Kerala Court August 2002 Judgments
Bindhu Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-14-2002
Reported in: [2003(96)FLR410]
K. Thankappan, J.1. Petitioner approaches this Court to have a direction to the 1st respondent to appoint the petitioner in the post of Asst. Engineer (Civil) in preference to the candidates in the ranked list prepared by the Kerala Public Service Commission and also to quash Exts. P13 to P15. The petitioner is a Civil Engineering graduate. Sheclaims preference in appointment to the post of Asst. Engineer (Civil) on the basis of her apprenticeship training qualification and Ext. P1 contract of apprenticeship.2. The Kerala Public Service Commission invited application to the post of Asst. Engineer (Civil) in the Public Works and Irrigation Departments by Ext. P5 notificationdated 27.12.1994. As per Ext. P5 notification the qualification prescribed for the post is a Degree of B.Sc. Engineering (Civil) or equivalent qualification, recognised by the Kerala Government. The age limit to apply for the post was mentioned in the application. The claim of the petitioner is that as she satisfies ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala and anr. Vs. V.M. Kuriakose and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-14-2002
Reported in: 2005(1)ARBLR133(Kerala)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. In all these cases counsel appearing for the claimants raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of these appeals and hence all these cases are disposed of by a common judgment.2. MFA 482/98 arises out of O.P. (Arb.) 132/88 of Sub-Court, Kollam. Arbitration O.P. 132/88 was filed by the claimant under Section 17 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 for passing judgment and decree in accordance with the arbitration award passed by the sole arbitrator on 29.09.1998 the State of Kerala and the Superintending Engineer had also preferred I.A. 2554/88 for setting aside the award under Section 30 of the Act with a petition for condonation of delay. Petition for condonation of delay was dismissed on 13.09.1993. Consequently I.A. 2554/88 was also dismissed and the Sub-Court passed a judgment and decree for Rs. 2,85,600 on 29.10.1993 in full and final settlement of all claims and also declared that the claimant is entitled to get the security depos...
Tag this Judgment!K. Gopi Nair and ors. Vs. K. Ramukutty and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-13-2002
Reported in: [2003]115CompCas59(Ker)
M.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. Out of the three petitioners involved in Crl. M. C No. 3149 of 1999, petitioners Nos. 1 and 3 are the petitioners in Crl. M. C. No. 3100 of 1999. The said two petitioners were the former managing director and manager respectively of the Kanipayoor Hire Purchase Company (P.) Ltd., which is a registered company. The second petitioner in Crl. M. C. No. 3149 of 1999 was a former director of the said company. The prayers in both the cases is to quash proceedings pending before the J. F. C. M. Court, Kunnamkulam against the respective petitioners. 2. Based on complaints filed by the respective first respondents in these two cases before the J. F. C. M. Kunnamkulam, investigation was conducted by the Kunnamkulam police after reference to the police was made under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Thereafter charge was laid by the police in both the cases alleging the offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. ...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rub Vs. Jobby Tharian
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT733
ORDERK.K. Denesan, J.1. The respondent-landlord filed R.C.P. No. 13 of 1992 before the Rent Control Court, Aluva, for eviction of the tenant under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, for short the 'Act'. The Rent Control Court dismissed the petition for eviction. Aggrieved thereby, the landlord filed R.C.A. No. 2 of 1994 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. By the judgment impugned in this Revision Petition, the Appellate Authority ordered eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. Hence this Revision Petition at the instance of the tenant.2. There is no dispute about the fact that the respondent is the owner of the petition schedule building and that the building was let out to the revision petitioner on a monthly rental basis. The revision petitioner is running a department store in the building. The respondent wanted the revision petitioner to hand over vacant possession of the petition schedule building. Need pleaded is that he wanted to ...
Tag this Judgment!Vijayalaxmi Vs. Thomas
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-12-2002
Reported in: I(2003)BC360
M.R. Hariharan Nair, J. 1. One of the questions arising for decision in this case is whether in a case where the Police files Refer Report in a case sent up for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. the Magistrate is free to take cognizance without a protest complaint; but based on a fresh private complaint. Petitioners are two out of 13 accused in a case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Trichur which was registered on the basis of Annexure-A complaint filed on 15.5.1999. The complainant therein who is the present 1st respondent was a former Director of the company by name, 'Kuriland (P) Ltd.', of which the present petitioners 1 and 2 were Director and Manager respectively. Offences under Sections 3, 5(a)(b)(c)(i) and Section 6 of the Prize Chit and Money Circulation Banning Act, 1978 read with Sections 417 and 420 of the IPC were alleged against them. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was an earlier complaint filed on 9.3.1999 raisi...
Tag this Judgment!Kodukulanji Service Co-operative Bank Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-09-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT250
Kurian Joseph, J.1. Retrospective levy of penal interest and rate of interest are the two issues to be tackled in these cases, in the background of an amendment to the Kerala Co-operative Societies Employees Self Financing Pension Scheme, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme). The impugned amendment is to Rule 39 (paragraph?) of the Scheme. Rule 39(1A) was introduced as per notification dated 4-2-1999. The provision reads as follows:'39(1A). If any society fails to transfer the employees contribution with interest accrued thereon after the commencement of Section 80A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and the Kerala Co-operative Societies Employees Self Financing Pension Scheme, 1994, within a period of one year from 14.3.1995, that is the date of implementation of the pension scheme or has transferred only a part thereof, shall be liable to transfer such amount or part thereof as the case may be with interest at the rate of 24% per annum.'2. The Scheme is framed in ...
Tag this Judgment!Ammarukunhi Amma and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-09-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Ker33
Sankarasubban, J. 1. This M.F.A. is filed under Section 8A of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (Act 26 of 1971) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the judgment in O.A. No. 170 of 1976 of the Forest Tribunal. Kozhikode. The facts of the case are as follows : 2. Appellants are petitioners 2 to 9 in O.A. No. 170 of 1976 before the Forest Tribunal, Kozhikode. The application was filed by one Karimbil Kunhikoman under Section 8 of the Act for a declaration that the properties described in the petition are plantations and not liable to be vested with the Government as forest, Kunhikoman died pending the application and the appellants herein, who are the widow and children were impleaded as petitioners 2 to 9. 3. It was the case of the appellants that the petition schedule property having an extent of 1048 acres and 21 cents is a cardamom plantation, mainly coffee having been planted in certain areas. Therefore it was contended that the area involved i...
Tag this Judgment!The Kerala State Electricity Board, Represented by Its Secretary and A ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-08-2002
Reported in: 2004ACJ912
Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The defendants in O.S.No. 639 of 1993 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Ernakulam are the appellants. The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed by the court below awarding an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation on account of the death of Suresh Kumar, son of respondents 1 and 2 and the brother of other respondents.2. Deceased Suresh Kumar was working as a cleaner-cum-checker in a stage carriage Bus bearing Registration No. KL-7 8937 plying between Kakkanad and Perumbadappu. At or about 4.30 a.m. on 29-6-1990, the deceased was walking along the pathway at Vazhakkala to fetch water from a public tap situated on the side of the road for cleaning the bus. An electric wire drawn over the pathway broke down and was lying on the pathway. Suresh Kumar accidentally touched the live wire. He sustained electric shock and died. The respondents who are the legal heirs of deceased Suresh Kumar filed the suit claiming compensation alleging that...
Tag this Judgment!Premier Automibles Ltd. Vs. CochIn Labour Union, Represented by Its Ge ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-07-2002
Reported in: [2003(96)FLR774]; (2002)IIILLJ1138Ker
M. Ramachandran, J.1. Ext. P19 award passed by the second respondent--Industrial Tribunal, Alleppey is under challenge at the hands of the petitioner. By Exts. P14 and P15 respectively dated 30-06-1989 and 27-01-1990, the Government had referred two disputes for adjudication to the said Tribunal, pertaining to workmen, M/s. Shahul Hameed and K.K. Pareeth, represented in the dispute by the first respondent-Union. The disputes were numbered as I.D. No. 107/89 and 27/90 and in view of the common nature of the contentions, they were jointly tried and a common award is passed. By the award, a declaration was made that the retrenchment effected in the case of the said workmen is violative of Section 25-N and they were entitled for preferential treatment for appointment as envisaged under Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act.' The facts of the case could be given briefly as following:The petitioner is a public limited company and they have two factories, one at Kurla and another at Kal...
Tag this Judgment!Madhusoodanan @ Babu Vs. Narcotic Control Bureau, a Central Government ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-07-2002
Reported in: 2003(85)ECC319
M.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. Can the Analysis report with regard to the contraband seized in a case coming under the N.D.P.S. Act prepared by a chemical examiner of the Customs House be admissible with regard to proof of the substance (contents) for purposes of conviction under that Act? This is one of the questions arising for consideration in these appeals filed by accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively challenging the conviction entered against them for the offence under 'Section 21 red with Section 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act' and the sentence of R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1 lakh (in default R.I. for one year) imposed therefor.2. The prosecution alleged that at about 2.30 p.m. on 25.12.1998 PW4 who was the Superintendent of the Trivandrum unit of the Narcotic Controls Bureau received reliable information over telephone that two persons (subsequently found as accused Nos. 1 and 2) had checked into the Chathurthi lodge at Aristo Junction, Trivandrum possessing heroin and that after recordi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »