Kerala Court October 2003 Judgments
Aboobacker Vs. Vasu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-31-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT1029
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Justice without law, according to Roscoe Pound on Jurisprudence is 'Justice according to magisterial good sense unhampered by rule'. Recognition of a body of binding standards of adjudication is well nigh indispensable for the proper discharge of judicial functions. Justice cannot be accomplished without an orderly system of law.2. Many a times this Court has reminded the State Government of the necessity of bringing in proper legislation to curb unethical trend in rack rending, demand of huge amount as pakidi, laying down provision and procedure for fixation of fair rent, and for fixing forum for fixing fair rent etc. Pegging down of rent has created unethical and unlawful practice of paying pakidi to landlords. Static rent has created block market in rental housing. Such tendencies have restricted the assessibility of low income group to rental housing and are compelled to pay huge amount by way of pakidi. Responsible Government shall not keep away from these...
Tag this Judgment!Omanakuttan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-31-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3453; 2003(3)KLT1173
ORDERK. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. This is a petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for regular bail.2. The petitioner is accused No. 12 in Crime No. 118 of 2003 registered under Sections 302, 307, 326, 273, 201, 120(B) of Indian Penal Code and Sections 57(A), 55(a), (h) & (i) and 58 of the Abkari Act of Anchalummoodu Police Station, which is known as 'Kuppana Hooch Tragedy' and is being investigated by Crime Branch CID, Special Investigation Group-I, Thiruvananthapuram and renumbered the crime as Crime No. 104/CR/SI/2003.3. On 10.4.2003 and 11.4.2003 a large number of persons consumed illicit liquor. Seven persons died and seven other persons suffered partial loss of sight due to the consumption of that illicit liquor which was mixed with methyl alcohol. The counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner's case is having no connection with the Kuppana Hooch Tragedy and there is no allegation against the petitioner that he is responsible for the offen...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Suraj
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-31-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1995; 2004(1)KLT72
ORDERK. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. This is a petition filed by the State for cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent by the Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, in Crl.M.C. No. 219 of 2003 by order dated 14.2.2003.2. The respondent is the 11th accused in Crime No. 286 of 2002 of Thrikkakara Police Station registered under Sections 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 55(a), (g),(h), and (i), 56 and 57 of the Kerala Abkari Act. The petitioner filed Crl.M.C. No. 219 of 2003 for anticipatory bail alleging that himself and one Majeed were falsely implicated as accused Nos. 10 and 11 in the case only on the allegation that the 10th accused for and Crl.M.C. No. 3054 of 2003. Decided on 31st October, 2003. on behalf of himself and for the petitioner herein took demand drafts in favour of the Assistant Excise Commissioner in order to help the 9th accused for taking toddy shops in Ernakulam Excise Range. It is further averred that even if the allegation against the petitioner is admitted as such...
Tag this Judgment!Joseph Mathew, Managing Partner, Matson Pharmaceuticals Vs. Industrial ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-31-2003
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ214Ker
R. Rajendra Babu, J.1. The preliminary order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Idukki in I.D.32/00 is under challenge at the instance of the Management. An industrial dispute was raised by the Government and was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Idukki for adjudication regarding the order of termination passed by the management against seven of its employees. Two domestic enquiries were conducted. One against two employees and the other against 5 employees alleging misconduct against them. Before the enquiry officer, the management examined their witnesses and documents were produced. Thereafter the employees had let in evidence. Arguments were heard and argument notes were also furnished. Thereafter the management filed an application for examining witnesses and to let in further documentary evidence. The workers represented by the Union, objected to the above course and abstained from participating in the further proceedings before the enquiry officer. Enquiry Officer allowed the...
Tag this Judgment!Lissy Valsalan Vs. State Election Commission
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-30-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT1185
K.Balakrishnan Nair, J.O.P. No. 8164/03-V 1. The petitioner, who is a member of Keerampara Grama Panchayat, challenges Ext. P4 order passed by the 1st respondent State Election Commission, declaring that she has suffered disqualification to continue as a member of the Panchayat under Section 35(p) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The brief facts of the case are the following:-2. The petitioner was elected member of the Keerampara Grama Panchayat from Ward No.4 in the election held in September 2000. The Ward Member is the ex-officio Convenor of the Grama Sabha of that ward. The Grama Sabha has to meet at least once in three months. The last of the meetings of the Grama Sabha of her ward convened by her in the year 2001 was on 14.11.2001. So the next meeting should have been convened on or before 14.2.2002. In the meantime, the Government employees went on strike on 6.2.2002 which ended only on 8.3.2002.3. The Vice President of the Panchayat wa...
Tag this Judgment!integrated Finance Co. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-30-2003
Reported in: II(2004)BC71; 2003(3)KLT1040
ORDERR. Basant, J. 1. The petitioner is the complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint was filed by him as early as in 1998. Cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate. The accused chose not to appear before the learned Magistrate. It is the case of the complainant that the accused was deliberately avoiding the process of the court. The court could not secure the presence of the accused. At an earlier stage, on the ground that the complainant was not present before court, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. and acquitted the accused. That order of acquittal was challenged before this Court and by judgment dated 29.3.2001, in Crl. Appeal 828 of 1999, this Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of acquittal and directed the learned Magistrate to continue with the proceedings. It is significant to note that the said judgment produced as Annexure-I shows that the accused was served at th...
Tag this Judgment!Shaji Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-28-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT118
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The petitioners are private hospitals. Some of them are run in municipal areas whereas some others are located in Panchayats. They are aggrieved by the prospects of levy of fees by the concerned Municipalities and Panchayats under the provisions of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1994 and the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The grievance of the hospitals working in the municipal area may be summarised as follows:2. Under Section 313 of the Municipality Act, every private hospital has to get registration after paying the prescribed fee. Section 314A authorises the Municipality to levy fees for any services rendered to those hospitals by the Municipality. The petitioners do not have any grievance regarding the registration fee or the fee levied by them for rendering some special services to them. But they feel aggrieved by the payment of licence fee under Section 447. Section 447(1) reads as follows:'A Municipality may notify by publication in the Gazette or in ...
Tag this Judgment!Suter Paul Vs. Sobhana English Medium High School
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-28-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT1019
A.K. Basheer, J.1. Is a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution maintainable against the Manager of a recognized unaided school? In view of the difference of opinion, this question has been referred to the Division Bench by a learned Single Judge.2. Before we consider the above question, it may be useful to refer briefly to the relevant facts of the case.3. The petitioner was working as a Physical Education Teacher in Sobhana English Medium High School, Kothamangalam. It is admittedly a recognized unaided school. In March 1999, the Manager of the school, respondent No. 1, issued a notice to him to show cause why his service should not be terminated in view of several allegations of misconduct and, in particular, in the light of a complaint received from the parent of a student. The explanation given by the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory. A domestic enquiry was conducted by the management. By the report dated 8th June 1999, the Enquiry Officer found that all the...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesan Vs. Sadasivan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-28-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT523
R. Bhaskaran, J. 1. This appeal is filed against the order in I.A.575/2003 in A.S.60/2003 on the file of the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara; The interlocutory application was filed for temporary injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure restraining the respondent from forcible eviction of the petitioner from the plaint schedule property. The suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the trial court and against the Judgment and Decree he filed appeal before the first appellate court. Pending appeal the above interlocutory application was filed for interim relief. The appellate court has declined to grant interim relief and therefore the appellant has approached this Court by way of this appeal. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that this appeal itself is not maintainable as the appeal is filed against an interim order passed in appeal. He relied on the decision of this Court reported in Chellappan v. Varughese (1963 KLT 502) where this Court has consid...
Tag this Judgment!Yeshodharan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-28-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT231
ORDERK. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 46/CR/97 of the C.B.C.I.D., Crime Branch, Kollam, registered under Sections 366, 379 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It is averred that the 4th respondent after conducting the investigation filed a final report before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Herippad, who, in turn committed the case to the court of sessions, Mavelikkara and the same is pending before the additional Sessions Court-II as S.C. No. 100 of 1996. The prayer in this Crl. M.C. is to quash that sessions case.2. A case was registered on 27th June 1995 at 1.00 p.m. as Crime No. 103 of 1995 under the caption 'man missing' on a statement given by one Chellappan Pillai that his daughter Geetha Kumari, aged 27 years was missing from his house since 25th June 1995. The local police conducted investigation and came to the conclusion that Geetha Kumari was abducted by h...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »