Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.41 seconds)
Documents citing Moidu Alias Kunnippa vs The District Magistrate And District ... on 9 February, 1998

M.D.,M/S.Ramakrishna Poultry P.Ltd vs R.Chellappan & Ors on 8 May, 2009

22. Reference was also made to the decision of the Kerala High Court in Moidu alias Kunnippa Vs. The District Magistrate and District Collector, Malappuram and Ors. [MANU/KE/0410/1998], in support of the submission that in order to attract Section 17 of the aforesaid Act, the telegraph line or post in question would have had to be installed and would have had to be shifted from one portion to another portion of the same property.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 22 - A Kabir - Full Document

R.Kunjikrishnan Nair vs State Of Kerala on 8 August, 2008

2. I heard both sides. The main contention of the petitioner is that Ext.P4 is against the dictum of this Court in Moidu Vs. The District Magistrate and others [ILR 1998 (2) Ker 547]. It is the case of the petitioner that shifting under section 17 of the Act is only permissible within the property. It is pointed out that Ext.P4 is in excess of jurisdiction under section 17 of the Act as shifting of the line is not confined within the property. Learned counsel for the party respondent made an attempt to contend that the aforesaid WPC.17196/08 : 2 : dictum is erroneous. Section 17(1) of the Telegraph Act reads as follows:
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - K Joseph - Full Document

Varghese Andrews vs Additional District Magistrate on 4 September, 2012

5. The decisions cited by the petitioners in Moidu Vs. District Magistrate [1998 (1) KLT 442] and Narayanan Nair and another Vs. R. Kunjikrishnan Nair and others [2009 (2) KHC 941] are totally out of place. The same deal with the scope and ambit of Section 17 of the Indian Telegraph Act. I have already held that Section 17 cannot be called in aid by the petitioner as was done in Ext.P2 objection. The first respondent Additional District Magistrate cannot be faulted with in dismissing Ext.P2 objection by Ext.P3 order. There is no error of jurisdiction warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Kerala High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - V Chitambaresh - Full Document
1