Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
The references suggest that Unnikrishnan is actively engaged in legal advocacy concerning administrative, municipal, and tax issues in Kerala, often appearing as counsel or petitioner in high courts and tribunals.
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["2020 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 49464"]- ["G. LAL MALAVYA vs GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI - Kerala"]- ["2024 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 87483"]- ["2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 57079"]- ["2019 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 82274"]- ["2019 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 82251"]- ["2019 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 82305"]- ["2019 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 82315"]
In the realm of in Kerala, few cases highlight the nuances of as clearly as . If you've ever wondered about the powers of the under , this ruling provides critical guidance. This blog post delves into the case of P N Unnikrishnan v K X John, distinguishing it from similarly named landmark cases and unpacking its implications for tenants and landlords alike.
Disclaimer: This article offers general information based on publicly available legal sources and is not a substitute for professional legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for advice specific to your situation.
The query often arises: What is the legal significance of P N Unnikrishnan v K X John? While initial reviews of certain documents, such as 2007 0 Supreme(Mad) 1884, focus on the unrelated Supreme Court case —which emphasizes education's role in empowerment under Articles 45, 46, and 41 of the Constitution—no direct reference to P N Unnikrishnan v K X John appears there. 2007 0 Supreme(Mad) 1884 Instead, relevant insights emerge from proceedings captured in 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 46151.
In , the court addressed an appeal concerning an order under . The core dispute revolved around the existence of a , a prerequisite for invoking rent control protections. Tenants contested this, arguing it required assessment by the . The judgment clarifies: Section 12 (1) and 12(3) of the Act in Unnikrishnan P.N v. K.X. John Victor 2025 KHC 933 If the committed any error, that can be challenged when that order culminates in the final order under Unnikrishnan Case (supra) 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 46151.
This ruling underscores that courts at the typically refrain from delving into merits prematurely, reserving such scrutiny for the final order.
The in 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 46151 emphasized procedural discipline: The court clarifies its limited scope in examining the merits of the case and reserves the right for tenants to contest the ruling at a later stage. This aligns with the Act's intent to balance landlord recovery rights with tenant protections. Section 12(1) typically requires tenants to deposit rent during proceedings, but only after establishing the relationship.
The judgment notes: Anyway, we are not examining the matter on its merits. 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 46151 This restraint prevents fragmented litigation, ensuring efficiency. For tenants, it means opportunities to challenge at the final stage; for landlords, it signals that initial orders stand unless overturned later.
Kerala courts frequently encounter Unnikrishnan and John in various disputes, highlighting common names in local litigation. For instance:- In
, appeared as counsel for a petitioner alleging issues against , with affidavits confirming instructions.- 2018 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 77627 lists and among parties in a writ petition.- 2024 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 80759 involves against Kerala Water Authority, with as power of attorney.
These snippets illustrate recurring litigants but do not directly overlap with the rent control case. However, they reflect the active legal landscape in Ernakulam, where many such matters originate. 2022 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 77299 further shows and in interconnected proceedings.
Contrastingly, the education-focused J.P. Unnikrishnan case in 2007 0 Supreme(Mad) 1884 quotes: Education means knowledge and ‘knowledge itself is power‘... The three Articles 45, 46 and 41 are designed to achieve the said goal among others. This has no bearing on rent disputes, clarifying potential confusion from similar names.
In practice, these provisions prevent abuse. For example, unrelated cases like 2024 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 75657 (involving and ) or
( and ) underscore diverse disputes but reinforce procedural rigor across Kerala jurisprudence.
Recommendations:1. Secure specific documents for P N Unnikrishnan v K X John via court records.2. Engage counsel early to assess landlord-tenant status.3. If referencing J.P. Unnikrishnan, note its constitutional education focus separately. 2007 0 Supreme(Mad) 18844. Consult verified sources for timelines or holdings.
This case exemplifies Kerala's balanced approach to tenancy laws, promoting fairness without undue delays. For deeper insights or related queries, professional consultation is advisable.
References:1. 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 46151: Core judgment on Sections 12(1)/(3).2. 2007 0 Supreme(Mad) 1884: Unrelated education principles.3. Additional Kerala HC excerpts:
, 2018 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 77627, etc. #KeralaRentControl #LandlordTenantLaw #KeralaHighCourt
It is also conceded in the affidavit that written instructions had been given to Sri.John Joseph (Roy) and that his submissions were in strict consonance with the same. ... I have heard Sri.N.Unnikrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri.Jomy George, learned counsel for the first respondent/writ petitioner; and Sri.P.C.Haridas, learned standing counsel for respondents 2 and 3. 4. ... I, therefore, had directed the Secretary of the Panchayat, by order dated 18.06.2020, to explain, through an affidavit, as to whether the allegations made by....
It is also conceded in the affidavit that written instructions had been given to Sri.John Joseph (Roy) and that his submissions were in strict consonance with the same. ... I, therefore, had directed the Secretary of the Panchayat, by order dated 18.06.2020, to explain, through an affidavit, as to whether the allegations made by the petitioner against Sri.John Joseph (Roy) had any credence. ... I have heard Sri.N.Unnikrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri.Jomy George, learned counsel for the first respondent/writ peti....
P.C.JOHN, AGED 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT 12 GH, SKYLINE TOPAZ KADAVANTHARA ROAD, KALOOR P.O.,ERNAKULAM - 682 017. ... BY ITS SECRETARY AKHIL UNNIKRISHNAN. 5 K.M.CLEETUS, CONVENOR, POTTEPPADAM LANE ACTION COMMITTEE, KATTITHARA HOUSE, POTTEPPADAM LANE, NETHAJI ROAD, MAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM - 682 024. 6 AKHIL UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O. ... JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 13TH BHADRA, 1940 WP(C).No. 16815 of 2018 PETITIONER: SUDEEP THOMAS JOHN, S/O. ... 10 P.R.UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O. RAGH....
T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN K.K.AKHIL T. ... VARGHESE, CHILLIKOOTTATHIL HOUSE, UDAYA NAGAR, KALOOR, KOCHI -682017, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER JOHN VARGHESE, AGE 67, S/O JOHN VARGHESE, CHILLIKOOTTATHIL HOUSE, KALOOR, KOCHI, PIN - 682017 BY ADVS. ... SREELAKSHMI UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALABHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033 2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, P.H ... KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTI....
JOY E.S.SANEEJ M.P.UNNIKRISHNAN M.K.SAMYUKTHA N.ABHILASH DEEPU RAJAGOPAL RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER IN OP 373/2021: JOMON. T.JOHN AGED 38 YEARS S/O.JOHN, T.J. ... JOHN AGED 38 YEARS, S/O JOHN, T.J THOTTUNGAL HOUSE, MARUTHORVATTOM P.O, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA-688539. ... JOY SRI.E.S.SANEEJ SRI.M.P.UNNIKRISHNAN SMT.M.K.SAMYUKTHA SRI.N.ABHILASH SHRI.DEEPU RAJAGOPAL SRI.T.A.JOY RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/2ND RESPONDENT IN OP 903/2020 1 JOMON T.
Section 12 (1) and 12(3) of the Act in Unnikrishnan P.N v. K.X. John Victor [2025 KHC 933] If the Rent Controller committed any error, that can be challenged when that order culminates in the final order under Unnikrishnan Case (supra) 3. Anyway, we are not examining the matter on its merits.
T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN K.K.AKHIL T. ... P.O AIRAPURAM, PIN - 683541 5 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (P) DEPARTMENT , GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 6 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686661 BY ADV JOHN ... SREELAKSHMI UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT/S: 1 JOSEPH ABRAHAM AGED 60, S/O ABRAHAM, THEKKAKERA HOUSE, PERUMPANACHI, MADAPPALLY, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686536 2 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE UNDER KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND
Appeal No.595 of 2007 2 JOHNSON JOHN, J. ... R2 BY ADVS.SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN OTHER PRESENT: R1 BY SRI. VIPIN NARAYAN - SR. ... Sd/- JOHNSON JOHN, JUDGE. amk ... JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 31ST JYAISHTA, 1946 CRL.A NO. 595 OF 2007 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.03.2007 IN Crl.L.P.
K J John And Co, AOR Mr. Arvind P.Datar,Sr.Adv. ... Rahul Unnikrishnan,Adv. Mr. Akhil Abraham Roy,Adv. ... Rahul Unnikrishnan,Adv. Mr. Akhil Abraham Roy,Adv. ... K J John And Co, AOR
R2 BY ADV.MITHUN BABY JOHN OTHER PRESENT: R1 BY SRI M P PRASANTH- Public Prosecutor THIS CRIMINAL MISC. ... I have heard Sri.N.U.Harikrishna, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Mithun Baby John, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Sri.M.P.Prasanth, the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1. 6. ... N.U.HARIKRISHNA N.K.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 AMRITHA.K.S. ... ST DAY OF APRIL 2....
( R. Unnikrishnan v. V.K. Mahanudevan, 2014 4 SCC 434 ; and Daryao v. State of U.P., 1961 AIR(SC) 1457 ). Rather, they ensure that all the branches of the State act within the framework of the Constitution, and the Statutes. The concept of the rule of law, and the separation of powers doctrine, do not undermine the legislature. The binding character of judgments, pronounced by Courts of competent jurisdiction, is an essential part of the rule of law which is the basis of administration of justice in this country.
It has been found by the High Court as of fact that the complainant did not approach the court with clean hands. 14. In John K. John v. Tom Varghese and others 2008 (1) ALT (Crl.) 444 (SC) : AIR 2008 SC 278 under similar circumstances, the Apex Court observed thus: "Para-10: x x x x...
(b) R. Unnikrishnan vs. V.K. Mahanudevan, 2014 (4) SCC 434 The specific provision would be a provision like Section 100-A." It is trite that law favours finality to binding judicial decisions pronounced by courts that are competent to deal with the subject-matter.
7. We have heard Sri.N.Unnikrishnan, Sri.Justine K.P (Karipat), Sri.K.P.Rajeevan, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners and Sri.P.Gopinath, learned Standing The effect of the decision of the Apex Court referred to already and the view taken by the Division Benches in Idicula Abraham's case (2005 (2) KLJ 602) as well as in Mohanan Nair's case (W.A. No.2243/2006) being rendered on the interpretation of the terms of a settlement which have not been considered in detail by the Full Bench in Kunchan's case (2009 (3) KLT 954-FB), it is only appropriate that the matte....
The corrected para 2 placed on record is reproduced as under:- vf/kd ds fy, dkjkokl ls n.Mkfn"V fd;k x;k gSA ugha fd;k x;k gSA** However, while filing the certified copy supported by an affidavit the petitioner has interpolated by adding numbers 2 & 3'.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
