Court : Kerala
Decided on : Sep-27-2003
Reported in : 2006(4)KLT604
orderv.k. bali, c.j.1. the negotiable instruments (amendment and miscellaneous provisions) act, 2002 came into being to amend the negotiable instruments act, 1881, bankers' books evidence act, 1891 and the information technology act, 2000 for a purpose. one of the objects to bong about the new legislation mentioned in the objects and reasons of the act of 2002 was to provide for summary trial of the cases under the act with a view to speeding up disposal of cases. the speedy and summary remedy provided was for a purpose to expeditiously deal with matters under the negotiable instruments act in a time bound manner. it is unfortunate that in some cases, as one in hand, the entire purpose of the legislation has been defeated on procedural wrangles. before introduction of the case, as a prelude in a drama and preface in a novel would be written, a period of fifteen years have already gone by. the parties to the litigation are at initial stage, as the case has not made any progress from the date of institution of the same.2. when the petitioner filed a complaint under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act, hereinafter referred to as 'n.i. act', before the chief judicial magistrate, kottayam, the same was admittedly within limitation. the first respondent entered appearance and contested the jurisdiction of the kottayam court to entertain the complaint. the objection raised by the 1st respondent was accepted and vide order dated 15.3.1996, the chief judicial magistrate, .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Decided on : Sep-22-2003
Reported in : AIR2004Ker143; 2003(3)KLT901
k.s. radhakrishnan, j.1. these appeals arise out of the judgment and decree in o.s. no. 3 of 1996 on the file of the district court, thrissur. first defendant is the appellant in a.s. no. 415 of 2000 and the second defendant is the appellant in a.s. no. 419 of 2000.2. suit was instituted by respondents 1 to 3 in these appeals under section 26 and order vii, rule 1 of the code of civil procedure and section 49 of the indian trust act seeking modification of some of the stipulations in ext. a1 trust deed giving exclusive rights to the first defendant and to place fetters with regard to the rights of the first defendant to manage the affairs of the properties of the 'sakshal chathan seva madom' and also for a direction to the effect that the first defendant shall function as trustee only along with the first plaintiff and also for other consequential reliefs.3. we may deal with the facts in detail in the latter part of the judgment, after dealing with some of the legal questions raised for consideration. admittedly the trust created under ext. a1 document is a private religious trust. interlocutory application, i.a. no. 1388 of 1996, was moved by the plaintiffs to appoint a receiver to manage the affairs of the trust pending suit. the court below allowed the said prayer by order dated 7.9.1998 and issued certain directions. maintainability of the suit was also considered by the court at that time and found that the court has got jurisdiction to proceed with the matter. that .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jun-06-2003
Reported in : 2004(1)KLT896
1. a.s. no. 196 of 1990 is filed by the plaintiff. a.s.no. 243 of 1990 is filed by the first defendant and a.s.no. 299 of 1990 is filed by the second defendant. the suit was filed for partition.2. according to the plaintiff, she is the daughter of late k.b. sheik yusuf saheb. first defendant is the son of k.b. sheik yusuf saheb. defendants 1, 2, 3 and 4 are the sons of k.b. sheik yusuf saheb. seventh defendant is the daughter-in-law of sheik yusuf saheb. defendants 8 to 14 are the children of late k. sheik abdul hasim and 7th defendant. all are muslims. defendants 12 to 14 are minors. 15th defendant is the daughter of mariambee and wife of late shariff. 16th defendant is the son of late mohammad kashim saheb and the 17th defendant is the wife of aziz saheb.3. the plaintiff and defendants are related to one another as shown in the geneology given in schedule a. k.b. sheik yusuf saheb, father of the plaintiff died on 24th december 1964. her mother zulekhabi died on 16th february 1959. zairunnisa sister of the plaintiff died unmarried in 1972 leaving her brothers and sisters as the only heirs and legal representatives. sheik abul hasim, the eldest brother of the plaintiff died in 1983 having defendants 7 to 14, his widow and children as the legal representatives. mariambee, elder sister of plaintiff died in 1956, leaving defendants 15 to 17 as her legal representatives.4. the properties described in item nos. 2 to 4 of b schedule were acquired by sheik yusuf saheb on darkast .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Decided on : Mar-27-2003
Reported in : III(2003)BC1; 2003(2)KLT1
r. basant, j. 1. these appeals are taken up for disposal together as agreed by the rival contestants as the appellant and respondent in these appeals are common and the challenge raised is against a common judgment. the complainant is the appellant. he had alleged that the accused had committed the offence punishable under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act in respect of three cheques for a total amount of rs. 6,00,000. by the impugned judgment the accused was found not guilty and acquitted.2. the complainant alleged that the accused had issued three cheques for a total amount of rs. 6,00,000 to him for the due discharge of a legally enforceable debt/ liability. the complainant had advanced the said amount and for return of the same three post dated cheques dt. 1.6.1990, 15.6.1990 and 1.7.1990 were issued to the accused by the complainant. the said cheques when presented for encashment were dishonoured by the bank on the ground of insufficiency of funds. the information of dishonour was received by the complainant on the respective dates of dishonour. the complainant allegedly informed the accused of the fact of dishonour. both of them are professors in a college. the complainant caused registered notices of demand as insisted by law to be issued to the accused. the notices addressed to the residential address of the accused were not received and were returned to the accused. even before the complainant actually received those notices back, by way of abundant .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Decided on : Apr-10-2003
Reported in : 2003(2)KLT544
k.s. radhakrishnan, j.1. this appeal arises out of the order dated 13.02,2003 in o.s. no. 267 of 2001 of the sub court, ernakulam holding that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of clause 18 of ext.a1 agreement dated 16.09.1998 entered into between the parties.2. for disposal of this appeal, we may refer to the parties according to their status before the court below. plaintiff, m/s. castrol india limited, is engaged in the manufacture of marketing of various lubricants and greases for automobiles. first defendant is the partnership firm of which second defendant is the managing partner and other defendants are its partners. first defendant was appointed as the distributor of the plaintiff company as per agreement dated 16.09.1998. agreement was executed at chennai. office of the first defendant situates at vyttila at cochin and defendants 2 to 5 are natives of kottayam. suit was instituted for realisation of money on account of value of castrol products supplied to the defendants. it was stated that cause of action for the suit has arisen at vyttila, poonithura within the jurisdiction of sub court, ernakulam. along with the plaint, plaintiff has also filed i.a. no. 2341 of 2001 for interim injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or creating encumbrance over the stocks of castrol products kept in their godown at muttom, alwaye and from withdrawing any amount from their bank accounts. they also filed i.a. no. 6138 of 2001 for auction sale .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jun-24-2003
Reported in : AIR2003Ker350; 2003(2)KLT958
k.a. mohamed shafi, j.1. this c.m.a. is filed by the respondent-plaintiff in a.s. 124/94 on the file of the subordinate judge's court, irinjalakuda challenging the judgment dated 21.12.2001.2. o.s. 107/94 was filed by the appellant plaintiff before the munsiffs court, irinjalakuda seeking permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant respondent herein in respect of the plaint a and b schedule properties. the trial court decreed the suit restraining the respondent from trespassing upon plaint a and b schedule properties and from constructing any pathway in plaint b schedule property. the respondent challenged the decree and judgment passed by the trial court before the subordinate judge's court, irinjalakuda in a.s. 124/94. the lower appellate court allowed the appeal, set aside the decree and judgment passed by the trial court and remanded the suit to the trial court for fresh consideration in accordance with law in the light of the observations made in the judgment.3. this c.m.a. is preferred by the plaintiff-respondent in the appeal challenging the remand order passed by the lower appellate court.4. the respondent-defendant has preferred memorandum of cross objection challenging the remand order contending that the lower appellate court should have disposed of the appeal on merits on the available evidence adduced by the parties.5. the appellant's case is that plaint a schedule property belongs to him on absolute right and plaint b schedule property of an extent of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Decided on : Aug-22-2003
Reported in : 2003(3)KLT765; 138STC208(Ker)
orderin the circumstances stated above, m/s. peekay re-rolling mills (p) ltd. koyassan koya road, kozhikode is not eligible for ste for the additional investments made for the period 1.7.95 to 31.3.96 and 1.4.96 to 31.3.97 and hence the ste applications for the above period of the unit is hereby rejected.sd/-director of industries & commerce.'14. a perusal of the above order shows that the appellant's claim had been rejected on the basis of the clarification issued vide letter dated july 5, 2000. a copy of this letter is on record as annexure 13. in this letter, it was observed as under:'on the basis of the views of the state level committee, government decided to give the following clarifications to the 7th item in the negative list of industries of the g.o. (ms) no. 169/ 98/iddated24.11.1998.(a) all the units based on electro thermal/electro chemical processes are not coming under the negative list.(b) units having total connected load more than 2500 kva but cost of power is less than 25% of cost of production are coming under negative list.(c) units having total connected load less than 2500 kva but cost of power is more than 25% of the cost of production are also coming under negative list.(d) the units having total connected load of less than 2500 kva and also cost of power is less than 25% of the cost of production will not come under negative list.'15. it was in view of the above clarification that the benefit of exemption was denied to the appellant. the ground was .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jan-08-2003
Reported in : AIR2003Ker188; 2003(1)KLT520
jawahar lal gupta, c.j.1. 'should persons who do not fulfil the prescribed qualifications and are not duly registered under the relevant statute be permitted to practise as vaidyas?' this is the core of the controversy in this case.2. we have a bunch of 46 petitions. out of these, o.p. nos. 27784 and 21923 of 2002 form one part and the remaining 44 petitions constitute the second part. in the first set of petitions, the main prayer is for a declaration that a person who does not possess the recognised qualification and is not registered under the act is not entitled to practise medicine. in the second set of cases, the petitioners do not possess the prescribed qualifications. they are not even registered. yet, the prayer is for the issue of a writ of mandamus declaring that they are entitled 'either to get exemption from section 38 of the travancore-cochin medical practitioners act, 1953 or to get registration under the provisions of the said act.' the facts as averred in o.p. no. 27784 of 2002 (from the first set) may be briefly noticed.3. the petitioner is a registered society. according to it, the state legislature had enacted the travancore-cochin medical practitioners act, 1953. the persons who had undergone the prescribed course of study and possessed the requisite qualifications were entitled to be registered and practise medicine. the qualifications, etc., as laid down under the act, have been periodically amended. later on, the indian medicine central council act, .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Decided on : Apr-09-2003
Reported in : 2003(2)KLT804; 47SCL380(Ker)
orderpius c. kuriakose, j.1. a company formerly named mayfair knitting industries ltd. and presently named 'mayfair (bombay) ltd.' represented by its power-of-attorney holder sri. t.p. gopinath is the revision petitioner. copy of the power-of-attorney and certified copy of the board resolution dated 16.10.2000 will convince anybody that the company presently known as 'mayfair (bombay) ltd.' came to be rechristened as such in place of its original name 'mayfair knitting industries ltd.' and that the said company has duly authorised sri. t.p. gopinath to represent the company. the revision petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the trial court dismissing i.a. 2606 of 2000, an application filed under order i, rule 10 cpc for striking out the name 'mayfair knitting industries ltd.' and substitute the same with the present name of the company 'mayfair (bombay) ltd.' in the cause title.2. i have gone through the impugned order. technically, the learned subordinate judge had some justification for dismissing the application. but i cannot approve of the observation of the learned subordinate judge that since the original director, the actual signatory to the plaint, died on 27.3.1998 and 'no impleadment to substitute the director or to represent the company in any matter has been made within the period of limitation, the suit must be obviously found as abated. the company is of course a legal person represented in this case by one of its directors. if the director dies, the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Decided on : Mar-28-2003
Reported in : (2003)185CTR(Ker)466; 264ITR52(Ker)
g. sivajajan, j.1. the matter arises under the income-tax act, 1961, for short 'the act'. the scope and ambit of section 161(1a) of the act arises for consideration.2. these two references are at the instance of the commissioner of income-tax, thiruvananthapuram. though the orders of the income-tax appellate tribunal (for short, 'the tribunal') are separate, the question of law referred in both these cases is the same. the respondent-assessee in both these cases is also the same. the only difference is that they relate to two different assessment years, viz., 1988-89 and 1989-90. the following question of law is referred in both these cases for decision by this court.'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in view of the provision contained in section 161(1a) of the income-tax act, the tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that the income from the trust properties has to be assessed in the hands of the beneficiaries ?'3. the brief facts necessary for the decision of these cases are as follows : the respondent-assessee is a trust. it is carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of umbrellas. the trust had income from business as well as income from house property. in the assessment under the act for the years 1988-89 and 1989-90, the assessee claimed deduction in respect of rental income received from the building owned by the trust. the assessing officer disallowed the claim of the assessee holding that the building in question was .....Tag this Judgment!