Kerala Court December 2010 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.
Jiji Antony, and ors. Vs. Jrg Securities Limited, and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-01-2010
1. This company appeal is lodged against the order dated 11th October, 2010 in C.A.No.92/2010 in C.P.No.44/2010 by the Chennai Bench of the Company Law Board. 2. Briefly put, the case of the appellants is as follows: Appellants are the petitioners in C.P.No.44/2010. They are the original promoters of the Ist respondent company. The Ist respondent company is incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and it is a public limited company. It is a listed public company and it is engaged in equity, commodity and insurance broking business. Appellants 1 to 3 are the original promoters of the company. Respondent No.2 is a financial investor. The 2nd respondent had agreed to subscribe 1,03,82,174 equity shares of Rs.10/- each at a premium of Rs.38/- per share. Annexure A-2 is the agreement between the appellants 1 to 3 and the 2nd respondent. Appellants filed Company Petition under Section 397 and 398 of the companies Act. The appellants also filed application seeking interim injunction (Annexu...
V.Vaikunda Sekhar. Vs. the Commercial Tax Inspector.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-01-2010
1. Challenge in this Writ Petition is against detention of a consignment of 'fishing rope' purchased by the petitioner and transported to the State of Kerala. The transport was intercepted on issuing Ext.P3 notice under Section 47 (2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act). The reason for detention mentioned is that, on physical verification the goods was found to be 'plastic ropes' and not 'fishing ropes' as mentioned in the accompanying documents. 2. 'Fishing rope' is an item exempted under Entry 18 of the 1st Schedule of the KVAT Act having HSN Code No. 5607.49.00, whereas the 'plastic rope' is an item which is taxable at the rate of 12.5%. On the basis of the allegation that the commodity under transport is different, the respondent suspected evasion in payment of tax and therefore security deposit was demanded. 3. All the documents which accompanied the transport revealed that the item purchased and transported is "P.P. (Polypropylene) fishing rope". It is contended by...
Vasudevan Namboori.K.R. Vs. State of Kerala, and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-01-2010
1. The petitioner is working as Librarian Grade - I in Nirmala College, Muvattupuzha, an aided college under the corporate management of Diocese of Kothamangalam. The Principal of the college forwarded the proposal for U.G.C. placement and promotion of the petitioner, before the Directorate of Collegiate Education. The proposal was returned by the Director of Collegiate Education. Challenging the order passed by the Director of Collegiate Education, the Principal of the college submitted Exhibit P3 representation dated 27.4.2004 to the Secretary, Higher Education Department. 2. Since the proposal for placement in senior grade under UGC scheme was not granted, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P. (C) No.8751 of 2005, which was disposed of as per Exhibit P4 judgment, directing the Director of Collegiate Education to consider and dispose of the matter. Thereafter, the Director of Collegiate Education passed Exhibit P5 order dated 9.9.2005 holding thus: "In the absence of an enabli...
Dr.K. Krishnan Nampoothiri. Vs. CochIn University of Science, and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-01-2010
1. The petitioner entered service of the Cochin University of Science and Technology as a Lecturer in the School of Management Studies on 05.07.1989. The University adopted the U.G.C. Scheme with effect from 01.01.1986 by order dated 1990. The existing teachers were given option either to join the U.G.C. Scheme or to remain under the existing scheme. The petitioner opted for the U.G.C. Scheme. 2. Accordingly the petitioner was inducted into the U.G.C. scale of pay. He was promoted as Lecturer (Senior Scale) and later as a Reader on 01.01.1994. In respect of persons who have not opted for U.G.C. Scheme there was a separate scheme for promotion called Norms Promotion Scheme. By Ext.P1 order dated 05.09.1997, the University ordered that, all teachers of the University be deemed to be eligible for norms promotion as Readers and subsequently as Professors with effect from the date on which they qualified for the same and they were directed to be placed in the U.G.C. Scheme. 3. This order wa...
T.V.Kurian. Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd, and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-01-2010
1. The petitioner was the owner of an autorickshaw. He transferred the same to the 2nd respondent and the registration of the autorickshaw was also transferred in the name of the 2nd respondent with effect from 4.5.1995. On 16.7.1995, the autorickshaw was involved in an accident, in which one Sri. M.K. Raveendran was injured. The said Sri. M.K. Raveendran filed O.P (MV) No. 33/1996 before the MACT, Muvattupuzha, claiming compensation for the injuries suffered by him in the accident. In that O.P, both the petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent were impleaded as respondents apart from the 1st respondent insurance company with whom the petitioner had insured the vehicle when he was the owner of the vehicle, the period of which insurance spilled over beyond the date of the accident. Neither the petitioner nor the the 2nd respondent took the trouble to intimate the 1st respondent about the transfer of the vehicle. The 2nd respondent did not bother to insure the vehicle against third party...
Sureshkumar. Vs. A.K.Vijayan, and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-01-2010
1. In this Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who was the accused in S.T.C. No. 613 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Palakkad challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The cheque amount was `1,00,000/-. The fine/compensation ordered by the lower appellate court is `1,00,000/-. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.3. The learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner re-iterated the contentions in support of the Revision. 4. The courts below have concurrently held that the cheque in question was drawn by the petitioner in favour of the complainant, that the complainant had validly complied with clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act. and that the Revision Petitioner/accused failed...
Mooliyil SeethA. Vs. Kariankandi.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-01-2010
1. The following substantial questions of law are formulated in the appeal at the time of admission. "1) Whether the courts below have applied the correct principles of law regarding the construction of Ext.B1 document while decreeing the suit. 2) Whether the courts below are right in its finding that Mathu had subsisting right in the property after Ext.B1 partition deed when she herself was a party to the document and had admitted the devolution of properties after her death - in favour of the appellants. 3) Whether or not the admission made by Mathu or the intention expressed by her regarding the devolution of her right after death amounts to or have the effect of a gift by Mathu of her right in the property. 4) Whether the courts below right in its finding that Ext.A1, assignment is valid in view of the recitals in Ext.B1 partition deed." 2. Defendants 3 to 8 in O.S.No.96 of 1989 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kannur, are the appellants. The appeal is directed against the judgmen...
Santharam Shenoy P, and anr. Vs. the R.D.O, and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-01-2010
1. The petitioners, who are husband and wife, are aggrieved of the assessment finalized by the concerned authorities under the relevant provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act, particularly with regard to the assessment under Section 5 imposing the building tax and also the consequential proceedings under Section 5 A.2. The specific case of the petitioners is that, the buildings concerned are two separate structures situated in two different premises owned by the husband and wife separately, which ought not to have been reckoned as 'single unit' for the propose of assessment under any circumstances. It is stated that the husband purchased the property as per the settlement deed No. 2407/03, wherein no building was there at the time of purchase and the husband constructed the building in the year 2004. In the case of the other property owned by the wife of the first petitioner i.e. second petitioner, it was obtained as per the title deed bearing No 5139 of 2004, wherein a building was...
P.M.Paulose. Vs. Anish Chandran, and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-01-2010
1. Appellant is the claimant before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. He filed the petition seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act alleging that he sustained serious injuries like supra condylar fracture and inter comminuted fracture of femur (L), apart from cervical spine injury in a road traffic accident that occurred on February 2, 2000 at Kinginimattom. According to the appellant he was riding on his scooter when another two wheeler owned by respondent No.1 and driven by respondent No.2 dashed against it. Appellant contended that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2. He claimed a total sum of Rs.12 lakhs towards compensation from the respondents. 2. The Tribunal after considering the materials available on record which consisted of the oral testimony of Pws.1 to 5 and Exts.A1 to A16 produced by the appellant, came to the conclusion that there is no satisfactory evidence to show that the accident had occur...
Antony Palakunnel. Vs. T.A.Lukose.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-01-2010
1. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judges Court, Payyannur in O.S.No.56 of 1994. The suit is one for damages. The plaintiff is a retired teacher and his grievance is that on 27-06-1993 under the leadership of defendant one, two and three came to the house and directed him to accompany them to the Police Station and apprehending danger he accompanied them to the Police Station and thereafter he was asked to remove his shirt and dothi and an attempt was made to fist at his chest and later he was thrown in to lock-up room and was detained in the said room till 8.00 a.m on the next morning and thereafter was asked to come and sit in a bench and by 12.30 p.m on 28-6-1993 he was asked to go home. According to the plaintiff all these things were done at the instance of Thomaskutty who was on inimical terms with plaintiff and therefore, the said action of the Police Officials had caused him mental agony and damages. In other words, his case is tha...