Kerala Court August 2007 Judgments
Suma Vs. Rajan Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-24-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Ker6; I(2008)DMC545; 2008(1)KLJ505
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Respondent filed a suit before the Family Court for realisation of value of jewellery and for realisation of the amount paid. It was purely a money suit. His father, power of Attorney holder, appeared for the appellant/defendant in the suit. She was also represented by an advocate. Same power of Attorney holder filed this appeal also. The appellant was declared as ex parte for the following reasons:Though the defendant entered appearance through Advocate she did not personally appear and finally she is set ex parte.2. Therefore, suit was decreed after accepting the proof affidavit. Even though the case is filed before the Family Court, it is purely a money suit and in money suit presence of the parties is not required unless special circumstance like counselling etc. their personal presence is required. It is for the plaintiff to prove the allegations. If proof affidavit is filed, parties can be cross-examined by the defendant. If the defendant is not adducing sufficie...
Tag this Judgment!The West India Soap and Industrial Company Vs. Prabhu Agencies
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-24-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)KLJ178
ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. The defendant in a suit for accounting challenges the findings of the trial court on the issue of court fee. The suit was filed by the respondent for accounting, directing the defendant to produce the account books with all bills, receipts, vouchers and price list since 1992 to 28-2-2000 and subject the same to be examined by a qualified accountant. The relief was valued at Rs. 1,000/- and court fee of Rs. 20/- was paid under Section 35 read with Article (1) of Schedule 1 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. It is stated in the plaint that the relief is not capable of valuation. There is another prayer to declare that is per the alleged mediator dated 23-2-2000 the business between the plaintiff and the defendant is not dosed. This relief was valued at Rs. 1 000/- and court fee of Rs. 20/- was paid under Section 25(d)(ii) of the Court Fees Act stating that the relief is not capable of valuation. The further prayer is to pass a preliminary decree dir...
Tag this Judgment!Joseph Vs. the Spl. Tahsildar (La)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-24-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Ker175; 2008(1)KLJ274
K.T. Sankaran, J.1. The questions involved in this Writ Petition are: (1) Is it incumbent upon the Reference Court under the Land Acquisition Act to refer back the papers to the Land Acquisition Authority if the claimant dies after reference? (2) Whether the legal representatives of the claimant are entitled to come on record as such in substitution of the deceased claimant in the Land Acquisition Reference proceedings? and (3) What should be the procedure if the Land Acquisition Authority does not return the papers after complying with the directors issued by the Reference Court within a reasonable time2. An extent of 4.10 Ares of land belonging to one Raphel was acquired along with other lands. On 20-6-1992, an award was passed. Since there was dispute regarding disbursement of the award amount, reference was made under Section 31(8) of the Land Acquisition Act, which was numbered as L.A.R. No. 221 of 1994, on the file of the Sub Court, Ernakulam. Raphel, who was 'B' claimant, died o...
Tag this Judgment!K. Mohandas Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-23-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Ker289; 2007(3)KLJ186
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This public interest litigation has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari calling for the decision dated 26-7-2007 of Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee permitting women to enter the Sree Guruvayoor Temple by wearing churidar instead of the traditional sari and-to quash the same and also for a direction to the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee not to implement its decision dated 26-7-2007 permitting women to enter the Sree Guruvayoorappan Temple by wearing churidar instead of the traditional sari and also for other consequential reliefs.2. Petitioner submits that the permission granted by the Committee violates Sections 10, 35(1) and 35(2) of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1978 and Chapter IV, Rule 6 of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Rules, 1980 Counsel submits that under Section 35(1) of the Act a Committee or the Commissioner or the Government shall not interfere with the religious or spiritual matters pertaining to the Devaswom. Section 35(2) of the Act sa...
Tag this Judgment!Malathi J. Rai W/O Jaganatha Rai Vs. Suhara Abbas Ali W/O Abbas Ali an ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-23-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Ker7; 2007(3)KLJ289
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The issue that arises for consideration is whether under Section 34(1)(j) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, dues towards a co-operative bank, a Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank can be treated as dues towards Government. The case has come up before us on a reference by a learned single Judge of this Court (P.R. Raman, J.) doubting the correctness of the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Ramachandran v. Ornanakuttan (2002) 3 KLT 603.2. The revision petitioner was elected to the Bellur Grama Panchayat in the election held on 26-9-2005 from Ward No. II Challenging the election of the revision petitioner, the first respondent filed an election petition under Section 89 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. The election was sought to be set aside on the ground that the elected candidate was disqualified under Section 34(1)(j) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 to contest the election. It was alleged that she was a ...
Tag this Judgment!Benson Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-23-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ573; 2007(3)KLJ264
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This case has been placed before us on a reference by Justice R. Basant after having noticed some incongruity between the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Najakat : 2001CriLJ2588 and a Division Bench decision of this Court in Chacko v. State of Kerala : 2003(2)KLT964 wherein Najakat's case was not referred to. Learned Judge expressed doubts as to how the observations made in paragraph 8 of the decision in Najakat's case are to be understood and applied in the light of the decision in Chacko's case.2. Question centres round the methodology to be applied by the criminal courts when a plea of set off is claimed under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in short 'the Code'. Fair procedure is the soul Article 21 and the essence of Section 428 of the Code flows from that Article. Prison justice is also the concern of the convicting courts and judicial warrant which deprives one's life and liberty should also satisfy the test of fai...
Tag this Judgment!Videocon International Ltd. Vs. Logos Traders and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-23-2007
Reported in: II(2008)BC566; 2007(3)KLJ577
ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. The question involved in this Revision is whether the court has jurisdiction to extend the period fixed by it for presentation of the plaint in the proper court.2. The revision petitioner filed O.S. No. 216 of 1996 on the file of the Court of the Addl. Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam against the respondents for realisation of a sum of Rs. 5,61,109/-. The plaintiff paid court fee also for that amount. It is stated in the plaint that the cause of action arose on 14-12-19953. An application for amendment of the plaint was filed by the plaintiff seeking to reduce 1he plaint claim from Rs. 5,61,109/- to Rs. 51,584/-. The application was dismissed by the court on 31-01-1998. The suit was in the list for trial. An application or adjournment of the case was filed by the plaintiff and that application for amendment of the plaint was dismissed and the order rejecting the prayer for adjournment were challenged before this Court in C.R.P. No. 939 of 1998 and 940 of 1998. By o...
Tag this Judgment!Sree Sakthi Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Anjaneya Enterprises and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-23-2007
Reported in: I(2008)BC520; 2007(3)KLJ226
K. Thankappan, J.1. Complainant in C.C. No. 397/2002 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kochi is the appellant. The allegation in the complaint is as follows: First accused, a dealer in paper and paper products, used to purchase paper products from the appellant, a public limited company, on credit for a pretty long time and as per the arrangement, the bills of the accused would be credited by the bank in favour of the appellant and amount should be paid by the accused to the bank within 90 days and in default the amount would be debited to the account of the appellant with interest. As the accused failed to pay the bills amount, the appellant had to pay the amount with interest. Thus, the accused owed a sum of Rs. 40,66,479/-. O.S. No. 686/2000 and C.C. Nos. 433/2001 and 435/2001 were filed by the appellant against the accused. But during the pendency of the cases, in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties the 2nd accused on behalf of the...
Tag this Judgment!Ashalatha Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-22-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)KLJ243
ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. In this revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who was the accused in C.C. 933 of 200 3 on the tile of the J.F.C.M.-I, Pathanamthitta challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him concurrently by the courts below for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.I. Act' for short).2. I heard Adv. Sri. K.P. Satheesan, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and Advocate Sri. Philip Mathew, the learned Counsel for the second respondent/complainant.ARGUMENT OF THE ACCUSED3. Assailing the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner, his learned Counsel Dr. K.P. Satheesan, made the following submissions before me in support of the revision:The complaint in this case was not filed by the complainant Jacob Thomas but by his power-of-attorney holder V.K. Abraham. A power-of-attorney has no role to play ...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Basheer Vs. Trie-tee Trading Company Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-21-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Ker291
ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J.1. The defendant-decree-holder is aggrieved by Ext. P6 order by which the execution petition filed by him was dismissed by the execution Court holding not only that there is no executable decree but also that the trial Court should not have passed the decree/order which was sought to be executed by the petitioner. Ext. PI is the decree in question.2. The suit was filed by the respondent for a permanent prohibitory injunction and it was found by the Court that the respondent who was not entitled for the injunction had put up certain unauthorised constructions on the plaint property during the pendency of the suit taking advantage of the order of temporary injunction which had been passed in their favour. Accordingly while dismissing the suit, the trial Court with the obvious object of maintaining status quo ante, directed the respondent-plaintiff to remove the unauthorised constructions.3. The decree reads as follows:That the suit be and the same is hereby decr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »