Kerala Court May 2007 Judgments
Kuruvilla Varghese Vs. Sapnam Elizabeth Joseph
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-25-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Ker240
K.T. Sankaran, J.1. The questions involved in this Matrimonial Appeal are : (1) Whether a petition for dissolution of marriage filed by the husband on the ground that the wife wilfully refused to consummate the marriage and the marriage has not therefore been consummated (which is a ground for dissolution of marriage under Clause (vii) of Section 10 introduced by The Indian Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001, Act 51 of 2001 by the substitution of Section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869) is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the petition was filed twelve years after the marrjage and therefore the petitioner is guilty of unreasonable delay in presenting the petition within the meaning of Section 14 of the Act, when the petition was presented within reasonable time after the commencement of Act 51 of 2001? (2) Whether refusal by the wife to consummate the marriage on the ground that there is likelihood of her begetting children with mental disorder as the relatives of the husband have child...
Tag this Judgment!Chodon Puthiyoth Shyamalavalli Amma and ors. Vs. Kavalam Jisha and anr ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-24-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Ker246
ORDERM. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. Whether an illegitimate child is entitled to a share in the property of his father is the interesting question to be decided in the appeal.2. Peringali Padmanabhan Nambiar was a document writer. He married first appellant/second defendant in 1966. Appellants 2 to 4 who are defendants 3 to 5 were born in that wedlock. Fifth respondent who was the sixth defendant is the mother of Padmanabhan Nambiar. Appellants 6 to 8 are the assignees of the properties from appellants 1 to 5. First respondent is the daughter of second respondent who was the first defendant in the suit. According to respondents, Padmanabhan Nambiar married second respondent on 21-6-1975 at her residence and first respondent was born in that wedlock on 8-10-1976. It was contended that plaint schedule properties which originally belonged to deceased Padmanabhan Nambiar on his death devolved on appellants 1 to 5 and respondents being his legal heirs and each of them is entitled to a share. F...
Tag this Judgment!A. Govindan Vs. K.K. Govinda Rajan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-24-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Ker287
ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. In this Civil Revision Petition, the judgment-debtor challenges the order passed by the executing Court rejecting his application for exemption from attachment and sale of his immovable property under Clause (c) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. A money decree was passed against the petitioner herein on 12-4-1991. Immovable property having an extent of 21 cents was attached before judgment On 26-10-1990. Execution Petition was filed in the year 1991. In the Appeal filed by the revision petitioner against the decree, the High Court granted stay of execution on condition of furnishing security for the decree amount. The revision petitioner offered the property in question (which was attached before judgment) as security. In the application filed by the judgment-debtor to receive security, he stated that he was eking out his livelihood from the earnings as a driver.3. In the counter dated 20-12-2001 filed by the judg...
Tag this Judgment!Ravindranathan P.N. Vs. Food Corporation of India
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-23-2007
Reported in: [2007(114)FLR1159]; (2008)ILLJ1097Ker
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The writ petitioner, then a First Grade Assistant in the service of the first respondent Food Corporation of India, had to perform his duties, which included the briefing of the Standing Counsel for the FC1 before this Court. As part of his duties and responsibilities, he, according to him, attended the office of the Standing Counsel of the FCI at Ernakulam on the March 12, 13, 14, 19 and 20, 1994. On such basis, he placed his Travelling Allowance and Dearness Allowance bills. He also drew the allowances.2. The employer first respondent, through its supervisory officers, came to a tentative view that the claim for TA and other amounts was not transparent. They termed it as a case of cheating the employer. This resulted in disciplinary proceedings. The competent authority ordered a domestic inquiry. The disciplinary proceedings culminated in the imposition of penalty of barring of three increments. Challenge to that within the realm of administrative hi...
Tag this Judgment!Katukkathodiyil Bhaskaran Vs. Kaliyakkil Sreedharan Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)KLJ698
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.1. 'Ext. P4 order under which an application for condonation of delay filed by the judgment-debtor was dismissed by the execution court is under challenge.2. As rightly submitted by Mr. B. Krishna Mani, counsel for the respondent-decree-holder that E.A. No. 384/03 could not have even been entertained by the learned Munsiff since there is no power for the execution court to condone the delay.3. A careful look at Section 5 of the Limitation Act itself will show that execution applications are excluded from the ambit of that Section. The position is no longer res integra in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Damodaran Pillai v. South Indian Bank Ltd. 2005(4) KLT 192 (SC). The challenge against Ext.P4 will fall and the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!Venad Rubbers Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-04-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)KLJ699
ORDERH.L. Dattu, C.J.1. This Revision Petition arises under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act ('Act' for short). In this Revision Petition, we are concerned with the assessment year 1997-98.2. The petitioner purchases old worn tyres and tyre wastes, tread waste etc. After powdering them, he sells it to industrial units, which are rubber based industries for use in the production of the finished products.3. The assessee had filed its annual returns before the assessing authority claiming concessional rate of tax at the rate of 2.5%. The claim was rejected by the assessing authority and he had treated the sales effected by the assessee as a rubber product falling under Entry 112 of the First Schedule of the Act and liable to tax at the rate of 10%. Aggrieved by the findings and conclusions reached by the assessing authority, the assessee had carried the matter by way of first appeal before the first appellate authority, who by his order dated 15-11 -2003, treated the ite...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›