Kerala Court March 2016 Judgments
P.C. Sebastian Vs. P.C. Chacko and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-22-2016
Hariprasad, J. 1. Maliyekkal Rosamma, ( the testatrix , hereinafter), executed Ext.B3 Will well before her mundane existence ended. What were her intentions at the time of executing Ext.B3? Whom did she intend to benefit ultimately? Was it her husband Chacko @ Kunjacko or her son Sebastian (1st defendant)? Did she intend to confer an absolute right on her husband, including the power to make a testamentary disposition over the property included in Ext.B3 Will? If that be so, was the right given to the 1st defendant, as per Ext.B3, only a chance to succeed? What is the legal effect of Ext.B2 Will, the one executed by husband of the testatrix? Answers to these intricate questions will resolve the issues. Primarily, a proper construction of Ext.B3 is called for in this case. 2. Relevant facts are thus: The suit is for partition of A schedule immovable property and B schedule cash deposits. 1st defendant is the appellant. Plaintiff and other defendants are the respondents. Plaintiff and de...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Hotel Savoy Bar and Others The State of Kerala, Repersented By Th ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-22-2016
1. Whether charging prices in excess of MRP (Maximum Retail Price) printed on the label of Beer served to guests in a Bar Hotel, operating on the strength of an FL3 Licence issued by the Excise Department, will attract the penal provisions of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules 2011, is the question that is to be answered in this petition filed under S.482 of the Code. 2. The prosecution case as is revealed from the complaint laid before the court below runs thus: An inspection was conducted on 22.12.2011 by the second respondent in the premises of M/s Hotel Savoy Bar at Kozhikkode. He placed an order for 3 portions of 90 ml- MC Whisky, 1 portion of 90 ml -MC Brandy, one bottle of Beer, snacks and a soda and on his request a bill was issued for the same. Measurements were made in respect of Whisky and Brandy supplied to the complainant and the same revealed that it was in accord with the order placed. In respect of the beer purchased by the Senior Inspector, it was reveale...
Tag this Judgment!Radhakrishna Kurup Vs. Nadakkal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. and Oth ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-22-2016
1. The constitutional validity of Section 56A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, falls for consideration in these writ petitions. 2. In W.P.(C)No.18030/2014, the petitioners are the Co-operative Bank and one of its members; respondents 4 and 5 are the borrowers, the latter of whom mortgaged her property as security for the loans. Apart from being husband and wife, the fourth and fifth respondents are the petitioners in 18030/2014 respectively. 3. While the Bank has raised the issue of vires of Section 56A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, the borrowers, on the other hand, seek the enforcement of Exhibits P7 and P8 orders passed by the authorities drawing their power from the impugned provision. 4. Since the writ petitions have similar issues involving the same parties, this Court has proposed to dispose of the writ petitions through a common judgment. For ease of reference and convenience, the facts as pleaded and the parties as have been arrayed in W.P.(C)No. 1803...
Tag this Judgment!Vaniamkulam Panchayath Vanitha Sahakarana Sangham Ltd. Vs. The Kerala ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-21-2016
1. The issue in this writ petition is as follows: Can the spouse of an employee be sued by the society under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act ('the Act') on the premise that he or she has indemnified the other partner, the employee, for what is said to be the misappropriation committed by the said employee? 2. At the outset, I make it clear that I do not intend to get into the merits of the matter, for any adjudication of the matter on merits would prejudice the cause of either of the parties before the Arbitration Court, where the matter is pending. 3. The scope of the present adjudication is to examine whether the third respondent, the husband of the second respondent, the employee, could be sued along with his wife, and whether his property can be attached on the basis of Ext.P1, the alleged indemnity bond executed jointly by respondents 2 and 3. 4. The facts in brief are that the second respondent is one of the two collection agents working on a contract basis in...
Tag this Judgment!Jomon Augustine, Peedikamalayil House and Others Vs. State of Kerala R ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-21-2016
Facts in Brief: 1. Syllogistically speaking, the major premise is this: A and B have been appointed to similar posts in two similar organisations; the minor premise: When disputed, A's appointment was upheld based on B's appointment; the conclusion: when conversely B's appointment is questioned, it should be upheld based on A's appointment. 2. That is logic, not law. Logical fallacy may not be fraught with dangerous consequences; a flaw in law or its interpretation is. For Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., the life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience. 3. To elaborate, I may observe that initially, A's appointment was questioned. He sustained his appointment showing that B was similarly appointed; thus, A's appointment has attained finality. At a later point in time, however, B's appointment was questioned. Then B wanted to sustain his appointment because A's appointment was approved under identical circumstances based on the very B's appointment. Now, B's contentions...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Muhammed Sherieff Vs. The Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Th ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-21-2016
1. This writ petition throws open the issue whether a subsequent purchaser has a right to subrogate by redeeming the mortgaged property if his vendor defaults so that he could save the property. The corollary to that issue is whether a writ petition can be taken recourse to for that purpose. 2. The petitioner is one of the seven persons, who purchased a piece of immovable property through Ext.P1 registered sale deed from the 5th respondent. The purchase was in the year 2007. Soon thereafter, the purchasers came across Ext.P2 notice issued by the third respondent Bank proposing to sell the property covered by Ext.P1 sale deed in the execution of an award it had obtained against the 5th respondent, the borrower and original title holder. Complaining that the respondent Bank is not allowing them to redeem the property and not returning the original title deeds, one of the purchasers has filed the writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner an...
Tag this Judgment!T. Jayarani Vs. The Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Soceites Gener ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-21-2016
1. The issue in these writ petitions concerns the legality of an appointment made by the President of a Society. The appointment is said to have been ratified subsequently by the managing committee. Acting on the complaints of certain persons, the Assistant Registrar interdicted the appointment; the Society implemented his directive. But the employee was not heard before her termination. Thus, the Court is called upon to decide on the propriety of the procedure adopted by the Assistant Registrar and the Society in removing the employee. 2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 38458 of 2015 challenges Exts.P2 and P3, the order of the Assistant Registrar and the resolution of the society respectively, through which the petitioner s appointment was sought to be cancelled. 3. In W.P. (C) No.2028 of 2016, the petitioner, who is said to be a rival candidate for the post, raises an issue concerning the competence of the President to appoint the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 38458 of 2015. The appointmen...
Tag this Judgment!P. Rajagopalan Vs. P.C. Jose and Another
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-21-2016
1. The accused Nos. 4 to 6 in S.T.No.1099/2012 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court- I, Cherthala have filed these petitions praying that powers under S.482 of the Code be invoked for bringing the criminal proceedings to a premature termination. 2. The essence of the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that in so far as the petitioners are concerned, the prosecution initiated by the 1st respondent against the petitioners under S 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ( NI Act for brevity ) is nothing but an abuse of process of court. 3. For appreciating the rival contentions it would be apposite to briefly note the averments in the complaint :- The 1st accused is a company registered under the Companies Act. The accused No.2 is the Managing Director, the accused No.3 is the Director in Charge and Accused Nos.4 to 6 (the petitioners herein) are the directors. All of them are responsible for the day to day affairs of the 1st...
Tag this Judgment!T.M. Basheer Vs. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority and Another
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-21-2016
1. Should the statutory exercises by the Regional Transport Authority or its Secretary in the matter of granting permits, conducting timing conferences or allowing replacement of the vehicles be held up owing to the model code of conduct for election? 2. The petitioners are operators of stage carriage whose applications for temporary permit and variation of regular permit are kept pending under the guise of model code of conduct for election. The model code of conduct for the guidance of political parties and candidates issued by the Election Commission of India is conspicuously silent on this issue. But nevertheless the Chief Electoral Officer in partial modification of her earlier order dated 6.3.2009 had issued an order dated 21.3.2009. It was clarified therein that prior permission must be obtained from the Chief Electoral Officer for issuance of permits even if meetings are conducted by Regional Transport Authority. The applications for issuance or renewal of permits were also dir...
Tag this Judgment!P.M.Nizar Vs. The Distict Collector and Others Ernakulam
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-21-2016
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. This Writ Appeal been filed against the judgment dated 22.11.2010 in W.P(C) No.13757 of 2010. Appellant was the 1st petitioner in the aforesaid Writ Petition. Writ Petition was filed challenging the order passed bythe District Collector dated 20.04.2010 by which the District Collector has directed the appellant to remit the value of the vehicle within 15 days failing which the vehicle will be put to auction. 2. Brief facts necessary for deciding the Writ Appeal are: Appellant who was the 1st petitioner in W.P (C) No. 13757 of 2010 was owner of Tipper Lorry bearing Reg. No.Kl-36/A-1329. On 04.01.2010 the said vehicle was intercepted by the 2nd respondent, Sub Inspector ofPolice at Tripunithura. The vehicle was seized. A mahazar was prepared in the presence of three witnesses where it was mentioned that the vehicle was carrying river sand. The vehicle was taken into custody by the police. Report was submitted by the Sub Inspector of the Police to the District Colle...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »