Kerala Court December 2006 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.
Puthiyapurayil Abdul Salam Vs. P.P. Mariyumma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-11-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Ker68; I(2007)DMC506
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. A petition was filed before the Family Court by the husband represented by his father, the power of attorney holder to set aside the ex parte order and to prosecute the petition representing through the power of attorney holder. The reason for dismissal of the petition is that 'the petitioner is not at all having any locus standi to file either an application to permit him to represent the counter petitioner on the strength of a power of attorney or to pray for setting aside the ex parte order passed against the counter-petitioner in M.C. No. 443/03'. When the party was away abroad, necessarily his duly constituted power of attorney holder can represent him for the purpose of prosecuting the case and to seek to set aside the ex parte order. Those should have to be decided on merit. In case, the presence of the husband is required for counselling or conciliation, necessarily at that time his presence can be insisted.2. Permission to be represented in a suit by a ...
Chamiyappa Mannadiar and anr. Vs. Danavan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-11-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Ker127
ORDERM. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. Can a copy of an insufficiently stamped instrument be impounded under Section 33 of Kerala Stamp Act or the deficit stamp duty and penalty be realised Whether a provision in the instrument creating an obligation to pay money, but not a fixed sum, makes the instrument a bond as defined under Section 2(a)(i) Kerala Stamp Act? These are the interesting questions to be settled in this case.2. Petitioners are husband and wife. They are the plaintiffs in O.S. 156/1996 on the file of Sub Court, Palakkad. Respondent in the C.R.P. are the defendants in that suit. First respondent in the C.R.P. is the plaintiff in O.S. 284/95 and O.S. 543/1998 on the file of the same Court. Petitioner filed O.S. 156/1996 for realisation of Rs. 5.2 Lakhs due under an agreement for sale dated 3-4-1995. First respondent filed O.S. 284/1985 for realisation of the amount paid under the agreement contending that it was not actually an agreement for sale but a loan transaction. O.S. 43/...
Bobby Paulose Vs. Ronia Mathew
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-07-2006
Reported in: 1(2007)DMC514
M. Ramachandran, J.1. The above two writ petitions are disposed of by a common judgment. Interlocutory orders passed by the Family Court, Ernakulam have been subjected to challenge. I.A. No. 1508 of 2005 in O.P. No. 1308 of 2004 and I.A. No. 1507 of 2005 in O.P. No. 1309 of 2004, respectively Exts. P2 and P3 in W.P. (C) No. 18274 of 2006. They appear to be one and the same order. Certain remittances were ordered, as payable by the husband, who has the petitioner in O.P. Nos. 1308 and 1309 of 2004. The interlocutory applications had been filed under Section 36 of the Indian Divorce Act. We find that a realistic approach had been made by the Family Court, and interference at this stage is not called for.2. At the time of admission of W.P. (C) No. 18274 of 2006, interim order had been passed, simultaneously taking notice of certain deposits made by the petitioner in connected pending matters. The apparent idea was that the wife is not put to prejudice, since the matter was being indefinit...
P.K. Raveendran Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-06-2006
Reported in: 2007(210)ELT192(Ker)
ORDERC.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Heard counsel for he petitioners and Assistant Solicitor General for respondents.2. All petitioners are holders of temporary Customs Agents licence. Under the 2004 Regulation, temporary licensees are given two years' time to pass the written examination to regularise their licence. Except petitioners 2 and 7, all others have become qualified licensees by passing the examination. Therefore, the prayer in the writ petition is limited to petitioners 2 and 7 who are writing the examination being held in the 3rd week of December 2006. Counsel for petitioner contended that the Regulations require examination to be conducted twice in an year. Therefore according to him, minimum three examination should have been completed from the commencement of the new regulation introduced in 2004. Petitioner's case is that they can write four examinations to be conducted in two years. Since Regulation 8(5) requires temporary licensees to pass examination within two years ...
M.L. Kunjumon Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-06-2006
Reported in: 2007(210)ELT347(Ker)
V.K. Bali, C.J. 1. The challenge in the present Writ Appeal is to the order dated 14th October, 2004 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 30271 of 2004-D. The petitioner was issued with show cause notice, Exhibit P3, under Section 124 of the Customs Act by the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Kochi, followed by an adjudication order, Exhibit P4, dated 30-3-1994. He challenged both Exhibits P3 and P4 in the writ petition. Inasmuch as, show cause notice had merged into order Exhibit P4, the surviving challenge, as rightly observed by the learned Single judge, was only to Exhibit P4. While dealing with and rejecting the challenge to Exhibit P4, learned Single Judge observed that the petitioner had invoked the appellate remedy by filing an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Madras, wherein he sought exemption from making pre-deposit under the statute, but was asked to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. This order passed by the Tr...
Paravan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-05-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)KLT396
V. Ramkumar, J.1. In this appeal preferred from the Central Prison, Kannur the appellant, namely, Paravan who was the sole accused in S.C. No. 110/2004 on the file of the Addl. Sessions Court (Fast Track No. I), Manjeri challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for an offence punishable under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 30-08-2002 at about 8.25 a.m. the accused was found in possession of 20 litres of wash kept in two plastic pots, each of 10 litres capacity, and utensils for the purpose of manufacturing illicit arrack and two empty bottles having the smell of arrack, at Vettilappara within the limits of the Manjeri Excise Range. The accused has, thereby, committed an offence punishable under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act.3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against him by the court below for offences punishable under Section 8(1) and 8(2) read with Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act, the pros...
Sunil Kumar Vs. Jalaja
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-05-2006
Reported in: II(2007)DMC184; 2007(1)KLJ266
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The prayer in the Writ Petition is to quash Ext. PI order. Counsel submits before us that mentioning of Ext. PI order is a mistake and what his client had intended to set aside is Ext. P2 order. We are proceeding the case in that frame.2. Admittedly the writ petitioner faced an order from the Family Court, Kollam to pay maintenance to the child at the rate of Rs. 350 per mensem. However, admittedly, the amount had not been paid. An application by the mother of the minor child seeking payment of the said amount was filed. It resulted in Ext. PI order which was as under:Petitioner present. C.P. present. Amount not paid. C.P. is sentenced to imprisonment for one month. Issue distress warrant for realisation of amount.This imprisonment order is issued in terms of Sub-section (3) of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the parties, the petitioner had undergone the imprisonment ordered in Ext. PI dated 28.2.2005. Thereafter, on 30.3.2006 when th...
Shajimon Joseph Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-04-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)KLT368
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. Kerala is widely known all over the world as a land of backwaters. In fact, the backwaters are important tourist attraction in Kerala. Alappuzha, one of the districts of Kerala, is also rich in that sense, since the district has backwaters in abundance. However, Alappuzha is a place which makes the old saying 'water, water everywhere, but not a drop to drink', true to its real sense. In spite of water in such abundance all over the district, the inhabitants of Alappuzha do not get clean drinking water, despite the water supply system in existence operated by the Kerala Water Authority. The water which comes through the taps of the Kerala Water Authority at Alappuzha is so rich in all kinds of organic and inorganic impurities that no person who values his health would dare to drink the same. But for the paucity of adequate potable drinking water, we feel that the influx of tourists to Alappuzha would have been much greater than what is presently obtaining. This situa...
Ajith Vs. Secretary, P.W.D.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-04-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)KLT74
Kurian Joseph, J.1. Whether the Departmental Promotion Committee is competent to decide the rank of a person in the select list is the question to be decided in this case. Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of the KS & SSR deals with the procedure for preparation of the select list. It is clearly stated in the rule that 'Persons selected for inclusion in the Select List shall be ranked in the Select List according to their seniority in the feeder category.' Despite such a clear provision, the contention advanced in the impugned Ext. P7 order passed by the Government is that the Departmental Promotion Committee has power to decide the rank in the select list also. The competence of the Departmental Promotion Committee, as rules stand now is only to decide the suitability of a person to be included in the select list. There is no doubt that the suitability is to be assessed based on the merit. Once an employee is found suitable or fit to be included in the select list, then the rank in the select list is ...
Salam Vs. Ayisha and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-04-2006
Reported in: I(2007)DMC289
R. Basant, J.1. The petitioner is the respondent in a claim for maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. There is no marriage between the petitioner herein and the mother of the claimant. It would appear that the allegation is that the mother of the claimant was raped and the child was born in such relationship. The dispute regarding the paternity was raised. The parties got the D.N.A. test conducted. The D.N. A. test was answered against the petitioner. Thereupon the claimant submitted that she has no further evidence. The report of the learned Judge of the Family Court shows that the petitioner herein and his Counsel had also submitted that they have no evidence to adduce. The matter was heard and the petition was posted for orders to 18.9.2006. It is at that stage, the petitioner came before this Court on 12.9.2006 and filed this petition. Orders of stay were issued and the claim under Section 125, Cr.P.C. remains without disposal even now.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner sub...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »