Court : Kerala
..... legislation such as the coking coal mines (nationalisation) act may be a legislation for the acquisition by the state of coking coal mines and coke oven plants belonging to private parties but it is not a legislation towards securing that the ownership and control of the material resources w.p(c) no.26691 of 2010, ..... we do not entertain the slightest doubt that the nationalisation of the coking coal mines and the specified coke oven plants for the above purpose was towards securing that "the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the ..... the nationalisation of the coking coal mines and the coke oven plants was "with a view to reorganising and reconstructing such mines and plants for the purpose of protecting, conserving and promoting scientific development of the resources of coking coal needed to meet the growing requirements of the iron and steel industry and for matters connected therewith or ..... sen was that neither a coal mine nor a coke oven plant owned by private parties was a "material resource of the ..... sen drew pointed attention to the earlier affidavits filed on behalf of bharat coking coal limited and commented severely on the alleged contradictory reasons given therein for the exclusion of certain coke oven plants from the coking coal mines (nationalisation) act. ..... biodiversity and genetic resources of the decease resistant and medicinally valuable plants which from the resource base for w.p(c) no.26691 of 2010, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1992)IILLJ330Ker
..... agarwala 1979(3) scc 609 holding that term 'coking coal mine' does not include a coke oven plant and whether the act challenged therein was saved by article 39(b) or not. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
in the high court of kerala at ernakulam present: the honourable the chief justice mr.ashok bhushan & the honourable mr.justice a.m.shaffique wednesday, the19h day of august201528th sravana, 1937 con.case(c).no. 1199 of 2011 (s) in wp(c).15569/2011 ------------------------------------------------------ against the order/judgment in wp(c) 15569/2011 of high court of kerala dated0906-2011 petitioner(s)/writ petitioner: --------------------------------------------------- satish chandran, aged44years, s/o. p. velayudhan, president, kozhikode district cricket association, adhitya birla money ltd., 2nd floor, sona building ram mohan road, kozhikode - 673 004. by adv. sri.rajit respondent(s)/respondents2and3 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. t.c.mathew, aged47years, s/o. chackochan, taraniyil house, secretary the kerala cricket association, c.a complex thycaud.p.o, thiruvananthapuram.2. t.r.balakrishnan, aged57years, s/o. ramaswami, president, kca siva illom, maniquni, sulthan bathery - 673 592 r1,r2 by adv. sri.nidhi sam johns r1,r2 by adv. sri.p.b.krishnan by sri.a.v.thomas this contempt of court case (civil) having been finally heard on2606-2015, the court on1908/2015 delivered the following: coc no.1199/2011 appendix petitioner's exhibits annexure-a-true copy of the judgment dated0906/2011 w.p (c) 15569/2001 annexure-b-true copy of the letter signed and sent by t.n. ananthanarayanan to the member club of the kozhikode district cricket .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
in the high court of kerala at ernakulam present: the honourable mr.justice p.bhavadasan thursday, the18h day of december201427th agrahayana, 1936 op(c).no. 2895 of 2014 (o) --------------------------- (e.a.no.233/2014 in e.p.no.84/2014 in o.s.no.236/2014 of munsiff court, perumbavoor) petitioner: ---------- joy kuriakose, aged58years s/o.kuriakose, alapattu house, airapuram village airapuram p.o., pin - 683 541. by advs.sri.s.vinod bhat sri.legith t.kottakkal respondents: ------------ 1. t.c.mani s/o.chacko, thanikkamattathil house, thonikka kara aikkaranadu north village, kolencherry - 682 311.2. alice w/o.t.c.mani, thanikkamattathil house, thonikkakara aikkaranadu north village, kolencherry682 311.3. vijayan pilla s/o.karunakaran pillai, puthenveettil house airapuram kara, airapuram p.o. 683 541. r1 & r2 by senior advocate sri.v.v. asokan by adv.sri.k.i.mayankutty mather by adv. sri.p.rahul this op (civil) having come up for admission on1812-2014, the court on the same day delivered the following: op(c).no. 2895 of 2014 (o) --------------------------- appendix petitioner(s)' exhibits ----------------------- ext.p-1: copy of the decree dated236.2014 in o.s.236/2014 of munsiff's court, perumbavoor. ext.p-2: copy of the execution petition no.84/2014 in o.s. 236/2014 of munsiff's court, perumbavoor. ext.p-3: copy of the petition e.a. 233/2014 in e.p842014 in o.s. 236/2014 of munsiff's court, perumbavoor. ext.p-4: copy of objection in e.a.233/2014 in e.p842014 in o.s.236/2014 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
b.a.nos.5641 of 2011 and 5776 of 2011 are under section 439 of the code of criminal procedure. b.a.no.4642 of 2011 is for anticipatory bail, filed under section 438 of the code of criminal procedure. 2. the name of accused, rank in the case, crime number, date of arrest and bail application number are shown below. sl.no.name of accusedrankcrime no. and police stationdate of arrestbail application number1abdul arshada9497/11 sulthan bathery11-6-115641/112kunhumuhammadpradeepbaurajanshajikrishnanarun. bpratheeshpreyeshjosepha8a2a3a4a5a6a7491/1110.6.115776/113.k.t. gopinathan town north police station, ernakulam 4642/113. the offences alleged against the accused are under section 420 of the indian penal code and sections 3 and 4 of the prize chits and money circulation schemes (banning) act, 1978 (central act no.43 of 1978) (hereinafter referred to as prize chits act.) 4. the prosecution case is the following: accused no.9 abdul arshad is the managing director of bizarre global marketing public limited company (hereinafter referred to as the company). the company was originally a private limited company under the name bizarre marketing systems private limited, which was incorporated on 2-11-2007. with effect from 18-6-2008, the name of the company was changed as bizzare global marketing systems private limited. the company became a public limited company with effect from 14-7-2008. the allegation is that the accused persons induced several persons to subscribe to the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1981CriLJ563
..... on the east of the cow-dung pit and the steps to the farm-yard, removed the steps put up between the cart-track and the cattle shed, uprooted the farm-yard gate and planted it about 4 feet inside removed five survey stones from the original places and replanted them nearby, and thereby caused a loss of about rs. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
..... so there is no possibility of incorporating the number of pw7 in ext.p2 mahazar so as to plant him later at the place of occurrence to witness the demand and acceptance of the amount by the accused. ..... so it cannot be said that he was a planted witness later as claimed by the defence. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
hariprasad, j. 1. this original petition filed under article 227 of the constitution of india comes up before us pursuant to an order of reference passed by a learned single judge. parties to this proceedings are husband and wife. wife (respondent-plaintiff) filed o.s.no.82 of 1997 before the court of subordinate judge, thiruvalla against her husband (petitioner-defendant) for return of `50,000/- allegedly entrusted with him at the time of their marriage and also for the value of her ornaments, said to have been appropriated by him. learned trial judge dismissed the suit. an appeal was brought up before this court as a.s.no.93 of 2000. a division bench of this court allowed the appeal in part and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh disposal. this court confirmed the finding of trial court that the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant had received rs. 50,000/- at the time of marriage. however, the division bench was of the view that the trial court's denial of the plaintiff's claim for value of ornaments as time barred was unsustainable. the trial court did not consider that the ornaments were entrusted by the plaintiff with the defendant during their matrimony and therefore latter was held to be a trustee for the former. so much so, section 10 of the limitation act, 1963 would operate against the plea of limitation. that aspect was not considered by the court below. hence, after allowing the appeal in part, the judgment and decree of the trial court .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1989Ker49
ordersukumaran, j. 1. a very important issue is involved in this interim petition in an interlocutory matter.2. more arguments, than would have been necessary for the disposal of the appeal itself, had been advanced on either side. having regard to the frame of the petition and the character of the order, to be passed, conclusions have to be as brief as possible. it would be superfluous to reiterate that the conclusions indicated are provisional in character. (indication of such provisional views are not impermissible even in the course of arguments -- is an opinion entertained by many jurists. one of the eminent men in that line is lord mccluskey and his views are stated in the reith lectures, now published under the title 'law, justice and democracy'.)3. a definite conclusion is therefore essential, in relation to a final disposal of a matter, albeit interlocutory in character, despite the provisional nature of the conclusion. supportive reasons, of necessity, must be there as essential ingredients of a judicial conclusion. judges have therefore necessarily to state, (as did lord avory in some distant past) :'i may be right or wrong, perhaps more often wrong than right; but i have no doubt about my conclusion.'4. the dispute is between an ancient and established publishing house -- malayala manorama co. ltd., 'manorama' for short on the one hand and a reputed cartoonist and a different publication -- the kala kaumudi -- (different in its pattern, perspective and style) on .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1998]234ITR532(Ker)
..... the following is the question referred for the opinion of this court ;'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and especially taking into consideration the fact that the barium carbonate (expansion) plant has been treated as a separate industrial undertaking for the purpose of allowing deduction under section 80j on it, the tribunal was right in holding that the entire operations carried on by the assessee were the operations of one ..... concern and in allowing, in that view, the claim of the assessee for extra-shift depreciation allowance in respect of the plant and machinery comprised in the said barium carbonate (expansion) plant even though that particular unit had worked only for 43 days during the year ?'2. ..... the assessing authority took the view that barium carbonate (expansion) plant was a new undertaking of the assessee and it had claimed relief under section 80f ..... the barium carbonate (expansion) plant is one among four plants in the factory of the assessee at metoor established in the year 1966 ..... the enquiry should have been, (1) whether the assessee is having more than one factory, (2) whether it is claiming extra-shift allowance with relation to each factory, and (3) whether the barium carbonate (expansion) plant is an independent factory or part of a factory.6. ..... even if it is a new plant, the submission is that a plant or machinery cannot be treated as a .....
Tag this Judgment!