Kerala Court February 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.
Beebi Vs. Administrator
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-16-2004
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT1019
Kurian Joseph, J.1. Petitioners in these cases are aggrieved due to steps taken by the respondents for evicting them from their holdings. It is their case that they have been paying 'quit rent' for the holdings for quite long. It is also their case that if at all they are liable to be evicted, it can be done only after complying with the procedure under the Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands Land Revenue and Tenancy Regulation, 1965 (hereinafter called the Regulation). At the outset it will be profitable to refer to the statutory scheme in the matter of eviction. Regulation 15 reads as follows:-'15(1) Any person who occupies or continues to occupy any pandaram land without lawful authority shall be regarded as a trespasser and may be summarily evicted therefrom by the competent authority in the prescribed manner and any building or other construction erected or anything deposited on such land, if not removed within such reasonable time as such authority may, from time to time, fix...
Padmakumar Vs. Unnikrishnan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-16-2004
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT1097
P.R. Raman, J.1. Petitioner herein was a candidate who challenged the election of the first respondent herein by filing an election petition before the Munsiff's Court, Karunagappally, Election held was under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act (in short 'the Act'). The first respondent herein was declared elected from Ward No. 7 of Clappanna Grama Panchayat. The Munsiff's Court declared the election as void under Section 100 of the Act. The first respondent herein has preferred an appeal before the District Court, Kollam as R.F.A. (Ele) No. 61/2003, which is pending consideration. Hence, the merits of the contention regarding the validity of election is not a matter presently arising for consideration within writ proceedings.2. The limited question raised in this Writ Petition is regarding the power of the Appellate Court to grant a stay in election matters under the Act. As per Ext.P3 order dated 8.5.2003 in I.A.No. 572/2003 passed by the District Judge, Kollam, which reads 'Objection filed...
Shanmugam Vs. Kerala Water Authority
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-16-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT529
Kurian Joseph, J.1. Petitioners in all these cases have been recruited through Public Service Commission as Assistant Engineers in the Kerala Water Authority. They are aggrieved since the service of ad hoc Assistant Engineers appointed under Rule 9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1959 have been regularised retrospectively. The earliest of such proceedings for regularisation is Ext.P5 dated 21.3.1991 in O.P.No. 392/97. All such ad hoc employees have been given retrospective regularisation with effect from 19.9.1990, the date of judgment of the Supreme Court in Jacob's case, (Jacob v. Kerala Water Authority, reported in 1991 (2)KLT 673) AIR 1990 SC 2228. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the retrospective regularisation of ad hoc employees has affected their settled seniority and consequently their promotion.2. The contention of the party respondents as well as the Kerala Water Authority is that all ad hoc Assistant En...
Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) Vs. C.V. Avarachan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-16-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2582
R. Basant, J.1. What is the crucial date to be reckoned for considering the question of limitation in a criminal case the date of presentation of the complaint, the date of its representation after curing the defects or the date of cognizance What is the duty of a criminal Court returning a complaint for curing the defects and representation under Rule 68 of the Kerala Criminal Rules of Practice These questions arise for consideration in these appeals.2. Aggrieved by the judgments of acquittal in prosecutions under the Payment of Wages (Mines) Rules, 1956, the complainant Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Cochin, has preferred these appeals. Two prosecutions were initiated by the complainant against the respondent/accused alleging violation of the provisions of the Payment of Wages (Mines) Rules. To comply with the mandate that only three violations can be included in one prosecution, two separate complaints were filed. The violations were detected on 12-12-1991. The offences are p...
S.N. Colleges Vs. Raveendran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-13-2004
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT971
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The Principal and Manager of S.N. College are at loggerheads for the last few years challenging the legality or otherwise of an order of termination. The issue came up for consideration before a Bench consisting of one of us, K.S. Radhakrishnan, J., in W.A. 1633 of 2001 and connected cases wherein the Bench had elaborately considered the law and facts, therefore we need not reiterate the entire facts, but only the essential facts for disposal of these cases.2. Dr. N. Raveendran was appointed as Principal by order of the management dated 5.10.1998. He was served with a show cause notice dated 17.1.2000 stating that his service as Principal during the period of probation was not satisfactory and was found not suitable for continuance as Principal and hence decided to terminate his probation and to revert him to the post of Selection Grade Lecturer in History. Management gave 15 days time to submit his objections, if any. Dr. Raveendran filed a detailed objec...
Rajendran Vs. State Co-operative Election Commission
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-13-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Ker329; 2004(1)KLT1026
Cyriac Joseph, J.1. The appellant is the petitioner in O.P. No. 16199 of 2002 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The respondents herein are the respondents in the said Original Petition.2. The dispute relates to election to the Managing Committee of the Kumaramputhoor Service Co-operative Bank Limited No. 373 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank'). As per resolution dated 4.4.2002 of the Administrative Committee of the Bank it was resolved to conduct election to the Managing Committee of the Bank on 9.6.2002. The said resolution was sent to the State Co-operative Election Commission (first respondent) through the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Palakkad (second respondent). As per Ext. P1 election notification dated 27.4.2002 issued by the first respondent, the election was scheduled to be held on 9.6.2002. The date for filing the nomination papers was 27.5.2002, the date for scrutiny of the nomination papers was 28.5.2002 and the date for withdrawal...
Lekha Rose Vs. Palakkad Municipality
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-13-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT199
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The petitioner is a resident of Palakkad Municipality. She is challenging Exts.P1 and P2 orders issued by the 1st respondent - Municipality, directing demolition of certain unauthorised constructions made by her. She has filed an appeal before the Government against those orders. Since the alternate remedy is already invoked, there is no necessity for this Court to go into the validity of the impugned orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But, the additional 2nd respondent who got himself impleaded in this O.P., submits that in view of the amendment to Section 509 of the Kerala Municipality Act, the Government do not have any power to hear an appeal against the final order passed by the Secretary under Section 406. So, this point was heard at length.2. The learned counsel Sri. P.K. Suresh Kumar, appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel Sri. P.N. Ravindran, appearing for the additional 2nd respondent were heard on the two views reg...
George Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-13-2004
Reported in: III(2005)ACC371; 2004(2)KLT369
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The appellant, faced a prosecution under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act on the allegation that using his position as public servant, he forged documents and misappropriated various amounts payable as unemployment assistance to various persons and thereby derived undue pecuniary advantage and committed the offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also under Sections 409, 465, 471 and 477(A) of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner attempted to interdict the prosecution launched against him by filing O.P.10181/1999 contending that he being a public servant sanction under Section 197 ought to have been obtained for launching the prosecution. Therefore, the prosecution should have been dropped and he could not have been proceeded with.2. The contention urged by him before the learned Single Judge was that as a public servant he was not removable from his office except by or with ...
Bhagavathy Prasad Agarwal Vs. Thriveni Glass House and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-13-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD(Cri)16; II(2005)BC315
R. Basant, J.1. Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the complainant has preferred this appeal.2. In the complaint filed by him, the complainant alleged that Ext. P1 cheque for Rs. 3680.50 was issued by the accused to him, for the due discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability. Such liability arose from articles supplied by the complainant to the accused, it was alleged. The said cheque, when presented for encashment was dishonoured by the Bank on the ground that the payment had been stopped by the accused by issue of Ext. P7 stop payment memo. The complainant alleged that though the dishonour was on the ground of issue of stop payment memo, the accused did not have sufficient amount in his account and therefore the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Notice of demand was issued as insisted by Section 138 of the N.I. Act. It was duly received and acknowledged. A reply Ext. P5 was is...
Edger Ferus Vs. Abraham Ittycheria
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-10-2004
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT767
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. A Division Bench of this Court in Issac Ninan v. State of Kerala (1995 (2) KLT 848) declared Sections 5, 6 and 8 of Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (2 of 1965) ultra vires the Constitution of India and held them void and violative of Arts. 14 & 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The legislative interdiction against receiving anything in excess of the fair rent even from a willing tenant in accordance with the prevailing rate of rent in the locality was held to be an unreasonable restriction on the right to carry on business envisaged in Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Section 5 it was felt cannot stand alone without subsidiary and incidental provisions for periodical revision of the fair rent. This Court held the legislative scheme provided through Sections 5, 6 and 8 is a package and are mutually dependent and that one provision therefrom cannot be extricated from the other two to keep it alone alive.2. Issac Ninan's case was late...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »