Latest Cases

Girishkumar. Vs. the Regional Transport Authority.

Court : Kerala

Reported in : ILR2010(4)Ker971

.....upon instructions, submitted that ext.p7 cannot be construed as an application submitted in terms of the provisions under the motor vehicles act. in case the petitioner is desirous to get the permit transferred in favour of the fourth respondent the petitioner and the fourth respondent have to file a joint application, in accordance with the provisions, before the appropriate authority. the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that such an application in accordance with the provisions will be submitted with the appropriate forum. the learned counsel for the third respondent submits that they got objections with respect to the transfer of ownership of the vehicle in question. those are matters to be considered by the first respondent at the appropriate stage on receipt of a proper application from the petitioner. in the said circumstances, it will be open to the petitioner to file a joint application along with the fourth respondent for transfer of ownership of the vehicle bearing registration no.kl 03-j 2372 before the appropriate authority in accordance with the provisions. in case of receipt of such a joint application, prior to the passing of orders thereon the.....

Sarun P.Joy. Vs. State of KeralA.

Court : Kerala

Reported in : ILR2010(4)Ker143

.....498(a), 323, 324, 506(i) and 34 i.p.c., seek anticipatory bail. 2. the learned public prosecutor opposed the application. 3. after evaluating the factors and parameters which are to be taken into consideration in the light of paragraph 122 of the verdict dated 2-12-2010 of the apex court in siddharam satlingappa mhetre v. state of maharashtra and others (crl.appeal no. 2271 of 2010), i am of the view that anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a case of this nature, since the investigating officer has not had the advantage of interrogating the petitioners. but at the same time, i am inclined to permit the petitioners to surrender before the investigating officer for the purpose of interrogation and then to have their application for bail allowed by the magistrate or the court having jurisdiction. accordingly, the petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer on 30.12.2010 or on 31.12.2010 for the purpose of interrogation and recovery of incriminating material, if any. in case the investigating officer is of the view that having regard to the facts of the case arrest of the petitioners is imperative he shall record his reasons for the arrest in the case diary as.....

Sandeep George Simon. Vs. Mahatma Gandhi University.

Court : Kerala

Reported in : ILR2010(4)Ker467

1. petitioners are b.pharm students in colleges affiliated to the first respondent university. they approached this court for a direction to the university to permit the petitioners to appear for the 3rd year b.pharm examinations. pursuant to the interim orders passed, the petitioners have appeared for the examinations. therefore, at this stage, what is required is the university should publish the results. this, the university shall do, as expeditiously as possible, provided the petitioners satisfy the requirements of ext.p2 regulations issued by the university on 29-11-2008.

Mrs.Celine George. Vs. State of Kerala Representeld.

Court : Kerala

Reported in : ILR2010(4)Ker467

.....and the standing counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. the delay in disbursal of retirement benefits due to the petitioner is on account of the fact that, pension contribution payable by the 4th respondent for the period the petitioner worked on deputation is not being paid by the 4th respondent. the counsel for the 2nd respondent has a contention that, the 4th respondent should also fix the pay and the pay fixation statement has to be approved by the 3rd respondent also. the counsel for the 4th respondent submits that, the amount demanded by the 2nd respondent is rs.75,984/- and the pension contribution payable by the 4th respondent in respect to the petitioner is only rs.67,560/-. he submits that, cheque for the said amount would be handed over to the 2nd respondent within two weeks. i am not going into the dispute regarding the amount. it is for the respondents 2 and 4 to settle the same between themselves. the correct amount of pension contribution payable by the 4th respondent in respect of the service of the petitioner shall be paid to the 2nd respondent by the 4th respondent within two weeks. the 3rd respondent shall consider the pay fixation statement in respect of.....

George Cherian. Vs. the Regional Transport Authority.

Court : Kerala

Reported in : ILR2010(4)Ker467

.....the inaction on the part of the respondents in considering their requests for renewal of permits based on their applications and also non-consideration of their requests for conversion of the concerned services as `super express service''. according to the petitioners, the route length concerned is in excess of 140 kms. therefore, in terms of amendment to rule 2 as rule 2(ub) the petitioners have submitted ext.p1 application requesting for conversion of their services as `super express service', as well. however, the said application submitted by the petitioners is still pending consideration before the first respondent. in the said circumstances, without making any observation as to the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioners this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider ext.p1 application in accordance with law, expeditiously, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Pappachan. Vs. the Circle Insepctor of Police.

Court : Kerala

Reported in : ILR2010(4)Ker467

.....government pleader, reason for issuing ext.p6 is that ext.p2 order was issued by the district collector on 28-06-2010. it is submitted that it was without taking note of the fact that the act was amended with effect from 14-06-2010 conferring the power on the third respondent. it is stated that when the defect in jurisdiction was realised, the files were transferred to the third respondent and that it is therefore the third respondent has initiated steps for fresh hearing by issuing the impugned notice. 3. admittedly, on account of the amendment of the act, the second respondent has ceased to have any jurisdiction with effect from 14-06-2010. if that be so, ext.p2 order issued on 28-06-2010 was without jurisdiction. therefore, fresh steps initiated by the competent authority by issuing ext.p6 cannot be said to be illegal. in that view of the matter, i direct the third respondent to conclude the proceedings now initiated by ext.p6 with notice to the petitioner on an expeditious basis. 4. petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the third respondent who shall conclude the proceedings as directed above.

Raju Dominic.K.A. Vs. the Regional Manager.

Court : Kerala

Reported in : ILR2010(4)Ker729

.....disciplinary proceedings are pending. it is under the above circumstances the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: "i. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the 1st respondent to disburse the retirement benefits due to the petitioner and his monthly pension without further delay. ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to finalise the disciplinary proceedings initiated as per ext. p1 within a time limit to be fixed by this hon'ble court." 2. i directed the standing counsel for the bank to get instructions as to within what time the disciplinary proceedings can be completed. today, the standing counsel submits that the same can be completed within two months. accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to see that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner are taken to its logical conclusion within two months from today. thereafter, all admissible retirement benefits due to the petitioner shall be disbursed within another month.

A.Abdul Rahiman. Vs. State of KeralA.

Court : Kerala

Reported in : ILR2010(4)Ker729

.....respondent to promote the petitioner to the post of general manager (hr) against the available vacancy; (v) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appearance writ, direction or order commanding the 2nd respondent to sanction the annual increment admissible to the petitioner that has fallen due on 01.09.2010; or alternatively;(vi) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on ext.p2 representation." 2. a since the petitioner has inter alia sought disposal of ext.p2 representation, if the same is allowed, it is not necessary to consider the other prayers at present. i am inclined to allow that prayer. accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on ext.p2, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

The Manager. Vs. the Deputy Director of Education.

Court : Kerala

Reported in : ILR2010(4)Ker729

1. learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition. permission is granted and the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

Syngenta India Ltd. Vs. Goggilla Sreenivasulu Reddy and Another

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

.....of agricultural land in s. nos. 76 and 77 in nallaballi village. while so he purchased sunflower seeds viz., sunbred- 275 variety on 29.11.2003 manufactured by r2 from its dealer r1 when it assured that it would give yield of 10 to 12 quintals per acre on payment of its price. right from the beginning the growth was not proper. when he complained to r1 at the time of flowering he did not heed. when he complained, the agricultural officer inspected the land and informed that due to defect in the seed the crop was failed. he spent about rs. 4,500 per acre towards agricultural expenses. he sustained a loss of rs. 72,000, and therefore he claimed the said amount with interest @ 12% p.a., together with compensation of rs. 20,000 towards mental agony and costs of rs. 3,000. 3. r1 dealer resisted the case. it disputed the sale of sunflower seeds to the complainant. the document filed by him was only a quotation and not a cash bill. he was not aware whether the mandal agricultural officer visited his land, and opined that failure of the crop was due todefect in the seeds. the yield of crop depends on various factors. the quality or defect of the seeds could be decided only in the.....