Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: multifariousness Sorted by: old Court: kerala Page 5 of about 49 results (0.011 seconds)

Apr 10 2015 (HC)

The Principal Vs. The Admission Supervisory Committee and Fee Regulato ...

Court : Kerala

..... . cases 35 the committee, other than the educational expert belonging to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe community, are all secretaries to the government and the commissioner for entrance examination, having multifarious official duties to discharge, the legislature has incorporated such a provision fully being conscious of the practical difficulties which the committee would otherwise face in transacting its business. 31.along .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 10 2015 (HC)

The Principal Vs. The Admission Supervisory Committee and Fee Regulato ...

Court : Kerala

..... . cases 35 the committee, other than the educational expert belonging to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe community, are all secretaries to the government and the commissioner for entrance examination, having multifarious official duties to discharge, the legislature has incorporated such a provision fully being conscious of the practical difficulties which the committee would otherwise face in transacting its business. 31.along .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 10 2015 (HC)

The Principal Vs. The Admission Supervisory Committee and Fee Regulato ...

Court : Kerala

..... . cases 35 the committee, other than the educational expert belonging to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe community, are all secretaries to the government and the commissioner for entrance examination, having multifarious official duties to discharge, the legislature has incorporated such a provision fully being conscious of the practical difficulties which the committee would otherwise face in transacting its business. 31.along .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 29 2015 (HC)

S.K.Pandit Vs. Sreekrishna Swamy Devaswom

Court : Kerala

..... by subsequent act of the parties. c.r.p no.253 of 2013 8 7. i have no doubt, the above question can only be answered in the negative for multifarious reasons. i shall expatiate them below.8. learned counsel for the defendants relying on various law dictionaries contended that the meaning of the term "jurisdiction" has to be considered as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 15 2015 (HC)

Manikkan Vs. Govindaraj

Court : Kerala

..... action should be taken at the earliest opportunity as provided in order i rule 13 and order ii rule 7 of the code. similarly, the objections on the ground of multifariousness also should be taken at the first opportunity by virtue of the aforementioned provisions. the effect of not taking the objection at the earliest possible opportunity has been narrated in ..... action are joined separately against different defendants. this is violation of order ii rule 3 r/w order i rule 3 of the code. such a misjoinder is technically called multifariousness.24. causes of action cannot be joined in a suit filed against several defendants if they are not all jointly interested in the causes of action, unless common questions are .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 24 2015 (HC)

Jalaja Sreenivasan Vs. State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

..... care as juxta-positioned with the procedure of putting in motion the criminal prosecution. therein the issue projected was the delay in providing medical care in medico-legal cases on multifarious reasons of lack of jurisdiction, non-completion of wp(c).no.9742 of 2009 - 6 - police formalities, inherent fear of harassment in the ensuing criminal prosecution and so on and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 28 2015 (HC)

Kuriakose K A Vs. State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

..... metres and this would, in fact, cause flooding of the property in survey no.1015/1. the challenge, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, is raised on multifarious grounds, as indicated below: (i) the land acquired through which the diversion of the thodu is now proposed was acquired for a specific purpose and the same cannot be utilised .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 17 2015 (HC)

S. Kalan, Director, Kerala State Federation of Scheduled Caste/Schedul ...

Court : Kerala

..... . 32. indeed, the government is a compendium of public juristic entities such as ministries, public enterprises, institutions of every hue, which are designed on democratic and constitutional principles to perform multifarious functions. it is a multi-limbed mammoth. its aim and objective is the common good. if one limb leads astray if it sins the rest of the body cannot remain .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 20 2016 (HC)

Sachidanandhan Vs. Vijesh and Another

Court : Kerala

Reported in :


Cases Relied:
Dilip Bastimal Jain V Baban Bhanudas Kamble and others [AIR 2002 Bom 279].
Vimala Ammal V C. Susheela [AIR 1991 Mad 209].
Dwarka Prasad Singh v. Harikant Prasad Singh [(1973) 1 SCC 179 :. AIR 1973 SC 655].
P.P.S Pillai V Catholic Syrian Bnak [2000(3) KLT 629].
Peter Cherian v. Abraham [2007 (4) KLT 680].
Satheedevi v. Prasanna [2010(2) KLT 642 (SC)].
Ali Rowther v. Kochupennu [1986 KLT 718].
Kali Charanv. Janak Deo [A.I.R. 1932 Allahabad 694].
Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal [A.I.R.1982 S.C.818].
Potter v. Sanders (6 Ha. 1).
Daniels v. Davison (17 Ves 433).
Holmes v. Powell (8 De G.M. and G. 572).
Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders and Investors (P) Ltd., (2013) 5 SCC 397.
(Kafiladdin case, AIR p. 68).
R.C. Chandiok v. Chuni Lal Sabharwal:AIR 1971 SC 1238:(1970) 3 SCC 140.
SCR p. 369 in Durga Prasad v. Deep Chand viz.
S.V.R. Mudaliar v. Rajabu F. Buhari, AIR 1995 SC 1607.

Cases Referred:
Bankim Chandra v. Anand Bazar Patrika [AIR (37) 1950 Calcutta 128].
Thanga Pandiyan v. S.R.Periaswami Thevar [1953 KHC 196: 1953 KLT 475, 2015 KHC 90.
Mohandas K. K. and others V Thankamma Pillai [2015 KHC 90].
Durga Prasad and Anr. v. Deep Chand and Ors. [AIR 1954 SC 75].
Appukuttan v. Kamalakshi [1996(2) KLT 977].
Dilip Bastimal Jain V Baban Bhanudas Kamble and others [AIR 2002 Bom. 279],
W.P. 6225 of 2007 of Bombay High Court, Chendivel R vs G Damodaran and others [AIR 2015 Mad 96], 2010(2) KLT 642 (SC).
Krishna Chandra Kabiraj and others V Sankaran Kabiraj and others [AIR 1950 Calcutta 128].
Chendivel R vs G Damodaran and others [2015 KHC 2237: AIR 2015 Mad 96].
Vigro Industries Pvt Ltd V Venturetech Solutions P Ltd : 2012(5) CTC 359.
State Bank of India V Cracure Pharmaceuticals Ltd : 2013 STPL (Web) 939

Comparative Citation:
2016 (1) KLT 75 (SN) (C.No.79),

..... payment of court fee, if at all found necessary. relying on the judgment in appukuttan vs kamalakshy [1996 (2) klt 977], it was contended that, payment of court fee in multifarious suits is governed by the provisions contained in section 6 of the act. the judgment in dilip bastimal jain v. baban bhanudas kamble [air 2002 bombay 279] and the judgment ..... deed against subsequent transferees in a suit for specific performance of agreement for sale. 27. section 6 of the kerala court fees and suits valuation act, 1959 reads as follows: "multifarious suits: (1) in any suit in which separate and distinct reliefs are sought based on the same cause of action, the plaint shall be chargeable with a fee on the .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //