Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2007Ker146
ORDERM. Sasidharan Nambiar. J.1. A compromise petition was filed signed by plaintiff, defendants, except one and their counsel. A compromise decree was passed in terms of the compromise. Whether the defendants, who did not sign the compromise petition, is entitled to file an application to set aside the compromise decree on the ground that he is not a signatory to the compromise alleging fraud Whether the signature of the counsel for the party in a compromise petition is sufficient and whether it is mandatory that all the parties to sign the compromise petition? There the questions to be settled in the revision petition,2. Respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs. Petitioner and his brothers, respondents 3 and 4, are defendants. O.S. 357/94 was filed before Sub-Court, Thalassery for fixation of boundaries. After Commissioner submitted a report and plan, objection was filed to the report. Thereafter a settlement was arrived at between the parties. LA. 814/ 01 was filed on 7-3-2001. In tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2007Ker158
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. Ten years before the Parliament decided to include Right to Education as a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution of India by introducing Article 21A through the Constitution (86th Amendment) Act, 2002, the Supreme Court had considered the scope of right to education in the Indian context in the decision of Mohini Jain (Miss) v. State of Karnataka reported in : [1992]3SCR658 . In that case, the Supreme Court inter alia considered the question as to whether there is a 'right to education guaranteed to the people of India under the Constitution' and held as follows in respect of that issue.6. In order to appreciate the first point posed by us it is necessary to refer to various provisions of the Constitution of India. The Preamble promises to secure to all citizens of India 'justice, social, economic and political' and 'liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship'. It further provides 'equality of status and of opportunity' and assures dign...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : III(2007)BC725
ORDERR Basant, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. The cheque is for an amount of Rs. 55,000/- and bears the date 20.12.2003. The complainant examined his power of attorney holder as PW1 and proved Exts, P1 to P4. The defence did not adduce any evidence. Notice of demand though duly received and acknowledged did not evoke any response.3. The Courts below concurrently came to the conclusion that the complainant has succeeded in establishing all the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Accordingly they proceeded to pass the impugned concurrent judgments.4. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the petitioner wants to mount against the impugned concurrent judgments, the learned Counsel for the petitioner only prays that leniency may be shown on the question of sentence. The petitioner now faces a sentence o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2007ACJ2261
K.T. Sankaran, J.1. In this appeal filed by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., appellant challenges the jurisdiction of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation to pass an order allowing recovery from the appellant, the compensation awarded to the workman, respondent No. 1.2. The respondent No. 1 herein, applicant before the Commissioner, was working as a mahout of the elephant by name 'Dhananjaya' owned by the respondent No. 2 herein. On 28.3.1998, while the applicant was engaged in his work as a mahout at a festival of Maniyoor Temple, he fell down while he was getting down from the top of the elephant as he was kicked by the elephant. The applicant sustained injuries. He was treated as an inpatient in the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode from 28.3.98 to 25.4.1998. He had to undergo a surgery, as he sustained fracture of his right femur. The Assistant Professor of Surgery, Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode certified that the applicant sustained disablement and it was assessed at 30...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2008(1)KLJ283
ORDERM. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. First respondent was the elected candidate for Ward No. 4 of Kaiparambu Grama Patichayath, in the election held on 24-09-05. Petitioner was one of the defeated candidates. First respondent secured 714 votes while petitioner secured only 330 votes. First respondent was declared selected. Petitioner filed Election O.P.30/05, to set aside the election of first respondent and to declare himself as the elected candidate. Prayers in the election petition were:1) to declare that the acceptance of nomination paper of first respondent was improper.2) to declare that petitioner was elected candidate after declaring election of first respondent as void.2. Case of petitioner was that along with nomination paper details furnished by first respondent in Form 2A are not complete. Though there was arrears due to BSNL on the date of submission of nomination paper that was suppressed in Form No. 2A. So also educational qualification of first respondent are not fully disc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2008(1)KLJ385
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. The petitioners are accused in a prosecution under Section 500 I.P.C. initiated by the first respondent herein. The first respondent is a police official. He complaints that a news item, perse defamatory to his has been published in the daily (Mathrubhoomi), of which the first respondent is the Editor, the second respondent is the Printer and Publisher, third respondent is the Managing Editor and the 4th respondent the Reporter, who gave the news item for publication. On the complaint filed by the first respondent, without conducting any enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate and summons was issued to the petitioners. The petitioners have all come to this Court with the prayer that the proceedings against them may be quashed invoicing the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.2. That the petitioners are the Editor, Printer and Publisher, Managing Editor and the Reporter is not seriously disputed. It is not disputed that the names...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2008(1)KLJ377
K. Thankappan, J.1. Appellant is the 1st accused in S.C. No. 151/1998 on the file of the 1st Additional Sessions Court, Trivandrum. The prosecution allegations against the appellant are as follows:In furtherance of a criminal conspiracy hatched between A1 and A3 in Sree Lanka. A1 came to India from Sree Lanka on 20-3-1998 with the intention to illegally export narcotic drugs from India to Sree Lanka. A1 checked into room No. 308 of Om Tourist Home at Thampanoor, Thiruvananthapuram on 20-3-1998 itself. Thereafter A1 informed his house about his stay at the said tourist home. After making enquiries about the stay of A1, A3 came to Thiruvananthapuram and met A1 on 22-3-1998 in his room. A3 was then having in his possession a bag containing narcotic drug which has to be sent to Sree Lanka, and packing materials like cellotapes, black leather sheets and also an electronic weighing machine. A1 had purchased a soldering iron for packing the narcotic drug as per the directions of A3. In room N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2008]142CompCas533(Ker); [2007]79SCL289(Ker)
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This is an appeal preferred under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 for setting aside the order dated 3-5-2000 of the Company Law Board and also for a direction to the Company Law Board to fix the value of the appellant's shares on the basis of Annexure-G valuation report and for a direction to the respondents (majority) shareholders to purchase the appellants (minority) shares at the value so fixed by the Company Law Board and also for the other consequential reliefs.2. Company petition was preferred by the appellant herein under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 complaining oppression and mismanagement by the majority shareholders and stated that all the ingredients of Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 are present for passing an order pursuant to Section 402 of the Act. Further, it was also alleged that not only the minority shareholders are being oppressed but the company's affairs are being carried on in a manner which ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2007(2)KLT657
ORDERM. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. The revision petitions were filed challenging the order of Taluk Land Board, Perinthalmanna dated 20.2.01 in SR No. 612/73. Panchili Alavi had filed a statement under Section 85(2) of Kerala Land Reforms Act relating to the lands held by him and his family. As per order dated 7.5.77 Taluk Land Board found that the declarant was in possession of 79.19 acres of land in excess of the ceiling area as on 1-1-1970.The declarant challenged that order before this Court in C.R.P. 1713/77.C.R.P. 2157/77 was filed by Receiver of the estate of late V.S. Narayana Iyer contending that the declarant had no tenancy right over portions of the property held to be that of the declarant.As per common order dated 2.8.78, order of the Taluk Land Board was set aside and the case was remanded to the Taluk Land Board by this Court to decide the question of tenancy on the basis of evidence to be adduced. After remand revised order was passed by the Taluk Land Board on 17.9.80 fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2008(1)KLJ109; AIR2007NOC1100(SB)
ORDERV.K. Bali, C.J. and K.P. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. I have gone through the illuminative concurring judgments of Abdul Gafoor and Balakrishnan Nair, JJ. as also the concurring judgments of Kurian Joseph and Padmanabhan Nair, JJ. expressing however, a different view than the one expressed by Abdul Gafoor and Balakrishnan Nair, JJ. The present may be one of the rarest of rare cases where every Honourable Member of the Bench has chosen to write, even though concurring with the other, his own judgment. May be that the Honourable Member of the Bench concurring with the other wished to express the same view point in his own way.2. I have given deep and anxious the (sic) to both the views and after considering and reconsidering the whole issue, I have come to the conclusion that the view expressed by Kurian Joseph and Padmanabhan Nair, JJ. appears to be correct. With respect, thus, I would differ with the view taken by Abdul Gafoor and Balakrishnan Nair, JJ. Tenant means any person by whom o...
Tag this Judgment!