Court : Kerala
Decided on : May-23-1997
Reported in : AIR1998Ker50
Ramakrishnan, J. 1. The short question arising for consideration in this revision is thus: Whether the general principle of constructive res judicata or Section 15 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act') would preclude a landlord from claiming eviction on any one of the grounds mentioned in Section 11 of the Act after an adverse finding in an earlier petition for eviction filed on some other grounds under that Section, if such omitted ground was available to him at the time of filing the earlier petition and the adverse decision thereon? 2. The brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of the revision are thus; Respondent-landlady filed RCP 53 of 1989 claiming eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the petition schedule building under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Act. It was alleged in the petition that the landlady assisted by her husband wanted to open a new stationery business and a showroom and depot in the petition schedule bui...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Nov-10-1997
Reported in : 1998(1)ALT(Cri)221; 1998CriLJ3494
K.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.1. The complainant-Food Inspector has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha dated 28-2-1994 in C.C. No. 57/ 1989 acquitting the accused.2. Two accused persons, father and son were prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 2 (ia) (a), (f), (m) and 7(i) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rule 5 appendix B, A. 18.06 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules alleging that at 10.40 a.m. on 13-2-1987 they being the licensee and salesman of the shop conducted in door No. 17/3 of Kumaramangalam Panchayath exhibited for sale insect infested peas dhal unfit for human consumption and as such they committed the offences alleged against them.3. That complaint preferred by the Food Inspector, Thodupuzha Circle, Idukki district was taken on file by the Court as C.C. 57/89 and proceeded with the trial of the case as in a warrant case instituted otherwise than on a police...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : May-02-1997
Reported in : 1998CriLJ185
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. This original petition is filed by Shareefa Ummer, wife of Urntner Ibrahim for a writ of habeas corpus to produce the body of the husband of the petitioner (hereinafter called 'the detenu'), who is detained in the Central Prison, Trivandrum, as per the order of detention under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter called 'the COFEPOSA Act'). According to the petitioner, both the petitioner and the detenu have got their permanent residence in Calicut District in the State of Kerala. The order of detention dated 17th May, 1993 was passed on the basis of the following allegations: On 20-11-1992 the Enforcement Officers, Bombay intercepted the detenu at Bombay, Sahar International Airport when the detenu was about to leave for Dubai and seized from him 1,17,000 Saudi Riyals, 74,500 UAE Dirhams and 12,500 Qatar Riyals from the slippers worn by the detenu, under the provisions of the Foreign E...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Feb-07-1997
Reported in : (1998)IILLJ151Ker
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. The petitioners in these cases are conducting rice mills. The petitioners in O.P. No. 20627 of 1996 are challenging exhibit P- 11 and exhibit P-14 orders. Exhibit P-11 is an order passed by the conciliation officer in terms of Section 21 (4) of the Kerala Head Load Workers Act, 1978 (Act 20 of 1980)(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Exhibit P-14 is the order passed by the appellate authority under Section 21(7) of the Act in an appeal filed by the petitioners against exhibit P-11. The petitioners in O.P. No. 202 of 1997 challenge exhibit P-4 and exhibit P-7, similar orders passed by the respective authorities in their case. The respondents in these two cases are the same. The petitioners also seek a declaration that they have fundamental right to employ workers of their own choice to do all the works including loading and unloading in their rice mills. I will deal with O.P. No. 20627 of 1996, the decision will have a bearing on O.P. No. 202 of 1997.2. The ...
Tag this Judgment!