Kerala Court July 1982 Judgments
Bhaskaran Vs. Sub-divisional Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-28-1982
Reported in: 1982(II)KLT248
M.P. Menon, J.1. The three petitioners are casual mazdoars of the Posts and Telegraphs Department. In the year 1979 alone, they had worked for 304, 302 and 299 days before the end of October. Exhibits P-1 and R1 orders confer on them certain preferential claims in the matter of appointment as regular employees. Their first complaint in this writ petition is that the respondents have failed to recognise those claims. The second complaint is that their engagement as casual labourers was stopped from 1-11-79 under oral orders, contrary to the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. Exhibits P1 and R1 only confer some rights on casual employees to be absorbed as regular hands, as and when vacancies occur. The respondents have gone on record that the petitioners' rights would be recognised and given effect to, when vacancies arise. In view of this stand of the Department, it is unnecessary for this Court to give any directions in this regard.3. Turning to the secon...
Tag this Judgment!Premakumar Vs. General Manager, Telecommunications
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-27-1982
Reported in: (1983)ILLJ8Ker
Chandrasekhara Menon, J.1. The petitioner had applied for selection to the post of Telephone Operators as per an advertisement issued by the General Manger, Telecommunications, Kerala Circle, Trivandrum-1, 1st respondent. The petitioner was called for the test, passed in the test and after appearing in the aptitude test and interview, was selected for training for appointment to the cadre of Telephone Operators in the Alleppey Division headed by the Divisional Engineer, Telegraphs, Alleppey, 2nd respondent. Subsequently medical test was conducted. It is a formality required for appointment in the Post & Telegraphs Department. The petitioner was found lit as indicated by Exhibit P-3. The petitioner also submitted a declaration regarding his slate of health, copy of which is marked as Exhibit P-4.2. After he was found medically fit, the petitioner was directed to till in a printed form issued by the Department with an attestation form in which various details are to be mentioned with pho...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnan Nair Vs. Kerala Public Service Commission
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-27-1982
Reported in: 1982(II)KLT244
Bhaskaran, J.1. This writ petition came up before us on reference by one of us (Bhaskaran, J.) who, when the matter was before the single Bench, thought that the contention raised by the petitioner that the publication of guides for the public Service Commission examinations by an employee of the Kerala Public Service Commission (the Commission) would not attract the Bar under Rules 48 and 58A of the Kerala Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1960 (the Conduct Rules), requires to be decided by a Division Bench.2. The fact briefly stated are as follows: The petitioner, while he was holding the post of Senior Grade Assistant in the office of the Commission (1st respondent) was placed under suspension pending disciplinary action against him as per its order No. SS IW/4/73 dated 10-10-1973, a true copy of which is Ext. P-1 Exhibit P-2 is the copy of the memo of charges dated 17-6-1974 issued to the petitioner by the Deputy Secretary, Vigilance (B) Department, Government of Kerala. Exhibit P...
Tag this Judgment!T.A. Rajendran Vs. V. Bhaskaran Nambiar, Advocate-general and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-21-1982
Reported in: 1982CriLJ2280
K. Bhaskaran, J. 1. The petitioner in this Contempt O. P. is Sri T. A. Rajendran, Editor, Navab, Trichur. He was the petitioner in O. P. No. 3555 of 1982, and the appellant in W, A. No. 244 of 1982 filed against the dismissal of that writ petition. He was also the petitioner in O, P. No. 4980 of 1982 referred to in this writ petition.2. O.P. No. 3555 of 1982 was mainly for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any appropriate writ, to direct the Home Secretary, Government of India, New Delhi and the Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala. Trivandrum, for appointing a Commission of Inquiry as contemplated under Sections 3 and 11 of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 (Central), (the Act) into the allegations levelled against respondents 4, 5 and 6 therein, namely, Sri K. Karunakaran, Chief Minister of Kerala, Trivandrum, Sri V.N. Rajan, Director, Institute of Criminology and Forensic Science, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, and Sri Jayaram Padikkal, Deputy Director, Vigil...
Tag this Judgment!S. Thrimoorthy Chettiar and anr. Vs. the Deputy Tahsildar, Alwaye and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-20-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Ker319
ORDERU.L. Bhat, J. 1. The 1st petitioner, for the purpose of running a Dairy Farm, borrowed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the 4th respondent-Bank by executing a promissory note and both the petitioners creating an equitable mortgage over certain items of immovable properties to secure the loan. The loan was to be repaid at the rate of Rs. 100/-per day and should have been discharged by 5-6-1981. A part of the amount duewas paid and there has been long correspondence between the bank and the petitioners as is seen from the documents produced by the Bank. Ultimately, the Bank sought the assistance of the District Collector in getting the outstanding money recovered under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (for short 'the Act'), taking advantage of the Notification SRO 797/79 published in the Kerala Gazette No. 29 dated 17-7-1979 issued by the Government of Kerala under Section 71 of the Act. Under this notification, it has been declared that the provisions of the Act sh...
Tag this Judgment!V.C. Cheriyan and ors. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-20-1982
Reported in: 1982CriLJ2071
P.C. Balakrishna Menon, J.1. This appeal is by the accused l to 3 in Sessions Case No. 1 of 1980 on the file of the Court of Session, Kottayam Division, against their conviction and sentence under Section 302. I.P.C. to undergo imprisonment for life. There were seven accused in the case. Accused 4 to 7 were acquitted by the lower court on the finding that the offences charged against them are not established by the evidence in the case.2. All the seven accused persons were charged under Sections 143, 147,148,149, 302 and 324 of the I.P.C. Accused 1 to 3 were also acquitted of the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149 and 324, I.P.C. Their conviction and sentence were only under Section 302 I.P.C.3. The prosecution case is that the accused committed the offences charged against them a't 2.45 P. m. on 4-9-1979 at the junction of the Enthayar-Poonjar Road and 'he Eanthumthadam-Idamala Road newly constructed by the people of the locality within the area of jurisdicion of the Erattupet...
Tag this Judgment!P.G. Narayanankutty Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-20-1982
Reported in: 1982CriLJ2085
ORDERU.L. Bhat, J.1. A fine gesture by a senior member of the palghat Bar, the second respondent- herein, has relieved the Court of the duty of pronouncing upon the validity of his appointment under Ext. P-1 Government Order as Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the prosecution in Sessions Case No, 16 of 1980 on the file of the Court of Session, palghat. His appointment is objected to by the accused in the Sessions Case as contrary to law and mala fide. He has gracefully withdrawn his consent for appointment; hence Ext. P-1 order has become ineffective.2. Third respondent herein, the brother of the deceased involved in S. C. No. 16 of 1980, moved the Government for appointment of Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the case on the ground that the accused as well as the Public Prosecutor are sympathisers of a particular political party and that the, public Prosecutor did not discharge her duties properly inasmuch as she did not even oppose the bail application. However, it was not th...
Tag this Judgment!Arayamballi Kaipally Narayani Amma Vs. A.K. Kunhappa Kurup and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-19-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Ker56
Bhaskaran, J.1. The plaintiff's suit for injunction, alternatively for recovery of possession, having been dismissed by the Court below, this appeal has been preferred. The second respondent (2nd defendant) alone is seen to have filed written statement and contested the matter. The plaintiff's case was that the. plaint schedule property previously belonged in tenancy right to one Ceriyakoya Thangal under a registered lease deed dated 6-8-1932. His leasehold right was sold in execution of a decree in O. S. 294/58 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Badagara, on 25-8-1941 and was purchased by the plaintiff as per Ext. A-l sale certificate dated 10-10-1941. Exhibit A2 is the delivery account dated 29-10-1941 and Exhibit A3 is the Amin's report regarding the delivery dated 23-10-1941 in E. P. No. 1573/ 41 in O. S. No. 294/58. Exts. A4 and A5 dated 25-7-1965 and 5-1-1967, respectively, arc rent receipts obtained in the name of the plaintiff on 23-10-1941 and 25-7-1965; and Exts. A6 to A9 ar...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Modern Plastic Industries
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-16-1982
Reported in: [1984]57STC64(Ker)
Subramonian Poti, Ag. C.J.1. The one and only question that need engage our attention in this appeal is whether in entering into what purported to be a hire-purchase agreement with the defendant, the State of Kerala, the plaintiff was really entering into a financing arrangement in regard to the purchase of a machinery for his business. The Court below has said that though apparently the arrangement between the plaintiff and the defendant was one of hire-purchase, in fact and in substance it was only a financing arrangement and therefore when the Government, pursuant to the hire-purchase agreement, purported to transfer the machinery ultimately to the plaintiff it was not selling the machinery and therefore any sales tax which the plaintiff was compelled to pay to the Government would not be a proper levy. For that reason the plaintiff has obtained a decree for recovery of a sum of Rs. 9,670 and interest thereon which he had to pay as sales tax at the instance of the officers of the de...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala and ors. Vs. United Shippers and Dredgers Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-15-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Ker281
Bhat, J. 1. These appeals arise out of the common judgment of the First Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam in O. P. Nos. 59 of 1980 and 80 of 1980, which ended with the Award passed by the Chief Engineer being made into decree of Court The Award was passed in O. P. No. 59 of 1980. O. P. No. SO of 1980 filed by the Government to set aside the award has been dismissed. 2. The first appellant Government of Kerala through the second appellant Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Central Circle, Trichur, entered into a contract with the respondent on 19-9-1975 to do the wort of improvements to Champakkara Canal-Dredging works and allied works. The work was agreed to be completed on or before 15-7-1976. The agreement also required the respondent-contractor to maintain progress in work as prescribed in the schedule in Clause 3 of the agreement. There was also a provision in the contract to enable penalty to be levied in case of failure on the part of the contractor to maintain stipulated progress...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »