Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1966Ker192
Velu Pillai, J.1. In view of the question arising for decision, it is not necessary to relate all the facts of this ancient litigation. The appeal arises in execution of a decree which was obtained by the appellant, mortgagee of certain properties, on the basis of a lease back to the mortgagor, for recovery of possession with arrears of rent and future rent. The decree was passed on the 10th March, 1928 under the Travancore Civil Procedure Code. The question which arises for decision is whether the appellant can recover future interest, that is interest subsequent to the date of the decree, without any limit as under Section 34(1) of the Indian Civil Procedure Code or only subject to the limit imposed by Section 31(8) of the Travancore Civil Procedure Code. Section 81(1), (2) and (3) of the latter may be usefully quoted and are as follows:(1) In suits for money, no Court shall, in respect of the period antecedent to the insti-tution of the suit, allow in its decree a higher rate of int...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : IV(2004)BC135; 2004(2)KLT507
ORDERP.R. Raman, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment in A. S. 66 of 1996 rendered by the Subordinate Judge, Cherthala, confirming the judgment of the Munsiff's Court, dismissing O.S. 436/1992 - a suit for return of non priced subscription paid under a chit.2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit. The allegation contained in the plaint is that he was a subscriber in two chitties which were conducted by the respondent/defendant. One of the terms and conditions of the chitty was that if any subscriber who has not bid the chitty commits any default, the amount already remitted by him with 3% interest deducting the dividend will have to be given after six months from the date of termination of the chitty and if the foreman commits default and the chitty could not be conducted due to his default, the amount due to the subscriber who has not bid the chitty is to be given within three months from the date of default with 5% interest. Because of the default...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1959Ker5
Varadaraja Iyengar, J.1. The matter arises in execution of the decree, on objection raised by the respondent -- 5th defendant, that the execution of the decree is barred by limitation, as regards personal execution for realisation of the mesne profits, granted under the decree. The court below upheld the objection and hence this appeal by the assignee-decree-holder.2. The decree set aside a mortgage which stood in favour of the 5th defendant in respect of plaint Item No. 3 and allowed recovery of the same, with past and future mesne profits. The decree was passed on 4-3-1121. On 18-10-1123, the first execution application was filed, praying inter alia for recovery of the mesne profits but only 'as a charge against the properties'. The prayer for personal execution against the 5th defendant was for the first time made in the second execution petition dated 22-6-1953, but as by then, more than three years had elapsed from the date of the decree the court below held such prayer was barred...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
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
Reported in : [1990]69CompCas497(Ker)
Shamsuddin, J. 1. This MFA is filed challenging the order of a learned single judge in Company Application No. 306 of 1986 in Company Petition No. 11 of 1983. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Cochin, who is the appellant herein filed the above application under Rule 7 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, praying for cancellation of the sale effected pursuant to a notice of sale dated October 15, 1985, published by the official liquidator, High Court of Kerala, in respect of 1.35 acres of land specified in the agreement executedbetween the Government and Brunton and Company (Engineers) Ltd. (now in liquidation) and to direct the official liquidator to confine the sale only to the structures standing on the land and to surrender vacant site to the Government after declaring that the lease is terminated. 3. The material averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the above application are as follows : A lease agreement was executed between the director of Brunton and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN MONDAY,THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2013 10TH ASHADHA, 1935 OP (CAT).No. 568 of 2013 (Z) ---------------------------------------- [O.A.NO.684/2012 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 01 01-2013] ........ PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. S.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (S.C.B), LAVANYA, CHAVADINADA, VENGANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 523.2. K.K.RAJAN, INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (S.C.B), KAILASAM, GURUDEV NAGAR, AYATHIL P.O., KOLLAM-691 017. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, NEW DELHI - 3.2. DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, C.G.O COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-3.3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION), C.B.I HEAD QUARTERS, 5-B, 7TH FLOO...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. This Regular Second Appeal essentially arises out of the challenge made as against the permission granted by the statutory authorities concerned for the establishment of a vault type cemetery in the appellant St.Mary's Orthodox Church, Vettipuram, Pathanamthitta district. The contesting respondents herein had filed Original Suit, O.S.No.57/1999 before the Munsiff's Court, Pathanamthitta, praying to set aside the impugned orders issued by the statutory authorities concerned in the matter of permission for construction of a vault type cemetery by the St.Mary's Orthodox Church authorities concerned (respondents 5 and 6 in the O.S.) and for consequential injunction. The trial court has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree rendered by the Munsiff's Court, Pathanamthitta, on 29.9.2000 in O.S.No.57/1999, the church authorities had filed Appeal Suit, before the District Court concerned. The lower appellate court, as per the impugned jud...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1971Ker98
Raman Nayar, C.J. 1. The Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act 1 of 1964) as originally enacted (the original Act as we shall call it) finds a place in the NinthSchedule to the Constitution -- see Item 39 -- and therefore has the protection of Article 31-B. It has been amended three times, first by Act 12 of 1966, then by Act 9 of 1967, and now by Act 55 of 1969, the amendments made by the last mentioned Act (which we shall call the amending Act) being far-reaching. (To the 132 sections in the original Act, over 50 new sections have been added while over 60 sections have been amended. To the 62 definitions 10 have been added while 20 have been amended. The amended Act is therefore virtually a new piece of legislation). The first of these was enacted by the President while the remaining two have received his as sent -- it has been contended not in the free and proper exercise of his judgment, but, of course, we cannot go into that-- but none of them has been included in the Ninth Schedule....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1964Ker287
ORDERC.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In this batch of 14 writ petitions, the pen-tinners, though different, who are all owners of forest lands in the area, commonly known as the Malabar area, attack the group of four Sections, namely, Sections 48 to 51, contained in Chapter VII of the Kerala Forest Act, 1951, (Act IV of 1962), hereinafter to be referred to as the Kerala Act, as unconstitutional and as Infringing the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 19(1) (f) and (g), and 31 of the Constitution. The State of Kerala is the main respondent in most of these writ petitions, though in some of them some of the officers of the Forest Department have also been included as additional respondents.2. Though the averments contained in all these writ petitions are slightly different, all the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, as well as the learned Gov-ernment Pleader appearing for the State, have agreed to treat the averments contained in O. P. No. 1108/62 as well...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1996CriLJ757
ORDERN. Dhinakar, J.1. The petitioners in the above petitions are A1, A3, A5, A7, A8, A10 and A12 in C. C. No. 1 of 1991 on the file of the Special Judge for Edamajayar Investigations, Ernakulam.2. The proceedings were instituted before the trial Court against petitioners for various offences punishable under various provisions of the Penal Code and the provision of Prevention of Corruption Act. It is the case of the prosecution that these petitioners along with other accused entered into a criminal conspiracy during the period 1980 to 1987 and conceived a plan to make illegal profits for themselves in executing the construction of Idamalayar dam as a part of the Idamalayar project.3. Idamalayar dam as a part of the Idamalayar project was sanctioned by the Planning Commission and huge expenditure in its construction was incurred. Later number of leaks were discovered in the tunnel which showed the inferior quality of construction of the dam which became a matter of public concern. The ...
Tag this Judgment!