.....the petitioner was promoted as headmaster. the order of the appointment of the petitioner was declined to be approved by the 5th respondent as per ext.p7 order. aggrieved by ext.p7 order, the petitioner preferred ext.p11 revision petition before the 4th respondent. the limited prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to the 4th respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on ext.p11 revision petition. i have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned government pleader. in view of the order i propose to pass in this writ petition, i am of the view that notice need not be issued to the respondents 6 and 7 in this proceedings. considering the limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, i am inclined to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 4th respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on ext.p11 revision petition expeditiously, at any rate, w.p.(c) no. 18312 o”2. within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, ordered accordingly. needless to say that before passing orders on ext.p11 the respondents 6 and 7 shall also be put on notice. sd/- c.t.ravikumar,judge. dlk
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....criminal procedure, for short "the code".2. allegation is that petitioners, four in number, pursuant to their common intention assaulted defacto complainant and his companion with lethal weapons, iron rods and caused them severe injuries. defacto complainant sustained fracture to his little finger in the right hand apart from other injuries. investigation of the crime is now in progress. allegations imputed against petitioners are false is the submission of learned counsel for petitioner. in fact defacto complainant was the assailant, and against him 1st petitioner filed a complaint initially before police and later before the court and the crime registered thereof is also now pending investigation, submits counsel. opposing the b.a.no. 4955 o”2. application learned public prosecutor submits that materials gathered by investigating agency, prima facie, disclose complicity of petitioners in the offences alleged and this is not a fit case where they can be granted pre-arrest bail.3. case diary has been produced for my perusal. looking into the materials covered by case diary, it is seen, previously another crime had been registered against petitioner on the allegation.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTin the high court of kerala at ernakulam present: the honourable mr.justice p.r.ramachandra menon tuesday, the 23rd day of july 2013 1st sravana, 1935 wp(c).no. 16222 of 2013 (c) ---------------------------- petitioner: ---------- christudas.n. bipin nivas, elamplancheri, kavalakulam neyyattinkara, trivandrum. by adv. smt.remya p.sasidharan respondents: ----------- 1. managing director, k.s.f.e. ltd. 'bhadrada', chembukavu, trissur 68 001.2. the manager k.s.f.e.ltd., maranalloor branch, neyyattinkara (via) trivandrum 69 001. r1 & 2 by adv. sri.babu varghese (sr.) r1 & 2 by adv. sri.johnson t.john, sc, ksfe ltd. by senior government pleader sri.k.c.vincent this writ petition (civil) having come up for admission on 23-07-2013, the court on the same day delivered the following: vk wp(c).no. 16222 of 2013 (c) ---------------------------- appendix -------- petitioner(s)' exhibits ---------------------- exhibit p1 copy of letter issued by the 2nd respondent dated 20 6/2013 respondent(s)' exhibits : nil ------------------------ / true copy / p.a. to judge vk p.r.ramachandra menon, j.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - w.p.(c) no.16222 of 201.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....the vice chancellor regarding the qualification of the petitioner. the syndicate did not order suspension of the registrar in order to find out the factual basis for such allegation. however, they reiterated that the enquiry proceedings were kept in abeyance but the second incident is a totally different matter. having regard to the said submission, the learned single judge proceeded to allow the interim prayer directing the respondent not to disturb the writ petitioner from functioning in the office of the registrar and to permit him to function as registrar of the university.6. surprisingly, another i.a. no.4547 of 2013 in i.a. no.4281 of 2013 came to be filed. this is moved by respondents 1, 2 and 4 seeking to vacate the interim order dated 18.03.2013 permitting the writ petitioner to function as registrar of 1st respondent. according to the appellants, the subject matter of the writ petition is different and distinct from what is indicated at exts.p16 and p20. the order of stay was confined to the action taken by the vice chancellor exercising the power under section w.a. no. 636 of 2013 -:5:- 10(17) of the act against the registrar who was the writ petitioner. the incident.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....of july 2013 1st sravana, 1935 con.case(c).no. 838 of 2013 (s) in wp(c).10061/2013 ----------------------------------------------------- against the order/judgment in wp(c) 10061/2013 of high court of kerala dated 09 04-2013 petitioners/petitioners: ------------------------ 1. m/s.safe homes developers private limited mt viii/402 f, mis building, p o thana kannur-670012 , rep. by its project co-ordinator k sadanandan, s/o.late koragan, residing at sadguru nilayam battambara, kasaragod.2. k.sadanandan, aged 4 years s/o.late koragan project co-ordinator m/s.safe homes developers private limited mt viii/402 f mis building, p o thana, kannur-670012 residing at sadguru nilaym, battambara, kasaragod. by advs.sri.m.ramesh chander (sr.) sri.aneesh joseph smt.dennis varghese respondent/respondent: ---------------------- colonel (retd.) p. padmanabhan father's name and age not known to the petitioner, oic land & court cases for station commander, contonment board, kannur-670 001. r1 by adv. sri.p.parameswaran nair,asg of india r by sri.thomas james mundackal this contempt of court case (civil) having come up for admission on 23-07-2013, the court on the same day delivered the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....this contempt of court case (civil) having been finally heard on 23-07-2013, the court on the same day delivered the following: con.case(c).no. 701 of 2013 (s) in wp(c).37052/2010 appendix petitioner's exhibits: annexure -a1:interim order in w.p.(c) no.37052/10 dated 16 1.2013. respondents exhibits: annexure -r1(a):copy of the proceeding no.1012/gl2/97/rtc dated 10 12.2012 issued by the kerala state road transport corporation. annexure -r1(b):copy of the proceeding no.1012/gl2/97/rtc dated 29 12.2012 issued by the kerala state road transport corporation. /true copy/ p.a. to judge skv v.chitambaresh,j ------------------------------------- c.o.c. no.701 of 2013 in w.p.(c). no.37052 of 2010 ----------------------------------------- dated this the 23rd day of july, 2013 judgment it is stated that 181 vacancies to the post of work assistant (mechanic) have been reported by the respondent pursuant to annexure -a1 order. the contempt case is hence closed leaving open all other contentions to be urged in w.p.(c).no.37052/2010 pending. sd/- v.chitambaresh, judge. /true copy/ p.a. to judge skv
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....filing o.a.no.145 of 1974 was in possession of other lands, that his wife was also in possession of more than 10 cents of land in her name and this fact was suppressed in the application for purchase of kudikidappu right. the appellate authority considered the said application and dismissed it on the ground that the delay of 33= years in filing the appeal has not been satisfactorily explained. from a reading of the affidavit filed in support of the application to condone the delay, it cannot be said that the order passed by the appellate authority is perverse or that it has not c.r.p.(lr)no.382/2013 -:7:- decided or failed to decide or it has erroneously decided a question of law. apart from vaguely alleging that the predecessor-in-interest of respondents 13 to 21 was in possession of other parcels of land which disentitled him to apply for purchase of the kudikidappu right, the particulars of the lands held by him (late gopalan) had not been set out in the affidavit filed in support of the application or even in the memorandum of appeal. though in the instant original petition an attempt has been made to furnish the details of the land held by late gopalan and it is contended.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....crl.m.c.no.2766 of 2013 ------------------------------------------- dated this the 23rd day of july, 2013 order the above crl.m.c. is filed under section 482 of cr.p.c. challenging annexure-a2 order by which the petitioner's request for release of plywood, which was seized from the possession of the petitioner, was declined by the judicial first class magistrate court-i, perumbavoor.2. the prosecution allegation is that, the accused inscribed false seal of iso certificate, with a view to defraud the customers and hence on 11/05/2013 the s.i. of police seized altogether 227 plywood sheets and a lorry in which it was loaded from the premises of the accused. the accused was released on bail. subsequently the petitioner approached the judicial first class magistrate court-i, perumbavoor contending that, if the plywood sheets are exposed to sun and rain, it will be ruined and hence moved a petition under section 451 of cr.p.c. for interim custody of the said plywood. the learned magistrate, considering the prosecution allegation crl.m.c.no.2766 of 2013 :-2-: that the accused attempted to market plywoods having false seals found that, if the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....the 2nd respondent would harass the petitioner.4. after hearing both sides, we dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:1. the statement of the government pleader that w.p.(c).no.17670 o”3. the 2nd respondent has no intention to harass the petitioner and has no intention to interfere with the matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent is recorded.2. if the 2nd respondent wants the presence of the petitioner for enquiring into any complaint, disclosing a criminal offence, filed by the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent shall issue a notice under section 160 of the criminal procedure code to the petitioner. sd/- s. siri jagan, judge sd/- k. ramakrishnan, judge // true copy // p.a. to judge ss
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....article 57 of the schedule appended to the act?".11. a discussion of the principles stated therein, will be complete only by reference to the facts of the said case also. paragraph 1 of the judgment shows that the monthly rent fixed was 4,455/- and a sum of ` 53,460/- had been paid as advance o.p.(rc) no.506/2013 9 rent adjustable in twenty four equal instalments. in addition to the monthly rent, the lessees had agreed to deposit and always keep in deposit six months' rent towards security for due performance of the obligations of the lease and this amount was to be dealt with in the manner provided ( 26,730/-). we hereinafter extract the relevant clauses, which governed the said case: "4(3): in case the rent hereby reserved or any part thereof, or any other outgoing be in arrears for twenty one days after becoming payable (whether legally demanded or not) or if any covenant on the lessees part herein contained shall not be performed or observed, the landlords, notwithstanding any right herein contained will be entitled to absolutely appropriate the deposit mentioned in the provisions contained in cl. 1(2) herein above, and not liable to pay the interest thereon.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT