Court : Kerala
1. The issue in this writ petition is as follows: Can the spouse of an employee be sued by the society under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act ('the Act') on the premise that he or she has indemnified the other partner, the employee, for what is said to be the misappropriation committed by the said employee? 2. At the outset, I make it clear that I do not intend to get into the merits of the matter, for any adjudication of the matter on merits would prejudice the cause of either of the parties before the Arbitration Court, where the matter is pending. 3. The scope of the present adjudication is to examine whether the third respondent, the husband of the second respondent, the employee, could be sued along with his wife, and whether his property can be attached on the basis of Ext.P1, the alleged indemnity bond executed jointly by respondents 2 and 3. 4. The facts in brief are that the second respondent is one of the two collection agents working on a contract basis in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. This writ petition throws open the issue whether a subsequent purchaser has a right to subrogate by redeeming the mortgaged property if his vendor defaults so that he could save the property. The corollary to that issue is whether a writ petition can be taken recourse to for that purpose. 2. The petitioner is one of the seven persons, who purchased a piece of immovable property through Ext.P1 registered sale deed from the 5th respondent. The purchase was in the year 2007. Soon thereafter, the purchasers came across Ext.P2 notice issued by the third respondent Bank proposing to sell the property covered by Ext.P1 sale deed in the execution of an award it had obtained against the 5th respondent, the borrower and original title holder. Complaining that the respondent Bank is not allowing them to redeem the property and not returning the original title deeds, one of the purchasers has filed the writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. The simple question that is agitated in this Original Petition filed by the defendant is whether the document on the basis of which the respondent filed the suit is a promissory note or bond. In the affidavit filed by him in lieu of his examination-in-chief in the trial court the petitioner sought to get it marked as a promissory note. The petitioner filed an objection to it. The court after hearing both parties held that it is a promissory note. 2. The document carries the label promissory note. The essential recitals in it are as follows: On demand I will pay Rs.22,00,000/- I have borrowed from you with interest at Rs.3/-per Rs.100/- per month . It is attested by two witnesses. 3. Promissory note is defined in Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as follows: A promissory note is an instrument in writing (not being a bank-note or a currencynote) containing an unconditional undertaking, signed by the maker, to pay a certain sum of money only to, or to the order of, a certain ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. The accused Nos. 4 to 6 in S.T.No.1099/2012 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court- I, Cherthala have filed these petitions praying that powers under S.482 of the Code be invoked for bringing the criminal proceedings to a premature termination. 2. The essence of the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that in so far as the petitioners are concerned, the prosecution initiated by the 1st respondent against the petitioners under S 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ( NI Act for brevity ) is nothing but an abuse of process of court. 3. For appreciating the rival contentions it would be apposite to briefly note the averments in the complaint :- The 1st accused is a company registered under the Companies Act. The accused No.2 is the Managing Director, the accused No.3 is the Director in Charge and Accused Nos.4 to 6 (the petitioners herein) are the directors. All of them are responsible for the day to day affairs of the 1st...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. This Writ Appeal been filed against the judgment dated 22.11.2010 in W.P(C) No.13757 of 2010. Appellant was the 1st petitioner in the aforesaid Writ Petition. Writ Petition was filed challenging the order passed bythe District Collector dated 20.04.2010 by which the District Collector has directed the appellant to remit the value of the vehicle within 15 days failing which the vehicle will be put to auction. 2. Brief facts necessary for deciding the Writ Appeal are: Appellant who was the 1st petitioner in W.P (C) No. 13757 of 2010 was owner of Tipper Lorry bearing Reg. No.Kl-36/A-1329. On 04.01.2010 the said vehicle was intercepted by the 2nd respondent, Sub Inspector ofPolice at Tripunithura. The vehicle was seized. A mahazar was prepared in the presence of three witnesses where it was mentioned that the vehicle was carrying river sand. The vehicle was taken into custody by the police. Report was submitted by the Sub Inspector of the Police to the District Colle...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. Should the statutory exercises by the Regional Transport Authority or its Secretary in the matter of granting permits, conducting timing conferences or allowing replacement of the vehicles be held up owing to the model code of conduct for election? 2. The petitioners are operators of stage carriage whose applications for temporary permit and variation of regular permit are kept pending under the guise of model code of conduct for election. The model code of conduct for the guidance of political parties and candidates issued by the Election Commission of India is conspicuously silent on this issue. But nevertheless the Chief Electoral Officer in partial modification of her earlier order dated 6.3.2009 had issued an order dated 21.3.2009. It was clarified therein that prior permission must be obtained from the Chief Electoral Officer for issuance of permits even if meetings are conducted by Regional Transport Authority. The applications for issuance or renewal of permits were also dir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. The petitioner, challenging an order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, constituted under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, the Senior Citizens Act ), has approached this Court. 2. By the impugned order, the petitioners have been directed to provide welfare measures to the third respondent. 3. The case of the petitioners is that they are not liable to provide any maintenance or basic amenities to the third respondent. It is their case that the third respondent is not their parent nor would he come within the biological father/adopted or step father and therefore, the application filed by the third respondent before the Maintenance Tribunal is not maintainable. 4. The case of the third respondent, who is the complainant before the Tribunal, is that he married to the mother of the petitioners, namely, Devaki as per Ext.R3B and he expended a large sum of money for the upkeep of immovable properties as well as, the well being of the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Antony Dominic, J. 1. FAO.306/13 is filed by the judgment debtor in EP.24/08 in OS.30/03 on the file of the Sub Court, Nedumangad, challenging the order passed by that court in EA.87/11, whereby, his application filed under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to set asid e the sale conducted on 26.5.2011 was dismissed. FAO.27/14 is filed by the purchaser of the property in court auction, aggrieved by the order dated 23.7.2013 allowing EA.105/13 filedby the judgment debtor. 2. On facts, it is only relevant to state that the first respondent had filed OS.30/03 which was decreed in his favour and the decree has become final. EP.24/08 was filed to realise the decree debt by sale of the attached properties owned by the appellant judgment debtor. In the execution petition, on 25.7.2009, the decree holder submitted schedule of properties for proclamation and sale. This consisted of two items, having an extent of 25 cents and 11 cents respectively. 3. In EA.124/10 filed by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Shaffique, J. 1. This writ petition has been referred to this Court by the learned Single Judge as per reference order dated 21/1/2016. Petitioner in the writ petition claimed to have a deemed licence for conducting quarrying operations in a property for which he was having quarrying lease. According to the petitioner, though he submitted an application for renewal of licence for conducting the quarry, the application was not disposed of within a period of thirty days as provided under Section 236(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and therefore, he was entitled for deemed licence. However, the Panchayat after the prescribed period of thirty days issued a communication to the petitioner rejecting his application for renewal of licence. According to the petitioner, the Panchayat had no jurisdiction to reject the application for renewal on account of the fact that the renewal application is deemed to have been allowed for the usual period of ren...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Shaffique, J 1. This writ petition has been filed seeking police protection on the allegation that petitioners, who are appointed as the Vicar and the Assistant Vicar of St.Mary's Church, Odakkali, are not being permitted by respondents 5 to 7 and their men in performing their religious and other duties in the Church. 2. Petitioners submit that they were appointed by the Metropolitan of Angamali Diocese as per proceedings dated 01/10/2014 and 11/01/2010 respectively. The power has been exercised in terms of Clause 40 of the 1934 Constitution of the Malankara church. It is stated that a faction of Malankara Christians broke away in the year 1973 defying the 1934 Constitution and challenging the authority of the Catholicos who is the spiritual head. Their faction is known as Jacobites. The factional dispute had resulted in various issues and ultimately by judgment of the Apex Court in Most.Rev.P.M.A.Metropolitan and others v. Moran Mar Marthoma and Others (AIR 1995 Supreme Court 2001), i...
Tag this Judgment!