Kerala Court November 2015 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.
Nizar Vs. M/s. Indus Bank Limited, rep. by Power of Attorney Holder, P ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-19-2015
1. The respondent bank which has obtained an award for money initiated proceedings under Order 21 C.P.C against the petitioner-debtor to realise the amount. The learned District Judge issued him a notice under Order 21 Rule 37 C.P.C. He did not appear. The court set him ex parte and ordered that he be arrested and produced before it. The petitioner filed Ext P5 application to set aside the ex parte order, Ext P3 application to condone the delay in filing it and Ext P2 objection to the notice issued under Rule 37 contending that he has no means to pay the decree debt. The learned District Judge held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to execution proceedings and accordingly by Exts P8 and P9 orders the he dismissed both applications. This is challenged. 2. Heard. 3. If a judgment debtor fails to appear in person or through counsel in response to the notice issued under Order 21 Rule 37 C.P.C, he cannot be set ex parte. No such procedure is contemplated by C.P.C. The ...
The State of Kerala rep. by Secretary, Forests and Wildlife Department ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-19-2015
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. Writ Petition as well as the Writ Appeal have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Facts and pleadings in W.P(C) No.18339 of 2011 shall suffice in deciding the Writ Petition as well as the Writ Appeal. Parties shall be referred to as described in the Writ Petition. 3. The Cochin State had enacted The Cochin Forest Act III of 1080 ME (for short, Regulation III of 1080 ) for making better provision for protection and management of the forest in the Cochin State. Regulation III of 1080 was passed on 12.03.1905. As per the Regulation, the Diwan was empowered to constitute any area as reserve forest. Section 8 contemplated that, whenever it is proposed to constitute any area as reserve forest, the Diwan shall publish a Notification in the Sirkar Gazette specifying the details as mentioned under Section 8 of the Regulation. A Notification is contemplated in Section 12 specifying the limit of forest which is intended to be reserved and d...
The Manjoor Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., represented by its Secreta ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-19-2015
1. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner Service Co-operative Bank seeking to quash Exts.P7 and P9 recovery proceedings initiated by the first respondent for and on behalf of the 3rd respondent Bank and further to declare that the properties of the 4th respondent mortgaged with the petitioner bank is not liable to be proceeded against for the amounts allegedly due from the 5th respondent to the 3rd respondent bank. 2. Brief facts for the disposal of the Writ Petition are as follows: 3. Petitioner is a Co-operative Society, a Primary Credit Society having its area of operation spread over Manjoor Village in Vaikom Thaluk. The wife of the 4th respondent, a member of the petitioner bank had availed a loan on the strength of a mortgage deed executed in respect of the property of the 4th respondent, having an extent of 8.09 Acres lying in suvey No.625/1 in Block No.33 of Manjoor Village and the improvements thereon, evident from Ext.P1 mortgage deed. The true copy of the title deed ...
Jose and Another Vs. Puspa and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-19-2015
1. Petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.261 of 2015 on the file of Munsiff, Chalakudy. The respondent/plaintiff filed I.A.No.827 of 2015 for temporary prohibitory injunction and I.A.No.828 of 2015 for a temporary mandatory injunction. Both were allowed. Petitioners have filed C.M.A.No.34 of 2015 and 35 of 2015 challenging the said orders. One C.M.A is in Principal Sub Court and the other in Additional Sub Court, Irinjalakkuda. Petitioners filed Ext P3 application before the Principal Sub Judge requesting him to 'make over' C.M.A.No.34 of 2015 pending before him to Additional Sub Court so that both appeals might be heard by the same court. By Ext P4 order the learned Sub Judge has dismissed it. This is challenged. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. The prayer in the application amounted to a request for transfer of the proceedings from one court to another. The power to transfer proceedings is not available to a Sub Judge. Under Section 24 C.P.C only High Court and...
United Spirits Ltd., represented by its General, K. Jagadishwarlu Vs. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-19-2015
Facts: 1. The petitioner is a manufacturer of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. It had, posted by the Government, a contingent of officers one Circle Inspector, one Inspector, two Preventive Officers and eight Guards to supervise the day-to-day functioning of the petitioner factory. Following Section 14 of the Abkari Act ('the Act' for brevity) read with Rule 14 of the Kerala Distillery and Warehouse Rules, 1968 (Part-I) ('the Rules' for brevity), the Government has deployed the supervisory staff to ensure that there is no evasion of the duty on the manufacturer's part. 2. As per the statutory mechanism, the petitioner continued to pay to the said supervisory staff the salary and allowances. It is the specific case of the petitioner that from November 2010, the Circle Inspector, heading the supervisory staff and being the competent authority to raise the necessary bills for payment of salary and other allowances by the petitioner, did not make any demand for the overtime allowance due for th...
E.G. Jecco @ Jecco George and Others Vs. Thrissur Municipal Corporatio ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-19-2015
1. These Writ Petition are filed by the petitioners seeking to quash Ext.P2 resolution of the 1st respondent Municipal Corporation bearing No.G19-19133/05 dated 29.5.2007. Since the subject matter of these Writ Petitions are one and the same, I think it is only just and proper that both the Writ Petitions are disposed of by a common judgment. I am herewith referring to the facts in W.P.(C) No.20593/2007 and the decision taken by me in the said case will decide the fate of other Writ Petition. 2. Brief facts for the disposal of the W.P.(C) No.20593/2007 are as follows: 3. Petitioners are traders conducting business at Kizhekkekkotta in Thrissur town. The land in which their shops were situated was acquired by the Thrissur Municipal Corporation. In a resolution passed by the Municipality on 12.1.1973 it was decided to construct a municipal shopping complex within one year and to allot shop rooms to those tenants whose shop rooms were involved in the acquisition proceedings. The land was ...
Thomas George Vs. A.T. Joseph and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-18-2015
1. The fifth defendant in a suit for damages is the appellant in this second appeal. 2. The first defendant is a company publishing a newspaper and defendants 2 to 4 are the chief editor, printer and reporter respectively of the newspaper published by the first defendant. The case of the plaintiff is that at the instance of the fifth defendant, defendants 1 to 4 published a defamatory news item in their newspaper on 22.11.2007 concerning the plaintiff and the same affected the reputation of the plaintiff. The fifth defendant remained ex-parte. Defendants 1 to 4 contested the suit. The contention raised by the defendants 1 to 4 was that what is reported by them in the news item is true and therefore, the plaintiff has no cause of action against them. The trial court accepted the case of the plaintiff and passed a decree permitting him to recover a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest from defendants 1 to 5. The fifth defendant did not challenge the decision of the trial court in appeal. D...
Stanly Varghese Vs. Mohammed Haneef and Another
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-18-2015
(1) At what stage, the court of a Magistrate is taking cognizance of the offences in a private complaint? (2) Can the court of a Magistrate proceed to the stage of Section 200 Cr.P.C, in a case covered by Section 188 Cr.P.C.? (3) Is a private complaint, in which the only relief sought for is the one under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., maintainable? (4) What is the course of action that can be taken by the court of a Magistrate, in a case covered by Section 188 Cr.P.C.? 2. The petitioner and the respondents were doing business in Sharjah. It is alleged that, while in Sharjah, the respondents had induced the petitioner to part with UAE Dirhams equivalent to Rs.35 lakhs of Indian money to the respondents on 13.11.2013 at the residence of the respondents at Sharjah, by promising the reconstitution of a partnership deed and the induction of the petitioner also as partner in the business of that firm. After taking away the money, nothing was heard about it from the respondents. When the petitioner...
Deepti Rajan Vs. R. Rajasekhar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-18-2015
C.K. Abdul Rehim, J. The above Matrimonial Appeal, instituted under Section 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is against an order passed by the Family Court, Kollam in IA No 907/2014 in OP (HMA) No.116/2013. The appellant herein is the respondent before the Family Court and the petitioner in the interim application. The case before the court below was instituted by the respondent herein and he is the respondent in IA No.907/2014. 2. Original petition before the Family Court was filed seeking for dissolution of the marriage solemnized between the parties on 06-04-2009 at Kollam, under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Allegations in brief are that, the appellant herein had deserted the respondent from 27-12-2012 onwards and treated him with cruelty by way of physical and mental torture. The appellant herein entered appearance through her power of attorney holder and filed IA No.907/2014 before the court below, seeking dismissal of the case on the ground that it is...
Syndicate Bank Vs. Nishad Mathew
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-17-2015
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J 1. Dispute is mainly with regard to the actual court fee that is payable in respect of the appeal preferred under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against an order passed by the Additional District Court-V, Ernakulam under section 9 of the Act. 2. The case of the appellant /Bank is that, the appellant is required to satisfy only the court fee which was originally paid in the court of the first instance, which is Rs 50/- by virtue of Section 52 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. But a defect has been noted by the Registry of this Court, pointing out that ad valorem court fee has to be satisfied in terms of Schedule II, Article 4, sub-clause (ii) and that it cannot be with reference to Schedule II Article 3(iii)(A)(1)(a). Hence the matter stand listed for consideration before the Court to pass orders on judicial side. 3. For the purpose of easy understanding, a reference to Section 52 of the Act as well as the relevant arti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »