Kerala Court February 2007 Judgments
Syndicate Bank Vs. S.S. Sheriff and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-09-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Ker189
M. Ramachandran, J.1. A public sector bank has come up in appeal feeling aggrieved about the judgment dated 7-1-2005 rendered in O.P. No. 5184 of 2001. The bank was the 4th respondent therein, and had advanced a loan to the petitioner in the Original Petition (1st respondent herein), When the repayment was not forthcoming, they had filed a suit and obtained a decree on 20-5-1989. E.P. No. 95 of 1991 thereafter had been filed and it is pending before the Sub-Court, Kottarakkara. Revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against the petitioner thereafter. A copy of the notice issued in the year 2001 shows the amount of arrears as Rs. 3,44,021/-, which is produced as Ext. P2.2. Such proceedings had been subjected to challenge by the petitioner, contending that after obtaining a decree it was impermissible to proceed with fresh steps of revenue recovery. It was also urged that the bank loan was time barred to be recovered under the Revenue Recovery Act and therefore the proceedings were ...
Tag this Judgment!C. Sharadha Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-09-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ498
ORDERK. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The 17th respondent in O.A. No. 3714 of 1976 of Land Tribunal, Kahnangad, who was the 14th respondent in A.A. No. 584 of 1997 on the file of Appellate Authority (LR) Kannur is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order passed by the appellate authority allowing the appeal filed by respondents 2 to 19.2. Nine persons together filed an Original Application under Section 72B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, Act 1 of 1964 (for short, the K.L.R. Act) read with Rule 4 of Kerala Land Reforms (Vesting and Assignment) Rules, 1970 for assignment of the right, title and interest of the land owner and intermediary in respect of the petition scheduled property. The first respondent in the O.A. was the land owner. Third respondent was the intermediary. Second respondent was the assignee of the third respondent - intermediary. In the Original Application it was averred that the petition scheduled land was given...
Tag this Judgment!Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Hotel Methanath (Kedaram)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-08-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)KLJ708
K.S. Radhakrishnan, C.J. 1. Employees State Insurance Corporation is the appellant in all these cases. Common issues arise for consideration in all these cases, hence we are disposing of these cases by a common judgment. Insurance Appeal No. 22 of 2003 arise out of the order passed by the Employees Insurance Court, Palakkad in I.C. No. 19 of 2001, which is being treated as the leading case.2. Respondent in Ins. Appeal 22 of 2003 filed an application before the Insurance Court assailing Ext. Al order dated 18-7-2001 claiming the failure of the applicant to comply with the provisions of E.S.I. Act. Applicant stated that the law was uncertain and was finally decided by this Court in MFA No. 557 of 1995 on 2-11-1995 and the amounts due to the Corporation was later determined by the Inspector only in the year 2000 and the applicant had remitted the amount by instalments on 23-9-2000,9-10-2000,23-10-2000 and 7-11 -2000. Applicant has also stated that there was no delay in remitting the dues ...
Tag this Judgment!Bell House Associates (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Assistant Registrar of Com ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-06-2007
Reported in: [2007]139CompCas496(Ker); (2007)2CompLJ56(Ker); [2007]76SCL425(Ker)
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. The petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in six prosecutions, all initiated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioners are a company and its director. Six complaints have been filed against the petitioners. They relate to alleged culpable conduct for the calendar years of 2002, 2003 and 2004. Three prosecutions relate to contumacious failure to file annual returns within the stipulated time. Three others relate to the contumacious failure to file balance sheets within the stipulated period. The prosecutions are under Sections 159 and 220(3) of the Companies Act, both read with Section 162 of the said Act. The complaints were filed on 28.7.2005. Cognizance has been taken. The petitioners have rushed to this court with a prayer that the proceedings against them in these six cases may be quashed invoking the powers under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.2. What is the reason? The learned Counsel for the petitioners relies on two specific ...
Tag this Judgment!Philomina and anr. Vs. Indian Railways Rep. by Divisional Manager
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-05-2007
Reported in: 2007ACJ2790; AIR2007Ker210; 2007(2)KLJ679
ORDERC.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioners are wife and son respectively of a Railway porter by name K.V. Devassikutty who died in an accident that occurred at the Alwaye Railway Station on 3-3-2003. The case of the petitioners is that while pulling a trolley by the said Mr. Devassikutty along with other porters, the trolley hit an obstacle namely, a stone in the Railway platform and on account of the impact Mr. Devassikutty was thrown to the railway track on which a goods train was passing. The two legs of Mr. Devassikutty beneath the waist were cut off and he lost his fingers on the hand. Even though he was taken to the Hospital at Alwaye and later to the General Hospital, Ernakulam, he succumbed to the injuries on the very same day. The petitioners filed claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal, which was rejected as not maintainable without even an order. Therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court for...
Tag this Judgment!B.K. Krishnan and anr. Vs. Supdt. of Police and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-05-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ585
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The point that arises for decision in this case is whether a land owner is entitled to get police protection to dig a bore well, if the same is obstructed by the local people on the ground that it will affect the water level in their wells.2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The petitioners have obtained the necessary permits from the statutory authority for digging bore wells in the properties owned by them. Exts.P3 and P4 are the permits issued in favour petitioners 1 and 2 respectively. When they tried to dig bore wells in their respective holdings, the respondents 3 to 6 started causing obstruction, alleging that the same will affect the water levels in the wells in the neighbourhood. So, the 1st petitioner preferred Exts.P5 and P6 representations before the police. Similar representations were filed by the 2nd petitioner also, seeking protection for digging the bore well. But, the police did not render any help. Therefore, this writ petitio...
Tag this Judgment!T.K. Vibhuraj Vs. E.M. Joseph and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-02-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Ker121
K.S. Radhakrishnan, Actg. C.J.1. This review petition is preferred by the appellant in W.A. No. 1933 of 2004 stating that some of the points urged by him were not considered by the Division Bench while disposing of the appeal. Review petitioner is aggrieved by the demand notice Ext. P2 dated 26 8 1998 issued to him demanding motor vehicle tax of Rs. 48,450/- in respect of vehicle number KL 4A-2314 for the period from 1-1-1997 to 30-9-1998. According to the review petitioner, he had transferred possession of the vehicle to the first respondent on 29-3-1996 and the fact of transfer was intimated to the second respondent on 7-9-1998. Challenge was repelled by the learned single Judge in O.P. No. 19600 of 2000 which was affirmed by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 1933 of 2004 holding that the review petitioner is liable to pay the tax demanded since he continued to be the registered owner of the vehicle.2. Sri C.S. Manu, counsel appearing for the review petitioner submitted that a conjoint ...
Tag this Judgment!Garvasis @ Jimmy John Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-02-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ508
K. Thankappan, J.1. The appellant, accused in S.C. No. 439/2004 on the file of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Ernakulam, faced trial for the offences punishable under Sections 376 IPC. The prosecution case against the appellant is that the appellant committed rape on PW 1 on 10-6-1998, 11-6-1998 at the residence of PW11 and on 13-6-1998 near house No. XV/108 adjacent to the K.S.R.T.C. Bus Stand, Perumbavoor and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. To prove the charge against the appellant, the prosecution examined PW 1 to PW 11 and Exts.P1 to P12 were marked. Material object MO1 to M04 were also marked. When the appellant was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.PC he admitted that he had sexual intercourse with her, but added that he never threatened her and that was with her consent. Relying on the evidence adduced by the prosecution both, oral and documentary, the trial court found the appellant guilty under Section 376 IPC and he was ...
Tag this Judgment!Hareendran Pillai Vs. Pushpalatha
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-02-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ409
K.S. Radhakrishnan, Ag. C.J.1. This appeal arised out of an order passed by the Family Court, Alappuzha under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act read with Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 on a petition filed by the mother for the custody of a minor aged below five years. Contention was raised before the Family Court that the petition is not maintenable since the minor is not an 'ordinary resident' of the locality so as to confer the jurisdiction on the Family Court, Alappuzha. The Family Court rejected the preliminary objection holding that the permanent residence of both the parents is within its jurisdiction and hence it should be taken that the minor's ordinarily residence is also the same. Further it was noticed that the minor was brought back from Bahrain to the place of residence of the parents within Alappuzha district and hence would confer jurisdiction on the Family Court, Alappuzha to decide the custody of the minor at the instance of the mothe...
Tag this Judgment!T.R. Ravi Vs. Ali Kunhu and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-01-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ400
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India raises the question as to whether the competence of a court of exclusive territorial jurisdiction to try an election petition under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 - 'Act', for short - depends upon it being notified under Section 88(2) of that Act.The brief undisputed facts: Poothady Grama Panchayat is a Village Panchayat constituted under the Act. Its headquarters was within the territorial jurisdiction of the Munsiff's Court, Kalpetta while the Government of Kerala, in consultation with the High Court of Kerala issued notification SRO No. 1120/95 enumerating that and other courts as the appropriate courts to try election petitions under the Act. Thereafter, by its establishment under Section 5 of the Kerala Civil Courts Act, 1957, 'C.C. Act', for short, on the basis of G.O. (MS) No. 185/2000/Home dated 4-8-2000, the Munsiff's Court, Sulthan Bathery has the exclusive territorial juri...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›