Kerala Court March 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.
Janardhanan Vs. C.V. Narayani and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-08-2006
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ245
ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. This Civil Petition arises out of an order fixing quantum of mesne profits payable by the respondents. It was held by the executing court that the respondents are liable to pay a sum of Rs. 60,516.60/- as mesne profits to the Revision Petitioner. The claim for interest made by the Revision Petitioner was negatived by the executing court. Revision Petitioner challenges that part of the order by which the executing court rejected the contention of the Revision Petitioner that he is entitled to interest on mesne profits.2. The Revision Petitioner also challenges the quantum of mesne profits fixed by the executing court and the value of paddy adopted by the court in fixing the quantum of mesne profits. The respondents in the revision paid the amount fixed by the executing court and the executing court recorded full satisfaction of the decree. The decree holder challenges that order of the executing court in E.F.A. No. 9 of 1995.3. The Revision Petitioner/plaintiff ...
Prabhakaran Vs. Gangadharan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-07-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1872; 2006(2)KLT122
ORDERK. Thankappan, J.1. The petitioners are the accused in S.T.No. 1910 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, North Paravur. The petitioners seek to quash Annexure C complaint filed against them by the first respondent herein.2. The first respondent-complainant filed Annexure C complaint before the court below stating that the written statement filed by the accused-defendants 1 and 3 in O.S.No. 481 of 2000 pending before the Sub Court, Ernakulam contained defamatory statements against him. According to the complainant, the suit was filed by his wife for partition and he is not a party to the suit. The plaintiffs and defendants are close relations. In paragraph 12 of the written statement, it is stated that the father of the first accused who is the brother of the plaintiff in the suit placing utmost faith in the plaintiff and her husband, the first respondent herein, who is a practicing lawyer at the Paravur Bar, affixed his signature wherever he was aske...
Hymavathi Vs. Spl. Dy. Tahsildar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-07-2006
Reported in: [2006(109)FLR1171]; 2006(2)KLT438; (2006)IIILLJ223Ker
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. The short issue that arises for decision in this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is as to whether an employer who gets voluntarily covered as an establishment under Section 1(4) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the EPF Act') is exempted from paying contribution under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund Act, 1985 ('Welfare Fund Act', for short), by virtue of the proviso to Section 4(1) of that Act. 2. The factual matrix on which this issue is raised is that petitioner, an individual, namely, K.V. Hymavathi and M. Balakrishnan and K.V. Devaki, who own three different stage carriages, applied for being covered under Section 1(4) of the EPF Act on the basis of a joint application dt.23-1-2002 from the employees and the consent letter issued by the aforesaid persons. With effect from 1-1-2002 Code No. KR/KNR/18135 is allotted to the said est...
Harihara Puthra Sharma Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-07-2006
Reported in: II(2007)BC576; [2007]137CompCas729(Ker)
A.K. Basheer, J.1. An interesting question touching the territorial jurisdiction of a criminal court to entertain a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act, has come up for consideration in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The question is : Does a criminal court get jurisdiction to entertain a complaint under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for the sole reason that the statutory notice demanding payment had been issued by the advocate of the complainant who has his office within the territorial limits of that court 3. The relevant facts may be briefly noticed.4. The petitioner is being prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Pathanamthitta. In annexure A complaint filed by respondent No. 2/complainant, it is averred that the cheque for a sum of Rs. 98,000 issued by the petitioner/accused was dishonoured when it was presented for c...
Biju S. Praveen Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-07-2006
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ713
ORDERA.K. Basheer, J.1. This application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure depicts how judicial insensitivity can result in grave miscarriage of justice. The power and majesty of magistracy may be an alluring proposition, especially in a mofussil area. But the judicial officers occupying the seat of justice must always remember that they are dealing with problems of human beings. Insensitivity and insouciance bordering on callous apathy to human feelings may result in extreme mental torture to those who are unwittingly dragged to a criminal court.2. In the instant case a young man, who was involved in a road accident while he was away from his home town, had to face the wrath of a Magistrate. Resultantly, he was banished to judicial custody for a day. The learned Magistrate probably had the satisfaction that he had shown his Magisterial powers and given vent to his judicial wrath. But at what cost3. On February 8. 2003 the petitioner, his parents and sister were...
Hindusthan Newsprint Industrial Canteen Workers Union Vs. Hindusthan N ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-06-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT103; (2006)IIILLJ292Ker
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. The issue involved is common to both these cases. The issue is whether the employees employed in a canteen by a principal employer through a contractor in fulfillment of the statutory obligation of maintaining a canteen as provided under the Factories Act are, in fact, employees of the principal employer and entitled to regularisation as such.2. In both cases, the principal employers are institutions fully owned by the Government. One is a Government Company and the other is an authority under the Major Port Trusts Act. It is not disputed that these principal employers are statutorily obliged to maintain a canteen for its employees as per the provisions of the Factories Act. It is also not disputed that they are maintaining the canteen by entrusting such maintenance of canteen to a contractor as per the terms of a contract. But workers and the union of the institutions claimed that going by the decisions of the Supreme Court in respect of the canteens maintained pur...
Ansari Charitable Trust Vs. Kerala Wakf Board
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-06-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT891
Kurian Joseph, J.1. What are the questions, matters or disputes to be adjudicated before the Wakf Tribunal is the main issue arising for consideration in this case. The Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by Ext. P-5 notice issued by the respondent Wakf Board. The respondent directed the petitioner to take steps to register the property covered by Exts. P-1 and P-2 under the Wakf Board. Petitioner took the stand that it is a trust registered under the Indian Trust Act and not a wakf property and hence not liable to be registered under the respondent Board. The objections have been considered in detail and the respondent passed Ext. R-1 (a) order dated 22-11-1999 holding that the property covered by Exts. P-1 and P-2 is wakf property and that it is liable to be registered. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on Section 43 of the Wakf Act, 1995 contends that being a trust registered prior to the introduction of Wakf Act, the property is not liable to be registered under the ...
Animal Welfare Board of India Vs. Ombudsman
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-03-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ker201; [2006(3)JCR310]; 2006(2)KLT91
V.K. Bali, C.J. 1. The Animal Welfare Board of India and a registered society by name 'DAYA' (Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals), the petitioners herein, it appears, are more interested in welfare and preservation of stray dogs, even though suffering from fatal diseases or even rabies and appear to have no concern for human beings who fall victims of bite of stray dogs in the entire length and breadth of Kerala State. Through the present petition filed, the petitioners thus crave indulgence of this Court to issue appropriate directions to preserve stray dogs even though they have become unwanted because of fatal and dangerous diseases with which they are afflicted. Inasmuch as, in the context of the relief as asked for it is essential to seek to set aside Exhibit P2 dated 25th August, 2004 passed by the Ombudsman, they seek this Court to do so.2. The only question while seeking the reliefs as enumerated above that has been posed for answer of this Court is as to whether ...
Musliarakath Abdulla Vs. Abdul Azeea Naha
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT228
R. Bhaskaran, J.A.S. No. 809 of 19971. This appeal is filed by the defendant in O.S. No. 27 of 1994 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tirur. The suit was filed for realisation of Rs. 4,25,622.55 with interest at 15% per annum. According to the plaintiff, the defendant was the driver of the plaintiff. He got employment at Jiddah. His services were terminated in 1986. While returning to India, he had purchased a foreign car for the plaintiff. 10,000 Riyals was paid by the plaintiff through his son-in-law, who was working there. After the car was brought to India, the delivery was delayed on account of customs clearance problems. The plaintiffs spent an amount of Rs. 13,000/- for demurrage charges. Rs. 1,82,227.55 was paid as customs duty. Various other amounts had also to be incurred for getting clearance of the car including warehouse charges, battery service charges, charges for registration number etc. The plaintiff spent a total amount of Rs. 3,18,223.55 for the car. The ...
Jayakumar Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-01-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT34
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk based on the report No. 256/01 dated 29.08.2001 of the Village Officer, Elamkulam assessed Building Tax of the petitioner's residential building having plinth area of 402.35 M2 in survey number 473/3 of Elamkulam Village as per order assessment order dated 12.10.2002.2. Government of Kerala has introduced luxury tax with effect from 1.4.1999 as per Section 5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. The rate of tax is Rs. 2,000/- per annum. Accordingly petitioner was served with order dated 11.3.2004 by the Tahsildar, Kanayannur assessing luxury tax of Rs. 2,000/- per annum. Aggrieved by the said order of assessment, assessee filed revision before the District Collector under Section 13 of the Act. Assessee on receipt of the order dated 11.3.2004 submitted representation before the Tahsildar on 27.3.2004 stating that since there was no space for car shed basement floor for car parking and car porch be excluded from assessing building ta...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »