Kerala Court June 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.
Secretary to Government Vs. Mary
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-25-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT1090
N.K. Sodhi, C.J.1. This order will dispose of a bunch of 17 Writ Appeal Nos. 27, 328, 355, 420, 451, 510, 531, 537, 572, 573, 607, 669, 893, 925, 927, 945 and 956 of 2004 in which common questions of law and fact arise. Since arguments were addressed only in W.A. No.27 of 2004, the facts have been taken from this case.2. Respondents in all these appeals were High School Assistants working in Government/Private Schools. They all had joined service as Primary Teachers and thereafter were promoted as High School Assistants. After reviewing the promotional prospects of the employees, grade promotion was recommended in cases where the employees were stagnating on the same post without any promotional avenues. The Government, by its order dated 7.8.1986 (Ext.P3), modified its earlier orders and decided that 'Primary School Teachers including Language Teachers in the Primary Section on being appointed or promoted to High School after having put in more than 10 years of service in the primary ...
Council of Principals' of Colleges Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-24-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT995
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Petitioners represent some of the colleges affiliated to the various Universities in the State of Kerala. They are aggrieved by the direction given to conduct election to the College Unions following the presidential system of election and not the parliamentary form of election. Some of the affiliated colleges are now following the parliamentary system of election to college unions.2. The Mahatma Gandhi University issued letter dated 29.10.2003 to the petitioner in Writ Petition (C) No. 36788 of 2003 to conduct election in their college in accordance with the schedule mentioned therein. The said letter was followed by another letter dated 15.11.2003. Direction was also issued on the basis of the decision of the Syndicate. Affiliated colleges were directed to conduct election in accordance with the Rules for the Conduct of Elections to College Unions contained in the Constitution for College Unions and reminded them of the undertaking made by them as per statute...
Lekha Nandakumar Vs. Government of India
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-24-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3797; 2004(2)KLT1094
J.B. Koshy, J.1. By this Habeas Corpus Petition, the petitioner, wife of the detenu, approached this Court against the detention of her husband, on the basis of preventive detention order dated 20.11.2003, issued under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'COFEPOSA'). It is true that whether a person has to be detained without trial as a preventive measure to prevent him from indulging in commission of economic offence as mentioned in the Act depends on the subjective satisfaction of the authorities concerned. The above subjective satisfaction is outside the purview of judicial review. Preventive detention is different from punitive detention after offences are proved according to the procedure prescribed by law. Article 21 of the Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived for his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. Article 22 which authorises preventive detention, lays do...
Vasudevan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-24-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD(Cri)38; III(2005)BC238; 2005(1)KLT220
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Is the proceedings Under Section 200 Cr.P.C. 'inquiry' as defined Under Section 2(g) Cr.P.C? Is the sworn statement recorded before the Magistrate Under Section 200 Cr.P.C. 'evidence'? Can the affidavit filed Under Section 145 of the N.I. Act be received by a Court to proceed further without insisting on the personal appearance of the complainant? These questions of contextual relevance are thrown up for consideration in this Revision Petition.2. The complainant, in a complaint Under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, has preferred this revision petition against the order passed by the learned Magistrate 'closing' the complaint. I extract below the impugned order:'Complainant absent. It appears that complainant is not interested to proceed with this case. The Criminal M.P. is closed'.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner first of all contends that a criminal complaint cannot be disposed of with an order like the one extracted above. The Code of Criminal Procedure spea...
Sugandhi Kamal Vs. Intelligence Officer, Squad No. Ii, Commercial Taxe ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-24-2004
Reported in: [2006]146STC627(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The only prayer is for a direction to the respondents to grant refund with interest. Since Tribunal passed orders allowing refund vide exhibit P4 order dated August 1, 1997 there will be a direction to the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 as the case may be to grant refund to the petitioner with interest Under Section 44 reckoning exhibit P4 order of the Tribunal as a refund order and issue refund voucher within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Even though Government Pleader pointed out that the officer has passed refund order on November 17, 2003 pursuant to remand from this Court, the same is only a repetition of the order of the Tribunal granting refund. When specific orders of refund was issued by the Tribunal, it was incorrect on the part of the officer not to have issued refund voucher and there was no need to pass another order repeating the same order of the Tribunal. Therefore, interest has to be reckoned from the date of the ...
Jenson Alias Mathan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-24-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ589
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The appellant is faced with conviction under Section 304, Part-I, I.P.C. and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 years and imposition of fine of Rs. 10,000/- with a default sentence of two years' imprisonment. The charge was under Section 302, IPC. The Court below found that he was entitled to the benefit of Exception No. 4 to Section 300, IPC. That was why he was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304, Part I, I.P.C.2. Assailing the conviction, it is submitted that, out of the 9 witnesses cited as occurrence witnesses, namely PWs-1 to 9, only PW-9 who was none other than the father of the deceased alone supported the prosecution case. What was available was the sole testimony of PW-9, who is almost an interested witness. Therefore, the trial Court was not justified in convicting the appellant/accused relying on the said sole testimony. It is further submitted that, he had only seen a part of the occurrence. How the occurrence had r...
Mathew Joseph and ors. Vs. Johny Sunny and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-24-2004
Reported in: III(2004)ACC420; (2005)ILLJ719Ker
ORDERP.R. Raman, J.1. Petitioners are the legal representatives of one Baby Mathew who was murdered on March 29, 1989, while in employment under respondents 1 and 2. They preferred a claim before the Workmen's Compensation ; Commissioner (Deputy Labour Commissioner), Kottayam for compensation, on account of the death of Baby Mathew against respondents 1 and 2. Eventually, an award was passed the gist of which is produced as Exhibit 1 P1, dated March 31, 1997. As per Exhibit P1, an amount of Rs. 1, 35,569/-was awarded by way of compensation with interest at 12% from March 29,. 1989 - the date on which the death happened. As per the said order, the amount! was to be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order failing which it was ordered that the entire amount should be recovered through revenue recovery proceedings. Respondents herein failed to pay the amount as 2 awarded and on application filed by the petitioners herein, the Workmen Compensation Commissioner initiated pr...
P.M. Abraham and ors. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-24-2004
Reported in: (2008)11VST84(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. Though the petitioners in all these cases are different the question which arises for consideration is common, viz., the validity of the provision of Section 14A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act') as introduced with effect from April 1,1998 by the Kerala Finance Act, 1998 (Act No. 14 of 1998). The Deputy Commissioner of the respective Districts has passed orders suspending the registration of the petitioners both under the KGST Act and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 on the ground that petitioners had caused obstruction in the matter of conduct of inspection/search by the Sales Tax Department as provided in Section 28(4) of the KGST Act as also under Section 9(2) of the CST Act read with Section 14A of the Act. The impugned orders are passed under Section 14A of the Act as introduced by the Act No. 14 of 1998 in the Act as also under Section 9(2) of the CST Act read with Section 14A of the Act. Petitioners in all these cases have taken the co...
Janardhanan Vs. Aneefa Rawther
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Ker89; I(2005)BC524; 2004(2)KLT1067
R. Bhaskaran, J.1. The defendant in a suit for realisation of money is the appellant in this appeal. According to the plaintiff, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 21,000/- from him on 30.1.1988 agreeing to pay interest at 2% per month. A document was executed in the name of the plaintiff on that day. The defendant had agreed to pay the amount within three years. On 28.1.1991 the defendant paid Rs. 10/- to the plaintiff and got endorsement on the document. Since no other amount was paid, though demanded several times and notice through Advocate was issued, the suit was filed in 1994.2. In the written statement, the defendant contended that the document relied on by the plaintiff is not admissible in evidence. He however admitted that he borrowed Rs. 21,000/- on 30.1.1998 and executed a document. Though the document showed 2% interest per month, the actual interest agreed was 71/2% per month. There was no payment of Rs. 10/- on 28.1.1991 and no endorsement was made as contended by the ...
Christ Nagar S.S. School Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT1124
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The very same point is raised in these two Writ Petitions. Therefore, they are heard and disposed of together.W.P.(C)No. 6584/042. The petitioner is the Manager of Christ Nagar Senior Secondary School, Thiruvallom, Thiruvananthapuram. This Writ Petition is filed by him, challenging Ext.P4 order passed by the 3rd respondent District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, on a complaint filed by the 4th respondent. The brief facts of the case as stated by the petitioner, are the following:-3. The petitioner is running a C.B.S.E. School at Thiruvananthapuram. A Parent-Teacher Well-wishers' Association is functioning in the school. The said Association decided to celebrate the jubilee year of the parent school of the petitioner's new school. In connection with that, it was decided to raise a fund for improving the functioning of the said old school. The decision was to collect Rs. 1,000/- from each student. Many of the parents gave the donation as desired by the Asso...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »