Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2006Ker58; 2006(4)CTC273; [2006(2)JCR94]; 2005(4)KLT865
J.B. Koshy, J.1. In these cases, questions of law referred to be decided by the Full Bench are:(i) Whether an appeal will lie against the order of a single Judge passed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure;(ii) When such proceedings are under consideration can the learned single Judge pass interim orders; and(iii) If interim orders are passed by the single Judge, whether appeals to the Division Bench can be filed from such interim orders.2. No appeal is specifically provided under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'CPC') against orders passed under Section 24. There is also no specific prohibition in CPC against filing of an appeal against such an order. Therefore, appeal can be filed if it is provided under any other law as right of appeal is a creature of Statute. Sections 104 and 105 of CPC prohibit filing of appeals except by express provision in the CPC or any other law. Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 provides for appeal from the judgment or o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1985Ker134
M.P. Menon, J. 1. A.S. No. 17/78 wan appeal from a decree in a suit. The respondent in the appeal passed away on 12-12-1981 and as his legal representatives were not impleaded in time the appeal abated. The appellant thereafter filed C.M.P. Nos. 6533/82 and 6534/82 for impleading legal representatives and for setting aside abatement, but these were dismissed by a learned single judge. C.M.A. 185/84 is an appeal against that dismissal, and the question is whether an appeal would lie to a Bench of two judges of this Court, from an order of a single judge refusing to set aside the abatement of a First Appeal. According to counsel, such an appeal would lie either under Order 43 Rule 1(k) of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 104 thereof, or under Section 5(ii) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958. 2. Section 104(1) of the Code conceives of appeals against certain classes of orders, and one such order, under Order 43 Rule 1(k) is 'an order under Rule 9 of Order 22 refusing to set a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2001CriLJ81
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. This writ Appeal is filed against the Order in C.M.P. No. 35930 of 1998 in O.P. No. 12701 of 1998. Fourth respondent in the C.M.P. is the appellant. He is the fourth respondent in the Original Petition also. According to the appellant, he is a tenant of a building called 'Jaya Building,' Main road Kollam. The tenancy was given by one Durairaja Reddiar by executing an agreement of lease dated 6-1-1994. This lease deed enabled him to make alterations in the building. Accordingly, he effected some alterations in the building. When it was found that alterations were effected, the appellant received, from the Kollam Municipality, an order directing him to demolish the structure, which according to the Municipality, is unauthorised.2. Against the order of the Municipality, petitioner approached the Government. The Government issued an Order dated 22-6-1998, which is produced as Ext. P-5 in the Original petition directing the appellant to submit an application through t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2003(1)KLT437
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J. 1. Do the provisions embodied in Articles 292 and 293 of the Constitution debar the Central and the State Governments from borrowing any money beyond the amount standing to their credit in the Consolidated Fund? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this petition. A few facts as relevant for the decision of this case may be noticed.2. The petitioner is the President of Nishabdha Bhooripaksham. When translated, the organization means - 'the silent majority.' It was started as an association of public-spirited persons. It is now a political party. The petitioner himself is an assessee. He complains that the Union of India and the State Government of Kerala are arbitrarily borrowing money in violation of the 'letter and spirit of Articles 14, 292, 293 and 39(b) of the Constitution......' The State Government is throwing away 'its precious largessein gross violation of Art. 14 in the form of retention of excess employees ....' As aresult, the t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN FRIDAY,THE7H DAY OF NOVEMBER201416TH KARTHIKA, 1936 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2456 of 2013 () -------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN C.C.NO. 127/2012 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, NO-V, KOZHIKODE DATED0810-2013 CRIME NO. 505/2010 OF FEROKE POLICE STATION , KOZHIKODE REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------- AJITH, AGED31YEARS, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, KOTTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PARAPPUR. P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI682031 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. N.SURESH THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON07 11-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2456 of 2013 () ----------------------------------------...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1986Ker3
Narendran, J.1. Questions of considerable importance in the law of Arbitration arise for consideration in this case. The questions are : (1) Whether the dismissal by court of an original petition by the Arbitrator under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 to enlarge the time for making the Award, will amount to 'superseding an arbitration' and whether an appeal will lie under Section 39 of the Act from the order of dismissal; (2) whether the Arbitrator can file an appeal from an order of the Court refusing to enlarge the time for making the Award; and (3) when the Arbitrator dies pending the appeal can any of the parties to the Arbitration agreement get himself transposed as the appellant. A question whether an Award passed in violation of an injunction restraining the Arbitrator from passing an Award has to be ignored also arises in the case.2. This appeal was filed by the Arbitrator against the order of the Court below dismissing his original petition for enlargement of time for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2007Ker57; 2006(4)KLT405
V.K. Bali, C.J.1. The Stewards Association in India, which is a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act filed a suit for recovery of the possession of the plaint schedule property from the defendants and also for realisation of mesne profits at Rs. 1,800/- per year. The burden of the plaint was that the plaint schedule properties were acquired by Adolph Kocher, a German Missionary as per registered documents of 1084 and 1088 M.E.. He constructed a building for his residence and missionary work as a result of which a Brethern Sabha was formed. There was a prayer hall in the building which was used as an orphanage after purchase of the property by Kocher. Kocher was arrested during World War No. 1 as he was a German citizen. He however, had gifted the property to Stewards Company Limited, England, which right was transferred to the plaintiff-Association in 1973 by a registered document. One Mr. Adams was staying in this property and was continuing the missionar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1976Ker3
Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. This is an appeal by the 2nd counter-petitioner in Arbitration Act Petition No. 1 of 1955 on the file of the Quilon District Court. Under Ext. D3 agreement entered into between the 1st and 2nd counter-petitioners the 2nd counter-petitioner supplied cashewnuts to the 1st counter petitioner. The same was delivered at Quilon on 17-2-1964. Under the agreement any dispute regarding the quality of the goods has to be referred to an arbitration and the Arbitration Rules which govern the parties provide for appointment of Arbitrators, the time within which that should be done and the procedure which should be followed by Arbitrators. Complaining that the quality of the goods supplied was inferior the 1st counter-petitioner requested the 2nd counter-petitioner to appoint an Arbitrator. There was some attempt at settling the matter otherwise and when that failed the 1st counter-petitioner pressed for a reference to Arbitration. He informed the Secretary, Indian Cashew Expo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1991]81STC313(Ker)
K. Sukumaran, J.1. Dealers in diverse goods have come to the Constitutional Court seeking the striking down of Section 59A in the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The goods in which they deal range from bread, bun and horlicks to volatile oil, cosmetics and shampoos and imitation jewellery. Even odd goods like tarpaulin, power line carriers, communication equipments, nylon fish nets, copper sulphate, microscope, battery plates and the like are arrayed in the list. Many cases have been disposed of without a pronouncement on the crucial question of constitutional validity, they could be so disposed of : for, the court, on an examination of relevant facts and factors, found that the governmental declaration under the impugned section was in tune with the correct legal position. Such decisions cover Importex International (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1991] 81 STC 351 infra ; (1990) 2 KLT 487 and Rajan v. State of Kerala [1991] 81 STC 330 infra ; (1990) 2 KLT 511 ; in some others, the de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1994)122CTR(Ker)155; [1994]208ITR531(Ker)
K. S. PARIPOORNAN J. - The petitioner in Original Petition No. 16388 of 1992 is the appellant in this writ appeal. The respondents are the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Thiruvananthapuram, and the State of Kerala. The challenge in the original petition was against exhibit P-6, an order of assessment passed by the first respondent for the year 1990-91, dated July 16, 1992.Exhibit P-6 was challenged as illegal, unfair and violative of the principles of natural justice, amongst others. The learned single judge found that in exhibit P-6, the objection filed by the appellant has been elaborately considered and the appellant has got a remedy by way of appeal against exhibit P-6. The learned single judge declined jurisdiction. The petitioner in the original petition has come up in writ appeal.We heard counsel for the appellant as also counsel for the respondents senior Government Pleader, Mr. V. C. James.When the matter came up before us on Januar...
Tag this Judgment!