Kerala Court November 2004 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.
Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway Vs. General Secretary, ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-23-2004
Reported in: (2005)IILLJ1073Ker
J.B. Koshy, J.1. One K. T. Kannan, represented by the first Respondent-Union, was engaged as a casual labourer in the Southern Railway from December 27, 1981. According to the union, he was denied employment from March 21, 1983 without notice. It is the case of the union that the workman had attained temporary status in view of Para 2302 of the Railway] Establishment Manual, Chapter XXXIII. Before terminating the services of such persons who have completed 120 days of service, 14 days' notice should be given. Denial of employment is also illegal retrenchment as provision of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act was not complied with. Several representations were made against the denial of employment. One of the representations is W3, which was sent on October 31, 1985. The above W3 representation also refers to his earlier representations to the Railway. Since no reply was given, union addressed the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central). As no reference was made, a writ petitio...
Punalur Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-23-2004
Reported in: I(2006)BC543; [2005]125CompCas144(Ker); (2005)194CTR(Ker)204; [2005]274ITR475(Ker)
P.R. Raman, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for the following reliefs :(a) issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records leading to Exts. P6, P7 and P8 and quash the same;(b) stay all further proceedings pursuant to Exts. P6, P7 and P8 pending disposal of the writ petition; and;(c) pass such other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.2. Ext. P6 is a notice issued under Section 226(3) of the IT Act, 1961, demanding an amount of Rs. 38,50,000 from out of the amount, if any, payable by the Federal Bank to the petitioner. The Federal Bank is the tenant in occupation of the building owned by the petitioner. Exts. P7 and P8 are similar notices issued to other respondents/tenants. The contention of the petitioner is that it is a sick industry registered under the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act and an appeal from the order...
Abdul Majeed Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-23-2004
Reported in: II(2005)ACC885; IV(2005)ACC601; 2005(2)KLT434
K. Thankappan, J.1. This Original Petition is filed by the claimant in O.P.(MV) No. 1053 of 1989 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram.2. The petitioner claimed compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident. Along with the claim petition, the petitioner filed a petition for condoning the delay in filing the claim petition. The Tribunal as per Ext.Pl order dated 8.2.1992 awarded an amount of Rs. 13,000/- as compensation on the basis of a compromise entered into between the petitioner and the Insurance Company as well as the other parties involved in the case. Subsequently, the Insurance Company filed a petition for review of the order passed in the delay condonation petition as well as the award along with a petition for condoning the delay in filing the review petition. The petitioner filed objection to the review petition as well as the delay petition. The Tribunal considered the review petition and as per order in I.A. No. 117 of ...
Razak Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-22-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT1082
B. Subhashan Reddy, C.J.This is a Writ Petition pro bono publico seeking a mandamus against the railway authorities to restore its stoppage of train run between Chennai-Mangalore and Mangalore-Chennai at Neeleshwar railway station. The decision to run the trains in el particular line and the distance including the stoppage of the same are within the powers of the railway authorities. It is for the railway administration to take a decision to the needs of the passengers who resort to train journey. It is, no doubt, a very necessary and useful means of communication but it is not for the High Court to enforce upon the railway authorities to run the train on a particular line or in a particular mode including the stoppage or non-stoppage at a particular railway station; There is a presumption in favour of the Government and the statutory authorities that whatever is done by them is done correctly and absolutely and there is no material before us to show to the contrary. That apart, for cl...
Ganesh Vs. Varghese
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-19-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)KLT282
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Landlord is the revision petitioner. Eviction was sought for Under Sections 11(2)(b), 11 (3) and 11 (4)(i) of Act 2 of 1965. Rent Control Court disallowed the claim Under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act, but allowed the claim Under Section 11(4)(i) of the Act. Fifth respondent before the Rent Control Court, the alleged sublessee, filed appeal R.C.A. No. 96 of 2001 before the Appellate Authority against the finding rendered Under Section 11(4)(i) of the Act. No appeal was preferred by the landlord against the finding Under Sections 11 (2)(b) and 11 (3) of the Act. Appellate Authority on facts confirmed the finding of the Rent Control Court holding that the original tenant had sublet the premises to fifth respondent, but disallowed the claim placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in A.S. Sulochana v. Dharmalingam, (1987) 1 SCC 180, holding that the legal heirs of the tenant cannot be visited with the sin committed by the deceased tenant an...
Reeta George Vs. Special Tahsildar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-15-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)KLT79
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.1. The grievance of the petitioner whose properties were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of Kerala Water Authority is that Ext.P6 application for reference under S.I 8 though filed within seven days of his coming to know about the award was rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer on the reason that the same is filed after the expiry of six months from the date of the award. On 27.10.2004 when this Writ Petition came up for admission the learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions. The Government Pleader Smt. Deepthi submits on instructions that notice under Section 12(2) was not served on the petitioner. She also submits that the Government does not have a case that the award was passed in the presence of the petitioner. If that be so, the version of the petitioner that he came to have knowledge regarding the award only to Ext.P5 in all probabilities is correct. It is by now trite that when the claimant has not been served u...
Confederation of Consumer Vigilance Centre Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-15-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT1073
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The Confederation of Consumer Vigilance Centre, a registered society formed to protect consumer interest represented by it's General Secretary is the petitioner in the W.P. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is mainly for direction to the State Government and the President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, respondents 2 and 3 herein to fill up the existing vacancies of the President and members of various District Consumer Fora. Directions are also sought to correct the functioning of the State Commission under the orders of it's President who is declaring summer vacation for the State Commission every year contrary to Rules and has denied the room provided to the consumers by the State Government in the building constructed by it for the State Commission. There is also allegation that the President of the Commission is victimising the petitioner for raising issues pertaining to the malfunctioning of the St...
Pappachan Vs. Muthu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-15-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT76
ORDERK. Hema, J.1. This Court is called upon to issue a direction to the lower Court that in case the petitioner files a bail application, it shall be disposed of on the same day of filing of the same. Can this Court issue such a direction, under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in a non-existent petition? If such a direction is issued, will it secure ends of justice or frustrate the same? These in short, are the questions arising for consideration in this case.2. Brief facts, as narrated in the petition are as follows: The petitioner is second accused in Crime No. 75 of 2001 of the Erattupetta Police Station. The said crime was registered based on a private complaint instituted by the first respondent before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Erattupetta which was forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The alleged offences are under Sections 406, 420 and 34 Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. A c...
Kader Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-12-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)KLT598
ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J. 1. The claimant/respondent in L.A.A. No. 140/00, which was disposed of by another learned Judge of this Court on 24.3.2004, seeks review of the judgment on the ground that the judgment is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record.2. It is seen that the learned Judge, notwithstanding the award of Rs. 15,000/- by way of additional compensation towards injurious affection (diminution of land value in respect of the remainder extent of the property belonging to the claimant), has stated that the claimant/respondents will not be entitled to get any interest towards the amount awarded towards injurious affection. It is Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act which deals with the entitlement of the claimant for interest on the excess compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Reference Court. It cannot be disputed that the amount which the learned Judge has awarded to the claimant on account of injurious affection will become part of the excess compen...
Ayisakkutty Vs. Abdul Samad
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-12-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Ker68; 2005(1)KLT104
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This appeal arises out of the order passed in I. A. No. 483 of 2004 granting custody of the minor child aged 4 years to the father in preference to the maternal grandmother.2. Senior Counsel appearing for the maternal grandmother Sri. K.C. John submitted that the order passed by the Court below is in violation of Sections 352 and 353 of the Mulla's Principles of Mahomedan Law with regard to guardianship. Counsel appearing for the respondent-father Smt. Molly Jacob on the other hand contended that the above mentioned provisions would give way to the provisions of the Guardian and Wards Act with regard to the welfare of the child. Father of the child filed O.P. before the Family Court, Manjeri for custody of his minor son who was in the custody of the maternal grand parents. Mother of the child had committed suicide and after her death child was brought up by the maternal grandparents. Father had filed an application for the custody of the child which was earlier...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »