Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2000Ker103
1. The Writ Appeal has been referred to a Full Bench by Reference Order dated 7-12-94 by Pareed Pillay, Ag.C.J. (as he then was) and T. V. Ramakrishnan. J. In the Reference Order the Division Bench expressed the view that the Division Bench in Narayanan Thampi v. District Collector, (1988) 2 Ker LT 48, requires reconsideration with regard to the dicta therein that time limit under Sub-Rule 8 of Rule 6 of the Kerala Panchayats (Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter called the 'Rules') is only directory and not mandatory.2. The appellants before us are the petitioners in the Original Petition. They challenge Ext. P4 order passed by the District Collector, Trichur under Rule 6 of Clause 8 of the Rules granting a licence to the 5th respondent for the construction of a cell model burial ground in Sy. No. 183/1 of Edathuruthy village of Kodungallur Taluk on certain conditions. The case of the petitioners-appellants Is as follows :--The appellants are the residents of Edathurut...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2000Ker69
Balasubramanyan, J. 1. The revision petitioner is the judgment debtor. The respondent, a land mortgage Bank purchased the property in enforcement of the right to recover the amounts due to the Bank. Section 18 of the Co-operative Land Mortgage Banks Act. 1960 enables the Bank itself to purchase the property by such a sale. The sale was held on 14-3-1984. The sale was confirmed on 22-8-1985. A certificate in terms of Section 16 of the Co-operative Land Mortgage Banks Act was issued to the respondent on 21-2-1986 (it is shown as 25-10-1985 in the order). Under Section 17 of the Co-operative Land Mortgage Banks Act, 1960 the person to whom a certificate has been issued Under Section 16 of the Act has to apply for delivery Under Section 17 of the Act to the Court. Before the respondent Bank could apply for delivery in terms of Section 17 of the Act, the judgment debtor filed a suit O.S. 73 of 1986 before the Munsiffs Court Devicolam. That suit was filed on 19-3-198G.The same day, an interi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2000]99CompCas359(Ker)
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. M.C.A. No. 6 of 1999 is filed by a company named St. Mary's Finance Limited, Nedumchalil Buildings, Mullassery Canal Road, Cochin-682011, under Section 391(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act'). The said company will be referred to as the company hereinafter. The company prayed that a meeting of the creditors be held 'for the purpose of considering and if thought fit, approving, with or without modification a scheme of compromise or arrangement proposed to be made between the company and the said creditors'. The proposed scheme is produced as annexure 'F'. The application was filed on January 20, 1999. On January 21, 1999, when it came up for admission, this court passed an order appointing a chairman for the conduct of the said meeting to be held on March 7, 1999. In the said application it is admitted by the company that it had been declared a 'Nidhi' company as per notification dated December 17, 1988, by the Central Government. Nidhi company is referred ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2000Ker131
Mohammed, J.1. What is before us is a theme of intense debate involving the use and occupation of forest lands and its inevi-table reaction to ecological balance and environmental outfit. This is brought to us by way of a 'public interest litigation' moved by a registered Society known as 'Nature Lovers Movement'.2. 'Love of nature' is not a modern phenomenon. It existed from the beginning of the humanity itself. 'Man is the measure oi all things.' so said Plato. Man loves nature and nature in turn nourishes him. Man serves society and society in turn preserves him. Nature and society are thus interdependent and the duty of man to them is inherent. These basic percepts envisage the protection of environment and preservation of humanity. But 'For the greenest of environmentalists, humans are oflesser importance than the abundant and diverse flora and fauna of the planet. Humans are defined as a recent addition to the livestock and are considered to have been a wholly disruptive influenc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2000Ker215
Usha, J.1. The question raised in this Civil Revision Petition concerns the 'Just compensation' payable on the basis of annuity principle, when trees in private properties are cut down for the purpose of drawing power lines. About four decades back, this question had come up for consideration by a Bench of this Court in Kerala State Electricity Board v. Varghese Thomas. 1961 Ker LT 238 : (AIR 1961 Kerala 237). The Bench took the view that the method that can be adopted for computing the compensation is the oneby which the present value of annuity which would yield a fair return on the amount for a specified period is ascertained. It was also held that the fair return could be fixed at 5% interest per annum. Two decades later, the question again came up for consideration before a Full Bench in K.S.E. Board v. Marthoma Rubber Co. Ltd., 1981 Ker L T 646 : (AIR 1981 Kerala 223). The principle adopted by the Bench in 1961 Ker L T 238 : (AIR 1961 Kerala 237) supra concerning the mode of dete...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2000Ker189
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J. 1. These two original petitions are filed regarding rejection of their nomination papers for contesting for the election to the Executive Committee of the second respondent, Kerala High Court Advocate's Association. Second respondent is a Bar Association as prescribed in the Advocates Act and the Advocates Welfare Fund Rules. With regard to O.P.No. 31185 of 1999, for the petitioner therein five nomination papers were submitted for the post of Vice President. The first three nomination papers were proposed by three different advocates with the name K. B. Suresh. Membership number was given in two nomination papers and in one nomination paper address was also given after the name. It is stated by the Returning Officer who was present in Court that petitioner's name is written in the membership register as Suresh K. B. and not K. B. Suresh. Apart from the above defect, his membership number was also written in the nomination form which is unwarranted as there is anothe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2000Ker125
Pasayat, C.J. 1. Judgment of learned single Judge declining to interfere with Ext. P4 order of Government is under challenge in this Writ Appeal. 2. A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice. Appellant was an employee of Cheruvathur Farmers Co-operative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank'). Disciplinary action was initiated against him. Finally, an order directing reduction in rank, as a measure of penalty, was passed. An appeal was preferred before the Board of the Bank which did not succeed. Dispute was raised by the appellant under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (in short 'the Act'). Same was not entertained by Arbitrator on the ground that the controversy raised by appellant was not a 'dispute' within the definition of the expression in Section 69. Accordingly petition filed by appellant was dismissed. A revision petition was filed before Government, purportedly under Section 87 of the Act. Government rejected the said petition h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2000Ker205
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. This Original Petition raises a very interesting issue. Petitioner in the Original Petition. Mathew Kunju was a member of the Managing Committee of Lemon Grass Oil and General Marketing Co-operative Society Limited. He ts also the delegate to the Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. as the Primary Society is affiliated to the Federation. The term of office of the elected committee of the Federation was over on 22-3-1999. Before the expiry of the term, the Managing Committee of the Society was superseded by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies by order dated 27-1-1999. This was challenged before this Court and the order of supersession was stayed. But since the election could not be held before the expiry of the term, an administrator was appointed for the management of the Federation by invoking Section 33(1) of the Kerala State Co-operative Societies Act.2. Petitioner further submits that respondents 4 to 6 are the employees of the Federation. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2000Ker121
AR. Lakshmanan. J.1. This appeal is preferred by the State against the judgment of K. S. Radhakrishnan, J. in O.P. No. 17737 of 1999 dated 12th August, 1999 (reported in AIR 2000 Kerala 28)2. In this appeal the following interesting questions arise for determination.(i) Whether coffee is not a forest produce as contended by the respondent and as per the definition contained in Section 2(f) of the Kerala Forest Act. (ii) Whether coffee is a plantation crop as held by this Court in the decision in Aliyakutty Paul v. State of Kerala (1995) 2 Ker LT 93 and whether the decision of the Division Bench requires reconsideration. (iii) Whether Section 75A of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 authorises levy and collection of Forest Development Tax (FDT) at 5% of the amount of consideration paying for the forest produce disposed of by the Government by sale. (iv) Whether the levy and collection of Forest Development Tax under Section 75A are legal. (v) Whether such levy and collection canbe made when A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2000Ker262
Pasayat, C.J. 1. These three Writ Appeals have much in common and, therefore, they are disposed of by this judgment tocover each one of them.2. Alleging that on the basis of false certificate, one K. R. Shanmugha Sundaram obtained benefits Intended for Scheduled Tribes, action was taken against appellants, who are his siblings. There has been determination by Kerala Institute for Research. Training and Development Studies of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (hereinafter referred to as 'KIRTADS') and officials of Government, which has led to initiation of action by employees of appellants. In a nutshell, stand of the parties is as follows. Shanmugha Sundaram was originally a resident of Coimbatore, but, about five decades back, migrated to Kerala and started living here. He was residing at Palakkad. He obtained a certificate sometime in 1956 purported to have been issued by Tahsildar, Coimbatore showing that he belonged to 'Kattunayakan' community, which is a Scheduled Tribe as not...
Tag this Judgment!