instead on the facing sheet of the ballot paper. Election Commission authorised the District Collector under Section 157 (2) and (5) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act to convene a meeting to consider the motion of no-confidence against the President and Vice President of the District Panchayat. On 7-6-2005 eight members of...
Samrat Exports and Importers Vs. Commr. of Customs and Central Excise ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-05-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT828
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The question that is posed for consideration in this case is whether Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) is justified in rejecting an appeal on the ground that the appeal was not maintainable since it was filed out of time.2. Appeal 8/2003 dated 16-4-2003 was filed by the appellant against the order-in-original No. 1/2002 dated 23-9-2002 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Divisional Office, Palakkad. Application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was also filed. Commissioner (Appeals) noticed that the impugned order was received by the appellant on 2-10-2002. However, the appeal was filed only on 16-4-2003. Commissioner noticed that the appeal was filed not only beyond the period of limitation but also beyond the condonable period. Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to admit such belated appeal and consequently the appeal was rejected. Aggrieved by the same the matter was taken up in appeal before the Tribunal. ...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Indus Motor Co. (P) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-05-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC469; 2005(4)KLT391
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Insurance Ombudsman has rejected the complaints filed by Indus Motor Co. Pvt. Limited under Rule 13 of the Redressal of Public Grievances Rules, 1998, (for short 'the Rules') claiming an amount of Rs. 9,44,551/- with interest from the United India Insurance Company Limited and also Rs. 10,94,404/- with interest from the National Insurance Company Limited. Insurance Ombudsman, Kochi dismissed both the complaints stating as follows:'On an examination of the allegations in the complaint and the cause title of the complaint, I find that the insured is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and hence the Insurance policy cannot be said to have been taken on 'Personal Lines' or in other words, in an 'Individual Capacity' as defined in Rule 4 (i) and in Rule 4(k) of the Redressal of Public Grievances Rules, 1998 and as such, the Insurance Ombudsman, Kochi has no jurisdiction to entertain the above complaint and grant the relief.'2. Petitioner, a pri...
Raju Vs. Chacko
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-05-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT197
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. What is the sweep of the expression 'family or other near relatives' in Explanation-I of Section 499 IPC? In the absence of intention to be hurtful to the feelings of 'family or other near relatives' is the mere knowledge that the defamatory publication would be hurtful to them sufficient to bring the conduct within the sweep of culpability under Section 499 IPC? Does Section 12 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (for short 'the Act') apply at all to a publisher? These interesting questions of importance, on which no binding precedents are shown to exist, arise for consideration in this case.2. The petitioners are accused Nos. 3 to 14 in a prosecution initiated against them by the 1st respondent herein by filing a private complaint. Respondents 3 to 5 are the co-accused in the said crime. Altogether there are 15 accused. The accused persons face allegations of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 120B and 500 of the IPC and Sections...
Sugil Vs. Sadanandan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-05-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT220
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Writ petition was preferred by respondents 1 and 2 herein seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Grama Panchayat to take appropriate action on Exts.P1, P2 and P5 and for removal of the unauthorised construction and the unauthorised advertisement board erected by the 4th respondent/appellant herein. Direction was also sought for to the 5th respondent to provide adequate police aid to the Grama Panchayat for removing the unauthorised advertisement board installed by the 4th respondent.2. Second petitioner in the writ Petitioner had filed a complaint 14-2-2005 to the Grama Panchayat about the illegal erection of hoarding by name 'Coax Computers' without obtaining necessary permission from the Grama Panchayat. Objection was taken note of by the Panchayat and the Panchayat vide letter dated 15-2-2005 directed respondents 2 to 4 to remove the Board which was erected without permission of the Panchayat. No action was taken by the 4th respondent who is conducting 'Co...
Ramesh Babu Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-05-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT372
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Constitutional validity of the Kerala Liquor Transit (Amendment) Rules 2005 imposing enhanced fee for transit of liquor through the State of Kerala to Mahe alone, a part of the Union Territory of Pondicherry is under challenge in these appeals as discriminatory and offending free trade and commerce through out the territory of India.2. Petitioners are engaged in the trade of liquor through various retail shops at Mahe, a part of Union Territory of Pondicherry. Government of Pondicherry in exercise of its powers conferred under Rule 113(1) framed under the Pondicherry Excise Act, 1970 have issued necessary licences for possession and sale of Indian made foreign liquors/foreign liquors and beer in the town of Mahe, which falls under the administration of Government of Pondicherry. Licence permits the licensees to import all kinds of Indian liquor or foreign liquors and beer from outside and also from the manufacturers of the Union Territory of Pondicherry after o...
Saidu Mohammed and ors. Etc. Vs. State of Kerala Etc.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-05-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ413
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. Criminal Appeal Nos. 1207 of 2004 and 1083 of 2005 and Criminal Revision Petition No. 2373 of 2004 arise from the judgment rendered by the 1 Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur in S.C. No. 201 of 1995, which, in turn, arose from C.P. No. 2 of 1994 of JFCM, Kunnamkulam (Crime No. 95 of 1993 of Kunnamkulam Police Station registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 342, 324 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code). Criminal Appeal No. 1544 of 2004 is filed by the complainant in C.P. 1 of 1995 on the file the JFCM Kunnamkulam from which S.C. 202 of 1995 arose. That Criminal Appeal is directed against the acquittal of the respondents in that appeal stated to have been passed in S.C. No. 202 of 1995.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the appeals and Criminal Revision Petition are as follows : Deceased Suresh Babu was an active worker of Bharatheeya Janatha Party (BJP for short). He was employed as a motor winding mechanic at Kunnamkulam. Ther...
District Executive Officer Vs. Abel
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-05-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT758
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Whether the Government have got the power to condone the delay in filing an appeal beyond sixty days from the date of receipt of the order under Section 8(5) of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1985 is the question posed for consideration in these cases.2. Writ petitioner in O.P. No. 14892 of 1999 was served with the final determination order for the periods 1993-94 and 1994-95 by the District Executive Officer of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board by registered post which was returned with the postal endorsement 'addressee unclaimed'. Appeals were preferred before the Government on 8.4.1999 after a period of more than four years against the final determination order for the year 1993-94 and after a period of more than three years against the final determination order for the year 1994-95. Contention was raised before Government that final determination orders were wrongly and falsely returned by the postman to the Distric...
Cherootty V. and ors. Vs. P.T. Ramanujan and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-05-2005
Reported in: (2006)IILLJ697Ker; 2006(3)SLJ110(Kerala)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Can individual workmen invoke Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act to claim closure compensation where the workers represented by the Unions have already settled the claims arising from the closure of the factory is the question that has come up for consideration in these cases.2. Unions and the management had held several discussions and ultimately settled the entire claims with provision for ex gratia amounts. Exhibit P1 is the terms and conditions of settlement entered into between the management and the four unions on May 5, 1999. the labour dispute arose from the closure of a tile factory. Conciliation talks were held at the intervention of the D.L.O. which did not bear any results and ultimately the matter was referred to the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner. On repeated discussions between the unions and the management an amicable settlement was reached. The terms of the settlement provided for payment of gratuity to all the workmen who had c...
Thomas Vs. Kunjamma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-02-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Ker40; 2005(5)CTC241; [2006(2)JCR135]; 2005(4)KLT286
R. Bhaskaran, J.1. This revision is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No. 369 of 1976 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Muvattupuzha. The suit was for injunction and it was tried along with O.S.No. 438 of 1976. The trial court decreed O.S.No. 369 of 1976 and dismissed O.S.No. 438 of 1976. The common judgment was confirmed in appeals and second appeals. Common judgment of the High Court was in SA.Nos. 482 and 486 of 1982. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint as well as of the decree to correct the extent of the plaint schedule property as 77.79 cents instead of 75 cents and also the survey number as Sy.No. 734/2B instead of 734/2AB. The trial court dismissed the application holding that that court has no jurisdiction in view of the Full Bench decision in Kannan v. Narayani (1980 KLT 9 (FB). The plaintiff filed this revision before this Court challenging the order of the trial court. When the matter came before the learned single Judge reliance was p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »