Kerala Court April 2012 Judgments

Chandramathy and Another Vs. Arundhathi

Court: Kerala

1. These three appeals arise from the common judgment rendered in four appeals A.S.Nos.234/1994, 235/1994, 248/1994 and 250/1994 rendered by the learned District Judge, Thrissur, which, in turn arose from the common judgment and decree in two suits O.S.Nos.872 of 1987 and 808 of 1988 rendered by the learned Sub Judge, Thrissur. 2. The appeal S.A.No.210 of 1999 is by the plaintiff in O.S.No.872 of 1987 against the decree rendered in that suit, to the extent the relief canvassed for was declined by the courts below, which has been decreed only in part. The defendants in the above suit are the plaintiffs in the other suit O.S.No.808 of 1988. They have preferred the other two appeals S.A.Nos.251 of 1999 and 268 of 1999 to the extent aggrieved by the declining of the reliefs canvassed for in their suit, which too was decreed only in part by the courts below, and also, the decree granted in part to the plaintiffs in the connected suit. As parties in both suits are one and the same, and chall...

Mathew and Another Vs. Aleykutty and Others

Court: Kerala

Thomas P. Joseph, J. 1. The following are the substantial questions of law framed for a decision: (i) When the parties to a final decree proceeding enters into a family settlement reducing the terms thereof and relinquishing their rights in the property by limiting to monetary claim, whether such a compromise becomes invalid merely because one of the co-shares who has only a fractional share in the property is not a signatory thereof? (ii) By virtue of Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "the Code"), a compromise in a final decree application determining the rights of the parties become invalid if one of the parties to the suit is not a signatory thereto? (iii) Whether a compromise relinquishing right in the property will bind the parties who executed the same? (iv) Whether the courts below are justified in discarding the family settlement submitted as compromise merely because one of the parties is not a signatory? 2. The second appeal arises from the judgmen...

State of Kerala Deputy Commissioner (Law), Commercial Taxes Ernakulam ...

Court: Kerala

C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J 1. Heard the Special Government Pleader for the State and counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee. Respondent is engaged in purchase of field latex and sale after converting it into centrifuged latex. Even though centrifuged latex is concentrated latex, processed and preserved, and is a value added product, the charging entry in the schedule of the Sales Tax Act provides for levy of tax on rubber in all it's forms referred therein at the last purchase point in the State. This is the position declared by the Supreme Court in assessee's case vide judgment reported in State of Kerala and others v. Kurian Abraham pvt. ltd and another [2008] 13 VST 1 (SC). However, since field latex is used in the production of centrifuged latex, and since the Division Bench of this Court in an earlier judgment held that both are different products, respondent voluntarily filed returns declaring tax liability on the purchase value of field latex and paid tax thereon. The centr...

Unni Rajan Vs. State of Kerala, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Co ...

Court: Kerala

ORDER 1. In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner, who is the accused in C.C.No.438/2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Muvattupuzha, assails the order taking cognizance for offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code on Annexure 1 complaint filed by the 2nd respondent. 2. The 2nd respondent in Annexure-I dated 3.1.2011 would complain that the petitioner summoned the 2nd respondent, who was a teacher in Ilahia College of Arts and Science, Moovattupuzha to the Police Station on 6/8/2010 and he was Crl.M.C.NO. 4105 OF 2011 2 brutally assaulted and detained. On the next day also he was assaulted and on 8/8/2010 arrest was recorded in Crime No.704/2010 of Moovattupuzha Police Station and produced the 2nd respondent before the Magistrate. The 2nd respondent would further allege that at the time of production, the assault by the petitioner was complained to the Magistrate and that the 2nd respondent was falsely ...

Manoharan Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor

Court: Kerala

M. Sasidharan Nambiar, J. 1. Apprehending arrest in Crime 1123/2011 of Mathilakam Police Station registered for the offence under section 420 of Indian Penal Code petition is filed under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail. 2. Case of the petitioner is that while he was at Abu Dhabi and was a partner of a firm the firm purchased building materials from one Al-Niyadi Trading Co. at Abudabi on credit basis and payments were made through cheques and the cheques were subsequently dishonoured and a complaint was filed by Al-Niyadi Trading Co. before the Federal Court Abudabi and on 11.4.2007 the Federal Court, passed its verdict convicting the petitioner and the other accused for one year imprisonment. But prior to the issuance of the cheque and the proceedings in the trial court, petitioner returned to India in 2006 and due to a massive cardiac attack he could not return back to Abu Dhabi. After the judgment while petitioner has been in India based on a repr...

V.P. Sajeendran Vs. Secretary, C.i.T.U. Ayarkunnam Unit, Kottayam Dist ...

Court: Kerala

Basant, J. (i) Is Entry No.13 of the Schedule of the Kerala Head Load workers Act, 1978 (for short 'the Act') valid, legal and constitutional? Is there objectionable transgression by the State legislature into the legislative province earmarked exclusively for the Parliament under Entry Nos.5 and 53 of List 1 of Schedule 7 of the Constitution? (ii) Are the trained employees (distribution boys) of the petitioners performing the work of loading and unloading of LPG cylinders in the godowns of the petitioners only as incidental and ancillary to their work as distribution boys? Can they be held to be workers answering the definition of 'headload worker' under Sec.2(m) of the Act? (iii) Are the headload workers represented by the respondents/unions entitled to demand such work of loading and unloading of LPG cylinders in the godowns of the petitioners? (iv) Are directions liable to be issued under Art.226 of the Constitution obliging the respondents/police officials to afford police protect...

State of Kerala, Rep. by Its Secretary to Govt. General Education Depa ...

Court: Kerala

Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. At the admission stage, learned counsel for the 1st respondent took notice and we therefore heard both the learned Government Pleader for the appellants and learned counsel for the 1st respondent. Since the Manager is supporting the 1st respondent, which was done in the original side also, we do not think there is any need to issue notice to the Manager. Accordingly, we proceed to consider and dispose of the case at the admission stage itself. 2. When a vacancy arose on account of promotion of a Natural Science teacher as Headmistress, the 2nd respondent appointed the 1st respondent, who is an English teacher, following Rule 6.I of Chapter XXIII of KER, which provides for appointment of English teachers in a phased manner without retrenching teachers in core subjects previously teaching English. When the appointment of the 1st respondent was considered for approval, the DEO declined the same for the reason that the 2nd respondent School had two retrenched teach...

Sree Narayana Dharma Samajam, Ayyappankavu, Kochi, Rep. by Its Secreta ...

Court: Kerala

JUDGMENT 1. Penalty imposed under Section 17A of the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), in respect of the assessment years 2005-06 to 2007-08 as per Exts.P12 to P14 orders, followed by Exts. P15 to 17 demand notices, are under challenge in this writ petition. That apart, the petitioner also seeks to declare Section 4(2)(c)(i) of the Act and Ext. P18 Circular as ultravires to the Constitution. The petitioner has got a further case that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of the proviso to Section 4(1) of the above Act. 2. The petitioner is stated as a charitable institution registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955. The petitioner is managing and administering Ayyappankavu Temple and runs a Higher Secondary School , another English Medium School and is also having an 'Auditorium', which according to the petitioner is functioning within the premises of the Temple. As per Section ...

Koothali Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. Rep. by Its President K. Rajan ...

Court: Kerala

Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. The connected Writ Petitions are filed by the same Co-operative Bank challenging the orders issued by the Joint Registrar for inclusion of additional members in the voters list. In Ext.P9 produced in WPC 6404/2012 the Assistant Registrar directed inclusion of 263 persons as members of the society eligible to vote. The names of eligible members are given in Ext.P10. It is against this proceeding of the Assistant Registrar the society has filed W.P.(C) 6404/2012. In the other W.P.(C) order under challenge is the one issued by the Joint Registrar directing inclusion of 1700 persons as members of the society. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellants, Special Government Pleader for the Government and the statutory authorities and also counsel appearing for the contesting parties. 2. The facts leading to the controversy are the following. The petitioner-society has 1849 members and the face value of each share held by members was increased from Rs.50/- to R...

Doramma Vs. M.T. Enrica Lexie

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(2)KLJ398; 2012(2)KLT407

Manjula Chellur, ACJ 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants in W.A. Nos. 678 and 679 so also the counsel appearing for the first respondent, learned Assistant Solicitor General and learned Advocate General as well. 2. The writ petitioner claiming to be a foreign merchant oil tanker vessel named as "MT Enrica Lexie" which was presently anchored within the Cochin Port Trust limits was on its way from Singapore to Port Said in Egypt. On the unfortunate day of the incident, 15-02-2012 when the vessel was at a distance of 20.5 Nautical Miles off the coast of India beyond the territorial waters of India, the petitioner vessel alleges it came under provocation from a boat which prompted or led the Italian Naval Personnel/NMP Squad to fire into the water which ultimately killed two fishermen namely Mr.Valantine and Mr.Xavier on board in a fishing boat named as 'St.Antony'. 3. Subsequently, Crime No. 2 of 2012 came to be registered by the concerned Circle Inspector of Police for an off...