Kerala Court January 2007 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.
V. Bapputty Alias Muhammed Vs. Shahida and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-18-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ1551
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Is a wife who has got remarried and who has received reasonable and fair provision and maintenance from her former husband entitled to claim reasonable and fair provision and maintenance again under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') from the next husband who remarries and divorces her This is the question that is raised for consideration in this Crl. M.C.2. On fundamental facts, there is no dispute. The marriage was the third marriage of the woman and the second marriage of the man. No children were born in the wedlock. Marriage took place on 30-6-96. Divorce took place on 6-6-1998. About the reasons of the divorce also, there is no serious disputes raised now. The husband was tested H.I.V. positive. The relatives of the wife in these circumstances got her away from the husband. She also later tested H.I.V. positive. There is, of course, a dispute attempted to be raised now as to whether...
K.M. Abdul Rahiman and ors. Vs. the Spl. Tahsildar, Railway and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-18-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ833
K.T. Sankaran, J.1. Lands belonging to the petitioners were acquired and award dated 17-9-2000 was passed. The petitioners did not make an application before the Land Acquisition Officer for a reference under Section 18 of the Act. However, reference was made at the behest of some other persons whose lands were acquired under the same notification and for the same purpose. As per judgment dated 29-11 -2004 in LAR Nos. 32/2001, 59/2001 and 62/2001 and other connected cases, Sub Court, Kasargod enhanced the land value. Thereupon the petitioners submitted Ext. P2 application dated 28-2-2005 under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act. It is stated that along with an application a photo copy of the judgment in LAR No. 32/2001 and connected cases was produced. Ext. P3 acknowledgment card evidences receipt of Ext. P2 application on 1-3-2005. It is further stated that the first respondent Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) returned Ext. P2 application on the ground that certified copy of ...
Mar Baselius Medical Mission Hospital Vs. Joseph Babu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-17-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)KLJ622; (2007)IILLJ925Ker
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. An hospital against which a consultant physician employed by them filed a C.P. before the Labour Court, Ernakulam as C.P. No. 47/ 1991 under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming certain benefits due to him including Sunday and holiday wages is challenging the order in that C.P in this Original Petition. The petitioner raised a preliminary point on the question as to whether the consultant physician, the 1 st respondent herein, is a workman or not. That question was considered as a preliminary point and by Exhibit P1 preliminary order, relying on the Supreme Court decision in the Burma Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Co. of India Ltd. v. Burma Shell Management Staff Association and Ors. : (1970)IILLJ590SC the Labour Court held that the 1st respondent Consultant Physician is a workman coming within the definition of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore the claim petition under Section 33-C(2) is maintainable. Although the pet...
Sasidharan K.K. and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-17-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ383
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. The petitioners were licensees of toddy shop Nos. 117 to 177 of Ettumanoor excise range in Kottayam division for the year 1999 - 2000. The petitioners obtained Ext. P1 permit for transportation of toddy from Chittur to Ettumanoor. On 12-5-1999 a mini lorry containing the toddy tranported by the petitioners was seized by the Excise Officers since the lorry contained toddy in excess of the quantity permitted by Ext. P1 permit. Crime No. 2/99 was registered against the petitioners under Sections 55(a) and 56(b) of the Abkari Act, 1997, as per Ext. P2 by the Excise Inspector, Tripunithura. A mahazar Ext. P3 was also prepared. The petitioners are challenging Ext. P2 occurrence report to the extent it includes an offence under Section 55(a) also. According to the petitioners, transportation of toddy in excess of permit, even if proved to be corrct would only amount to violation of the permit conditions, which would not attract an offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari ...
H.N. Padmanabha Hegde and ors. Vs. Suneetha J. Rao and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-17-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ707
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. This Second Appeal is by the defendants 6 to 13. The only substantial question of law raised and urged before me is as follows;On the facts and features of the case, whether the lower appellate court was right in not drawing a presumption on due execution of Ext.B1 will, which is 30 yeas old, as contained in Section 90 of he Evidence Act?.2. The entire case set up by the appellants/defendants 6 to 13 centers around Ext.B1 Will, which is taken as a defence against the claim for partition by the plaintiff, one among the sisters of the appellant. The facts are as follows;3. One Narayana Hedge, the father of the parties died in the year 1979, leaving his widow, defendant No. 1 who died during the pendency of the suit, plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5, five daughters and the appellants/defendants 6. to 13, 8 sons. The parties are governed by Mithakshara Hindu Law. According; to the plaintiff, her share in the property was not given to her in spite of the persistent de...
Manjilas Rice Mill Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-16-2007
Reported in: (2007)6VST403(Ker)
K.P. Balachandran, J.1. The appellant, a registered dealer, sought for clarification of the rate of tax leviable for certain commodities vide annex-ure I application, submitted before the Commissioner for Commercial Taxes, invoking Section 94 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Commissioner, vide annexure II order, issued the clarification. Being aggrieved by annexure II clarification, the applicant/dealer has preferred this appeal.2. At the time of final hearing, it was submitted by the counsel for the appellant that this Court need to consider the correctness of the clarification only in relation to item Nos. 1 to 7,12,14 and 15 of annexure I and that no interference is required in respect of clarifications given under annexure II in relation to item Nos. 8 to 11, 13 and 16 to 19 of annexure I.3. Hence, the issue to be decided is as to what is the rate of tax applicable under the Act to the commodities shown as item Nos. 1 to 7,12,14 an...
Subhash JaIn Vs. Pioneer Shopping Complex (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-16-2007
Reported in: [2008]142CompCas533(Ker); [2007]79SCL289(Ker)
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This is an appeal preferred under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 for setting aside the order dated 3-5-2000 of the Company Law Board and also for a direction to the Company Law Board to fix the value of the appellant's shares on the basis of Annexure-G valuation report and for a direction to the respondents (majority) shareholders to purchase the appellants (minority) shares at the value so fixed by the Company Law Board and also for the other consequential reliefs.2. Company petition was preferred by the appellant herein under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 complaining oppression and mismanagement by the majority shareholders and stated that all the ingredients of Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 are present for passing an order pursuant to Section 402 of the Act. Further, it was also alleged that not only the minority shareholders are being oppressed but the company's affairs are being carried on in a manner which ...
Adarsha Vidyanidhi Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-16-2007
Reported in: (2007)212CTR(Ker)242; [2007]292ITR465(Ker)
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The petitioner is a public charitable trust registered on 4th Dec, 1995. Ext. P1 is the trust deed. It applied to the respondent for getting itself registered under Section 12A of the IT Act, 1961 so that it can avail the benefits under Sections 11 and 12 of the IT Act. Ext. P2 is the application submitted by it. The respondent issued Ext. P3 defect memo pointing out the defects to be cured in the petitioner's application. On receipt of the said memo, the petitioner submits, it cured all the defects and Ext. P4 rectification deed was also executed so as to make the trust deed in conformity with the directions in Ext. P3. The petitioner was heard pursuant to Ext. P5 notice and the respondent passed Ext. P6 order rejecting its application for registration. It is an order passed under Section 12AA(b) of the IT Act, 1961. Petitioner attacks Ext. P6. According to the petitioner, the defects pointed out in the application of the petitioner were those mentioned in E...
R. Karunanithi Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-15-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ291
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. This case calls for interpretation and application of propositions (a) to (c) in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla 2005 (4) KLT 209.The common petitioner is the 3rd accused in four connected prosecutions all initiated by the 1st respondent/complainant under Section 138 of the N.I. Act Admittedly, the petitioner is not a signatory to the four cheques in question. He has been sought to be fastened with liability under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the N.I. Act on the basis of the following specific identical allegations raised in para-1 of the four complaints concerned:The first accused is a public limited company, the second accused is the Managing Director and the third accused is the Director Finance of the first accused. The second and third accused are fully involved in the working of the first accused company.(emphasis supplied)2. Later in para-6 of all these complaints, the following identical averments also do appear:6. At the time when the c...
Dr. P. Balachandran Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-12-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ5
K.K. Denesan, J.1. The petitioner is borne on the cadre of Assistant Director in the Animal Husbandry Department. On the strength of seniority in the post of Assistant Director, he is eligible to be considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee (Higher) for appointment to the post of Deputy Director in the department. However, in Ext. P2 notification published as per G.O. dated 1-9-2006, the petitioner's name is not included though 20 persons including his juniors find a place in that notification. If the petitioner's name had been included in Ext. P2, his place in the list would have been below serial No. 10 and above serial No. 11.2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is contended that the Departmental Promotion Committee (Higher), while preparing the list of officers fit for promotion to the post of Deputy Director, had made discussions about the right of the petitioner for inclusion in the list and after due scrutiny of the files found that disciplinar...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »