Kerala Court August 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.
HailIn Jacob Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-18-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT934
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.W.P.(C) No. 24161 of 20041. The petitioner is aphysically challenged person. She took the Entrance Examination for the Professional Degree Courses for the year 2004. Her rank in the Entrance Examination was 21352. She is a person suffering from 52% physical disability. So, she claimed reservation as aphysically challenged person, in the light of the relevant clauses contained in Ext. P 1 prospectus,. The total number of seats available for the M.B .B .S. Course in Government/Aided Colleges in the State is 700. According to the petitioner, she has been ranked as 33 among the physically handicapped persons. But, several persons ranked above her, were found not suitable for admission to the M.B.B.S. Course, by the Committee of Medical Experts, constituted for evaluating the disability. Therefore, her rank has come upto 17. Section 39 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred t...
Sudheer Vs. K.S.R.T.C.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-18-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT217
Kurian Joseph, J.1. After the amendment to Rule 18 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) by introducing a second proviso to the Rule, is the dismissal/removal from service of a Government servant. who is convicted on a criminal charge by a criminal court and sentenced to imprisonment and or with fine is automatic is the question to be decided in these cases.2. The petitioner in the former case Sudheer, an employee under the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, was convicted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Attingal on 1.10.2003 in C.C.340/1999 for an offence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for another six months. Petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.477/2003 before the Sessions Court, Trivandrum. By order dated 28.10.2003 in Crl.M.P.No.2...
Sarada Vs. Pradeep Kumar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-18-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT1019
P.R. Raman, J.1. Appellant in the Writ Appeal is the 1st respondent in O.P. No. 1088/2000. The 1st respondent herein filed an Original Petition seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the Assistant Educational Officer, the 2nd respondent in the Original Petition to direct the Manager, the appellant in the Writ Appeal to give appointment to the petitioner under dying in harness scheme as provided under Chap. XIVA Rule 5 IB of the Kerala Education Rules, (hereinafter referred to as 'the K.E.R.') and also for restraining the A.E.O. from approving the appointment of any other person as Peon in Olavilam U.P. School before appointing the petitioner.2. Petitioner is the son of one K.K. Kumaran who was an Assistant Teacher of Olavilam U.P. School. The said Kumaran died on 15.7.1975 while he was in service leaving behind his wife Leela and 3 children, namely, Pradeep Kumar (petitioner herein), Dinesh Kumar and Manoj Kumar. The claim of the petitioner is that since his father died while he was in ...
Balachandran Pillai and ors. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-18-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1480
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. Accused 1 to 4 and 6 to 10 in S. C. No. 259/1995 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kollam are the appellants. The first accused is faced with conviction for the offence punishable under Sections 304 Part-I, 148, 448 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. The other accused are faced with conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 448 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. Altogether there were 13 accused. The rest were acquitted.2. The prosecution case was that all the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly at about 7.30 p. m. on 20-3-1993 in a public road near the shop of one Thomas, the deceased in this case, committed rioting and inflicted injuries on PWs. 1 to 4 and the deceased. First accused threw an acid bulb on PW. 1 and the said Thomas sustained burn injuries out of that. Accused 1, 2 and 3 had trespassed into the shop of PW. 3 and accused 13 committed an assault on him causing injury on left arm, back and shoulder. The 1...
Thomas Vs. the Regional Transport Authority
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-17-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT595
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The petitioner was having a regular permit on the route Mukkom-Punnakal-Kodenchery, granted in respect of his vehicle, KL-10/7884. He submitted an application for variation of the permit, by granting extension of one trip from Kodenchery to Chempukadavu. The said application for variation was rejected by the R.T.A. Kozhikode, at its meeting held on 7.8.2002. He moved the S.T.A.T. by filing M.V.A.A. No. 592/02. The said appeal was allowed, by Ext.P2 judgment, directing the R.T.A. to grant the variation, as prayed for. The R.T.A considered the matter and rejected it again, by Ext.P3. This Writ Petition is filed challenging Ext.P3.2. I heard the learned Government Pleader for the respondents also. Ext.P1 is the decision of the R.T.A dated 7.8.2002 rejecting the application for variation of the permit. The said decision reads as follows:'Heard. The variation of permit will adversely affect the travelling public and the present route. Rejected.' The said decision ...
State of Kerala Vs. Joseph
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-16-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT907
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the Superintendent of Central Excise and Customs, Headquarters Preventive Unit, Kochi against the order of acquittal of the respondents in a case charged for offences punishable Under Sections 20(b)(ii), 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act'). This appeal is seen preferred by the Senior Central Government Standing Counsel.2. It is not pointed out to me that Senior Central Government Standing Counsel is appointed as a Public Prosecutor by the Central Government in terms of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The memorandum of appeal discloses that it is filed in terms of Sub-section(3) of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even then, the Central agency investigating a case for an offence under the Central Act has to empower the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal. Therefore, this appeal against the order of acquittal itself is without authority.3. The Session...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. John
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-16-2004
Reported in: III(2005)ACC43; 2005ACJ782; AIR2005Ker22; 2004(3)KLT334
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the United India Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter called the Insurance Company) against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in O.P. 10095/02 directing them to renew a Mediclaim Insurance Policy with effect from 27.11.2001 for a period of one year at the rate of Rs. 880/- per annum. Learned Single Judge also gave a direction that any claim which might have arisen by virtue of the retrospective renewal should be processed by the Insurance Company in accordance with the terms of the policy and if the claim is found to be legitimate, the Insurance Company should disburse the medical expenses payable to the petitioner without delay.2. Writ Petitioner and his wife had taken a Mediclaim Insurance Policy from the Insurance Company with effect from 27.11.1998 to 26.11.1999. The sum insured was Rs. 25,000/- each with a total annual premium of Rs. 880/-. The policy was renewed from 27.11.99 to 26.11.2000 and from 27.11.200016 26.1...
Mundakkayam Sadasivan and anr. Vs. Greater CochIn Development Authorit ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-16-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Ker14; 2005(2)CTLJ103(Ker)
ORDERTenders were invited for allotment of Plot No. 2 at C.M.D.S. having an area of 59.285 cents and M/s. Excel Properties vide their application 1st cited have offered an amount of Rs. 8,01,000/- per cent.The Executive Committee of the Authority in its meeting held on 4-10-2002 have resolved to allot the above said plot No. 2 adjacent to the Taj Hotel at CMOS vide referenced 2nd cited subject to the following conditions.1) 50% of the total cost of the land should be remitted as 1st instalment and the balance amount shall be remitted in 6 equal bimonthly instalments together with 15% interest.2) The land shall be handed over to the allottee only after the remittance of the entire cost.3) The construction should be made as per the control drawings issued by GCDA with the following modifications.The 4 floors in the lower level can be used for commercial purpose. Only one basement floor shall be provided instead of two. The remaining floors can be used for residential purpose with 3-4 fla...
Noble T. Francis Vs. Seleena Jos
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-16-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD(Cri)36; III(2005)BC477; 2005CriLJ993
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The prosecution initiated by the appellant/complainant against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ended in acquittal. Therefore, this appeal.2. According to the complaint, for the amount borrowed from the complainant, the accused issued a cheque, Ext. P1, drawn on 18-6-1997. It was presented to the bankers on the next day. By Ext. P2 it was dishonoured on the ground that the funds were insufficient. On 20-6-1997 Ext. P3 notice was issued. Though it was accepted on 26-6-1997 by the accused, the accused did not either repay the amount or send a reply. Accordingly, the complaint was filed on 7-8-1997.3. The Court below found that the complainant had, through his own evidence and Ext.P1, proved the issuance of the cheque for an amount of Rs. 80,000/- towards the loan availed of by the accused. In spite of that, the Court below found that necessary ingredients of the offence alleged had not been made out and ...
Karunakaran Vs. High Court of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-13-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT110
N.K. Sodhi, C.J.1. One P.S. Karunakaran is the applicant before us who has filed this application under Rule 152 of the High Court Rules with a prayer that he be impleaded as an additional respondent in Writ Appeal No. 1497 of 2004. This Writ Appeal came up for hearing before us yesterday and the same was admitted to hearing. The dispute in the Writ Appeal pertains to the selection of Munsiff-Magistrates for the six vacancies meant for reserved category candidates against which candidates from the open category had been selected. It is stated in the application that the judgment under appeal affects a large number of members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Kerala whom the applicant claims to represent. He also claims to represent a Trust registered under T.C. Act 21 of 1955 which is said to be committed to the welfare of the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It is further averred that the Trust considers it necessary to put forward its p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »