Kerala Court July 2007 Judgments
P.M. Abdul Kareem Vs. Assistant Executive Engineer, K.S.E.B. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-24-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Ker15
ORDERC.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. This W.P. is filed for direction to the respondents to continue to receive electricity bills through cheques issued by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, petitioner has been making payments through Bank cheques and the same was accepted by KSEB although. However, the present Assistant Executive Engineer has demanded payment in cash is the complaint of the petitioner. I heard counsel for the petitioner and Standing Counsel for KSEB.2. The petitioner has account with the Bank of India and cheques issued by the petitioner are from the petitioner's account with the Marampilly Branch, Vazhakkulam Village. According to petitioner, KSEB is maintaining account with Mudikal Branch of SBT which is also in Vazhakkulam Village. Collection takes only one or two days time and therefore, respondents have no right to object to receipt of cheques being issued by the petitioner is his case. However, Standing Counsel for KSEB has furnished details of cheques gi...
Tag this Judgment!Deepak Krishna and anr. Vs. District Registrar and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-23-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Ker257; I(2008)DMC34; 2007(2)KLJ714
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Question that is posed for consideration in all these cases is whether Section 15(f) and Section 16 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, are mandatory provisions or directory provisions war ranting a liberal interpretation taking into consideration of the hardship and inconveniences caused to the parties.2. A learned single Judge in Giby George v. Marriage Officer : AIR2007Ker152 interpreting Section 15(f) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, took the view that a ceremonial marriage between persons who were residing within the jurisdiction of special Marriage Officer can be registered even if such ceremonial marriage was solemnized within 30 days of the filing of an application for registration. Learned Judge then gave a direction to the Marriage Officer to receive the application and also to register the marriage without waiting for the period of 30 days. Further, the learned Judge also gave a direction to publish the factum of registration in the notice board wit...
Tag this Judgment!Binoy V.R. and ors. Vs. Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Council and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-23-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)KLJ801
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The petitioners in these Writ Petitions are employees of the Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Council, Kerala, which is a company, registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The Government of Kerala, it is submitted, have pervasive control over the said company. The Minister for Agriculture is the Chairman of the company. The Agricultural Production Commissioner is also a member of the Board of Directors. There are two other nominees of the Government also among the Directors of the Board. The Chief Executive Officer of the company is also appointed by the Government. So, the petitioners submit, it is a company, amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. These Writ Petitions are filed, challenging their termination from the service of the Company. The respondents would point out that the Government have only 23% shares in the company. Majority of the shares is held by the farmers organisations. Therefore, a preliminary objection is raised by the resp...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Maniyani Vs. the State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-21-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)KLJ149
ORDERA.K. Basheer, J.1. (a) Can the driver of a vehicle be charge sheeted and tried for an offence punishable under Section 304 IPC, if his rash or negligent driving has resulted in the death of another person? and(b) Is the plea of the driver in such a motor accident that he is liable to be charge sheeted and tried only for an offence punishable under Section 304A IPC sustainable2. The above questions have come up for consideration in this petition filed by the accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the following facts and circumstances.Kasaragod Police charge sheeted the petitioner alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304(A) and 304 IPC. The version given by the Police goes like this:3. On November 19, 2002 at about 12.45 p.m., the petitioner-accused drove stage carnage bearing registration No. KL 14-C/7739 in a culpably rash and negligent manner at a very high speed; and while he tried to overtake a bus which was going ahe...
Tag this Judgment!M.L. Joseph Francis, District and Sessions Vs. Sri. Thomas P. Joseph,
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-20-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)KLT724
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. These nine Writ Appeals arise out of the common Judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 20.12.2006, in Writ Petition (C) Nos.17897, 18004 and 18608 of 2006. Three of the Appeals have been filed by the High Court and the remaining, by the two affected party respondents in the Writ Petitions. The promotions granted to those party respondents from the post of Selection Grade District Judge to the Super Time Scale with retrospective effect, were challenged by three of their juniors in the cadre of Selection Grade District Judge, but who were promoted to the super time scale, earlier. The learned Single Judge treated Writ Petition (C) No. 17897/06 as the main case. So, for convenience, we are treating WA No. 715/07, which is one of the three Writ Appeals filed against the Judgment in the said Writ Petition, as the main case for the purpose of referring to the exhibits.2. The appellant in WA No. 715/07 is the third respondent and the first respondent is the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Kuriachan Chacko, Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-19-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ4458; 2007(2)KLJ778
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Man's quest to make quick and easy money - to live not by the sweat of his brow, has been the cause of his fall from the halo of virtue on this planet. The yearning to make quick and easy money by means fair or foul has been central to the concepts of unfairness and criminality in all societies at all times. Exploiting his own superior faculties - physical , mental, intellectual or spiritual, man has always attempted to arrogate to himself what belongs legitimately to his brother beings. Individuals, families, communities, nations, races and generations have attempted to do this. Visionaries and sublime societies have always attempted to avoid and eliminate such exploitation of man by man. But, unfortunately the story of human civilisation is the tragic tale of such unsuccessful attempts. The result is the inequitable and unjust world order that we are left to face. I have said so much as I am called upon to interpret the Statute - 'The Prize, Chits & Money Circula...
Tag this Judgment!E. Suresh Babu S/O. Edakkoth Kuttappan Vs. Food Corporation of India
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-19-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)KLJ127; 2007(4)KLT135
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.1. The ambit of the powers of the civil court under Rule 1 as well as under Rule 2 of Order XIX of the Code of Civil Procedure for compelling the attendance of deponents for cross-examination and the amplitude of the guarantee under Article 20(3) of the Constitution against testimonial compulsion are among the questions involved in this Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. 2. The defendant is the petitioner and he is aggrieved by Ext.P15 order of the learned Subordinate Judge directing him to be present in court for the purpose of cross-examination by the plaintiff for answering certain specified questions, some of which are incriminating ones, since the court felt that for arriving at a 'true and comprehensive decision in the case', such cross-examination is necessary. Under Ext.P15 the petitioner is reminded that he shall appear to answer the questions in cross-examination lest adverse inferences should be drawn by the court against him. 3. ...
Tag this Judgment!K.R. Aravindakshan Nair Vs. Essen Bhankers and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-19-2007
Reported in: III(2008)BC91; 2007(2)KLJ673
ORDERV.R. Ramkumar, J.1. The petitioner herein is the revision petitioner/accused in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The request of the petitioner in this petition is to get the disputed signature in Ext. P10 compared with the admitted signatures of the petitioner by a handwriting expert of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram.2. The case of the first respondent/complainant who is a money lender is that the accused borrowed a sum of Rs. 4.25 lakhs as evidenced by Ext. P10 voucher dated 9-4-1999 and towards discharge of the said liability the accused issued Ext. P4 cheque dated 14-3-2002 for Rs. 6,10,000/- and on presentation of the cheque in the drawee bank it bounced.3. The revision petitioner inter alia took up the stand that in relation to certain previous transactions with the complainant bank, five blank cheques were taken by the complainant from the revision petitioner and Ext. P4 cheque is one of those cheque and the signat...
Tag this Judgment!Shri P.R. Narahari Rao Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-18-2007
Reported in: [2008]299ITR400(Ker)
H.L. Dattu, C.J. 1. Since the issues involved in all these appeals are common, by consent of the counsel for the parties to the lis, the matter is taken up for final hearing, though they are posted for admission before this Court today.2. Aggrieved by the orders of re-assessment for the assessment years 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1996-97, passed by the assessing authority in exercise of his powers under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, the assessee had carried the matter by way of first appeal before the Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals-III). Along with those appeals, the assessee had also filed appeals against the orders of re-assessment for the assessment years 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1995-96.3. Before the first appellate authority, the assessee's learned representative, in fact, had not objected to the orders passed by the assessing authority, in the sense, that, he was really not questioning the correctness or otherwise of the orders of re-assessment passed by the assessing authority fo...
Tag this Judgment!M.M. Moidootty Haji Vs. Abdul Jeleel Haji and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-18-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Ker17; 2007(3)KLJ230
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Whether Section 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act') mandates that for the purpose of seeking eviction on the need for additional accommodation, need alleged ought to be for the purpose of extension of the same type of business that is carried on in the already occupied portion by the landlord is the question referred to this Full Bench for answer. A division bench of this Court referred the above question doubting the ratio of the decision in Purushothaman v. Radhakrishnan : 2004(3)KLT121 . In the above case, it was held as follows:Section 11(8) will come into play if the landlord wanted to expand his business for which he requires additional accommodation. In the instant case, what was pleaded in the Rent Control Petition is that landlord wanted additional accommodation for the purpose of electrical business, but, no evidence was adduced to establish that plea. Further, in the oral deposition landlord stated that he r...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »