Kerala Court August 2006 Judgments
Moly Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-31-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT123
V. Ramkumar, J.1. This is an appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. by one Chennapoyil Moly who claims herself to be the wife of the accused (Attupurath Benny) in S.C No. 199/2003 before the Special Judge at Thalassery for trial of offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.2. The aforementioned accused was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506(ii) I.P.C. read with Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years under Section 376 I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 506(ii) I.P.C. and imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and on default to pay the fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three years under Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with a direction to pay 2/3 of the fine amount to the victim. The substantive se...
Tag this Judgment!Mary Philip Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-31-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT624
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The claimant in LAR 59 of 2002 and 64 of 2002 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Cherthala is the petitioner in this Writ Petition. The land owned by the petitioner was acquired for a public purpose. The Land Acquisition Officer registered L.A. Case Nos. 385 and 397 of 2000 and passed two awards on 16.9.2000. He issued notice of the awards on the petitioner. In L.A. Case 385 of 2000, the notice of award was served on the petitioner on 2.4.2001. In L.A. 397 of 2000, the notice was served on her on 23.4.2001. On 7.4.2001, the petitioner filed a petition before the Land Acquisition Officer complaining that the compensation awarded was inadequate and the matter may be referred to the competent court. The Land Acquisition Officer sent two reference orders to the court on 6.5.2002. On receipt of the records, the learned Sub Judge registered LAR 64 of 2002 and LAR 59 of 2002. The respondents filed statements. On the side of the petitioner AW1 was examined and Exts.Al ...
Tag this Judgment!Abdurehiman Vs. Sethu Madhavan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-30-2006
Reported in: II(2007)BC688; 2006(4)KarLJ33
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This Revision Petition has been placed before us on a reference by Justice R. Basant, after having noticed conflict between the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Muraleedharan v. Sreeram Investment Ltd. and Ors. : 2006(1)KLT131 and the decision of another learned Judge of this Court in G.T.C. Industrial Ltd. v. Abdurahimankutty 1993 (1) KLT 290. The learned Judge who decided Muraleedharan's case, supra, while dealing with an application under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has taken the view that delay in filing a complaint cannot be condoned unless it is supported by an affidavit by the complainant explaining the reasons for the delay.2. The learned Judge who decided Abdurahimankutty's case, while interpreting the provisions of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, took the view that if the delay has been property explained, cognizance can be taken, even without an application for condonation of delay in the...
Tag this Judgment!Pentecost Mission Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-30-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT153
V.K. Bali, C.J.1. Sub-rule (9) of Rule 6 of Kerala Panchayat Raj (Burial & Burning Grounds) Rules, 1998, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1998') reads as follows:The District Collector shall pass an order under Sub-rule (8) within six months from the date of receipt of the application and shall inform the same to the concerned Panchayat.The short but significant question that arise in the present appeal is as to when the terminus a quo to compute the prescribed limitation of six months would commence.2. Before however, we may take into consideration the rival contentions raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties on the crucial issue as stated above, it will be useful to extract a resume of the facts culminating into filing of the present appeal.3. The Pentecost Mission, petitioner in the original lis and the appellant in this Writ Appeal, in its Ezhamkulam Branch of church claims to have around 500 believers. They have no cemetery for burying corpse. An extent of...
Tag this Judgment!Pharma Kuries (P) Ltd. Vs. Soju
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-30-2006
Reported in: III(2007)BC262; 2006(4)KLT326
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Is Section 5 of the Limitation Act applicable at all to a claim petition under Section 84(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure? This is the question of law raised in this revision petition directed against an order passed by the learned Magistrate dismissing a claim petition filed by the petitioner under Section 84(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The learned Magistrate dismissed the application on two grounds, namely the application has not been filed within the period of 6 months as stipulated in Section 84(1) Cr. PC. and that the right of the petitioner over the property has not been satisfactorily established.3. To the skeletal facts first. A complaint was filed by the 2nd respondent herein against the 1st respondent alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The complaint was filed in 1997. Long later after completing all proceedings, the matter came up for judgment on 6.3.2000. From that date, the accused started ab...
Tag this Judgment!Navabharath Kuries and Trading Co. Vs. C.E. Job and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-30-2006
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ22
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Common questions arise for consideration in both the revision petitions and hence I am disposing of these cases by a common order.2. Revision petitioners herein filed two suits, O.S. Nos. 87 and 91 of 1999 before the Principal Munsiff's Court, Kochi for recovery of Rs. 6,500/- each from the defendants towards subscription to prized chitty transactions. Plaintiff is a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act with its Head Office at Karuvelipadi, Kochi. Firm was stated to be represented by its Managing Partner by name Joseph Kunjaprambil. Contention was raised before the trial court that the suits are not maintainable on the ground that the signatory to the plaint has no right to represent the firm being not the Managing Partner. Objection was raised on the footing of Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act. The trial court found that the plaintiff firm had failed to prove the Managing Partner who had filed the suits was the Managing Partner at t...
Tag this Judgment!Enose Justus Vs. Yohannan Thomas
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-29-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT111
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Boundaries of properties are generally man made and can be classified as natural and artificial. Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Page 390 states that a boundary is an imaginary line which marks the confines or line of division of two contiguous parcels of land. Ownership of trees standing or growing upon the boundary of the properties of two adjoining owners depends upon the question who planted or sowed the tree. Littledale, J. in Holder Coates (1827), M. & M. 112 ruled that the tree belongs to the owner in whose ground the tree was first sown or planted. In Lemon v. Webb (1894) 3 Ch. 1 at page 20 held that if the roots subsequently spread to the adjoining land that will not affect the ownership. In Holder v. Coates (supra) it has been held that where it is not known who planted the tree the ownership will depend upon the situation of the body of the tree. In Masters v. Police (1620), 2 Rolle, 141; Lemmon Webb (supra) held that if the tree is ...
Tag this Judgment!Shima Kuttappan Vs. Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-29-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT617
A.K. Basheer, J.1. Is the decision taken by Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady to shift six vacancies of Lecturer from the Departments of Economics, Political Science, Sociology and Ayurveda to the Department of Philosophy, legally valid and sustainable2. Petitioners in these two Writ Petitions contend that the above decision of the University is totally against the provisions of Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act') and the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit Statutes, 1997 (for short 'the Statutes'). But it is contended by the University that the above decision was taken by the Syndicate strictly in accordance with the statutory mandates and also in compliance with the directions issued by the University Grants Commission.3. A brief reference to some of the essential facts is necessary to decide the above question which has cropped up in these two Writ Petilions.4. On November 21, 2005 the University issued a notification invit...
Tag this Judgment!Casino Hotel Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-29-2006
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ530; (2008)14VST122(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The first question raised is whether the tribunal is correct in confirming the assessment of soda and mineral water at twenty per cent under Entry 87 of Ist Schedule to the KGST Act as against six per cent claimed by petitioner under Entry 40 of Ist Schedule. Petitioner is a star hotel and is liable to pay tax on cooked food and beverages at the point of first sale at six per cent as provided under Entry 40 of Ist Schedule to the KGST Act. In order to appreciate the contentions raised, the relevant Entry is extracted hereunder:40. Cooked food including At the point of firstbeverages not falling sale in the State by 6%under entries 53 and 54 a dealer who is liableof this Schedule sold or to tax under Section 5served in bar attachedhotels and/or star hotel/srestaurants.2. The question is whether Soda which is aerated water and mineral water sold by petitioner which are also beverages, attract tax at six per cent under Entry 40 or twenty per cent under Entry 8...
Tag this Judgment!Deepak Vs. George Philip
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-28-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Ker94; 2006(4)KLT369
J.B. Koshy, J.1. What is the procedure or course of action a court should adopt when the counsel reports no instructions? Is the court invariably bound to issue fresh notice to litigants before proceeding with the case further? Whether the observations in Jayalakshmi v. Avara 2003 (2) KLT 901 lays down an inflexible rule that whenever counsel reports 'no instructions', the court should issue a registered notice to that party? A learned single Judge of this Court (Mr. R. Basant, J.) referred this case to the Division Bench for clarification of the above issues. Before dealing with the question, we shall briefly refer to the facts of this case.2. A suit was filed by the first respondent herein against one Sasidharan Nair. The defendant Sasidharan Nair filed written statement on 22-8-1997. The suit is one for recovery of money on the strength of a dishonoured cheque, allegedly issued by the original defendant, Sasidharan Nair. It is seen that, prior to the institution of the suit, a lawye...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »