Kerala Court October 2003 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Kochaniyan Vs. CochIn Port Trust
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-22-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT166
Kurian Joseph, J.1. Whether the petitioner who retired from the service of the first respondent in June, 1994 is entitled to the benefit of amendment to the Cochin Port Employees (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotions) Regulations, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations') as amended in 1995 as per notification dated 15.3.1995 is the short question that arises for consideration in this Original Petition. Ext.P2 is the amendment notified on 15.3.1995. The amendment provides that benefit of Rule 30(1) of the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972 will be applicable to the scheduled employees. There is no dispute that the petitioner was a scheduled employee as per the Regulations. Rule 30 of the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules reads as follows:'30. Addition to qualifying service in special circumstances(1) (A Government servant who retires from a service or post after the 31st March, 1960, shall be eligible to add to his service qualifying for superannuation pension (but not for any other class of...
Gangadharan Vs. Mohanan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-22-2003
Reported in: IV(2004)BC135; 2004(2)KLT507
ORDERP.R. Raman, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment in A. S. 66 of 1996 rendered by the Subordinate Judge, Cherthala, confirming the judgment of the Munsiff's Court, dismissing O.S. 436/1992 - a suit for return of non priced subscription paid under a chit.2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit. The allegation contained in the plaint is that he was a subscriber in two chitties which were conducted by the respondent/defendant. One of the terms and conditions of the chitty was that if any subscriber who has not bid the chitty commits any default, the amount already remitted by him with 3% interest deducting the dividend will have to be given after six months from the date of termination of the chitty and if the foreman commits default and the chitty could not be conducted due to his default, the amount due to the subscriber who has not bid the chitty is to be given within three months from the date of default with 5% interest. Because of the default...
Acharaparambath Pradeepan and anr. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-22-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ755
J. B. Koshy, J. 1. Five accused in Sessions Case No. 146/2001 on the file of the Court of Session, Thalassery, who were convicted for offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. along with other offences, are the petitioners/appellants. The Sessions Court found that the murder committed by them will come in the category of rarest in rare cases and capital punishment was imposed on them subject to confirmation by the High Court and they were sent to jail under a warrant. They were confined in condemned cell as provided under Section 30(2) of the Prisons Act, 1894 read with Kerala Prisons Rules, 1958. It is the contention of the petitioners that the sentence of death passed by the Sessions Judge is not final, till it is confirmed by the High Court and, therefore, they should be allowed all privileges which are granted to other prisoners. Learned Director General of Prosecution submitted that age old practice in the State is to put such prisoners in the condemned cell. It is further submitted tha...
Senior Superintendent of Post Offices Vs. Raji Mol
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-21-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT183
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J. 1. The respondents in these four cases approached the Central Administrative Tribunal with the prayer that the Department be directed to consider their claims for appointment by transfer to the available posts. The Tribunal having accepted their claims, the Department has filed these four Writ Petitions.2. The two issues that arise for consideration are:(1) Does a Rule, which says that 'Sevak shall not have any transfer liability', debar the employee from claiming appointment by transfer?(2) Does an employee have a right to claim appointment by transfer to a post in a higher scale of pay than the one in which he is working?3. Learned counsel for the parties have referred to the facts as mentioned in W.P.(C) No. 32814 of 2003. These may be briefly noticed.4. In April 2001 the respondent was appointed as a Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Carrier. The post was in the scale of Rs. 1220-20-1600 1220-20-1600 . On December 4, 2002 the Department invited applications for the post...
Porinchu Vs. Joint Registrar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-21-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ker117; 2004(1)KLT281
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Can the Administrator appointed under Section 33 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 3969 enrol new members? This question was answered in the negative by a Full Bench of this Court in Hassan v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (1998 (2) KLT 746 FB), ft was held that the Administrator appointed under Section 33 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 has no power to enrol new members. This decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies v. T.A. Kuttappan and Ors. (2000 (6) SCC 1271). In the meantime, another Full Bench of this Court considered the matter in Cherthala Agricultural Rural Development Bank v. Joint Registrar (2000 (1) KLT 730 FB) and took the view that the decision in Hassan's case will operate prospectively from the date of the decision and not retrospectively. Does the later decision lay down a rule of universal application or was it confined to the facts of that case? This is the issue that a...
Peter Thomas Vs. State Bank of Travancore
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-20-2003
Reported in: IV(2004)BC559; [2004]121CompCas329(Ker); 2004(1)KLT392
ORDERP.R. Raman, J.1. Defendants in O.S. No. 59/98 on the file of the Sub Court, Cherthala are the revision petitioners. Pending revision the 1st revision petitioner died and his legal representatives were impleaded as additional petitioners 3 and 4. A petition C.M.P. No. 6653/2001 was also filed for appointment of the 2nd petitioner as guardian of minors additional petitioners 3 and 4. It was allowed by separate orders.2. The respondent-Bank instituted a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 14,73,786.90 ps. alleged to be due in two transactions. It was averred in the plaint that two loans for an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs each were granted to the defendants. One is granted to the 1st defendant for construction of a residential building and the other is granted to the 2nd defendant for business purpose. Common immovable properties belonging to the 1st defendant were offered as security for both these loans. The suit was instituted on 28.8.1998. Though cause of action was different, since t...
Subha Jayan Vs. Meenakshy Kumaran and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-20-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ker39
R. Bhaskaran, J.1.The substantial questions of law formulated on which notice was issued to the respondents read as follows :1. Whether the Courts below are justified in holding that suit is hit by Order 23, Rule 1 (2), Code of Civil Procedure without the plaint and other documents in the earlier suit?2. Whether the Courts below are justified in holding that the cause of action in both the suits are one and the same?3. When the subsequent suit is for a different and distant relief and a different cause of action, the dismissal of an earlier suit on a different subject-matter and different cause of action is hit by Order 23, Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure?4. Whether the Courts below are justified in not answering all issues as contemplated under Order 20, Rule 5, Code of Civil Procedure?5. Whether non-compliance of Order 20, Rule 5 Code of Civil Procedure renders the judgment void?2. This second appeal is filed by the plaintiff in a suit for declaration and prohibitory injunction. Th...
Shaji Kumar Vs. Bharath Petroleum Corporation
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-20-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT961
Cyriac Joseph, J.1. This Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment dated 1.8.2003 in O.P. No. 12948 of 2002 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant is the petitioner in the Original Petition. The respondents herein are the respondents in the Original Petition.2. By Ext.P1 notification dated 22.7.2000 the first respondent Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited invited applications for Petrol-Diesel Retail Outlet Dealerships at Kottiyam in Kollam District and Kadambanadu in Pathanamthitta District. The outlet at Kottiyam was reserved for physically handicapped persons. Being a congenitally physically handicapped person with a permanent disability of more than 45%, the petitioner submitted an application for the Petrol-Diesel Retail Outlet Dealership at Kottiyam. He was called for the interview conducted by the third respondent Dealer Selection Board. According to the petitioner, after the selection, a rank list was published including the 4th respondent Mohammed Shan...
P.J. Cleetus Vs. District Collector and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-20-2003
Reported in: III(2004)BC349
G. Sivarajan, J. 1. The matter arises under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act (for short 'the Act').2. Both these writ petitions relate to the title and possession in respect of a property which was sold by the Tahsildar, Thodupuzha pursuant to a sale notice (Ext. P4) in O.P. No. 13289/03 for realisation of the arrears of Abkari dues of the 5th respondent. According to the petitioner in O.P. No. 13289/03 properties belonging to her were wrongly included in Ext. P4 sale notice on the purported view that the said property is part of the property belonging to the 5th respondent. The petitioner therefore filed a claim petition (Ext. P5) before the District Collector, Idukki, the first respondent seeking for dropping the proceedings against the property. The second respondent by order dated 31.3.2003 (Ext. P6) rejected the petitioner's claim and also confirmed the sale of the property in favour of the 4th respondent auction purchaser. The petitioner has challenged the said order in this writ ...
Gopalakrishnan Vs. CochIn Port Trust
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-17-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT981; (2004)IILLJ277Ker
R. Rajendra Babu, J. 1. Petitioners who were employed in the Canteen established by The Cochin Port Trust filed this petition for directing the respondents, the Cochin Port Trust to grant all benefits to the petitioners as regular staff of the Port Trust including Scale of Pay and other service benefits and for quashing Ext. P7 issued by the Port Trust on 24.3.2000 and also for other reliefs.2. It was alleged that the petitioners were the employees of the respondent-Cochin Port Trust and were working in the Canteen from 8 to 13 years continuously, that the above canteen was providing services to the workers under the Cochin Port Trust and was a statutory canteen established under Section 46 of the Factories Act. However, for the convenience, the Cochin Port Trust had entrusted the running of the Canteen with Contractors for some time and the contractors were running canteen with the employees permanently engaged by the Port Trust, with the facilities made available by the Port Trust in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »