Kerala Court October 2005 Judgments
Sudheer Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-31-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT309
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Accused five in number were charge sheeted for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 201 and 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. Accused 2 and 5 were absconding. Case against them was split up and accused 1, 3 and 4 faced trial and they were found guilty and they were convicted and sentenced with imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. They were also sentenced to undergo rigorous impiisonment for three months under Section 143 read with 149 I.P.C, rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 147 read with 149 I.P.C, rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 148 read with 149 I.P.C, rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 323 read with 149 and rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 201 read with 149 I.P.C. The sentence was ordered to run concurrently. They were also given the right of set off in case of commutation of the sentence of life imprisonment. PW1 gave first information report. ...
Tag this Judgment!Ayyappan Alias Appu Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-31-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ661
J.B. Koshy, J.1. A husband and wife were charge sheeted for the murder of Kunjan the brother of first accused under Sections 302 and 323 read with Section 34, IPC. First accused husband was found guilty for the offence under Section 302, IPC. Second accused, his wife was acquitted of all charges. First accused filed this appeal. Prosecution case was that accused 1 and 2 along with children and father of first accused were residing in the 'tharawad house at Aayappara, Kottappady Panchayat. Father of A1 was bed ridden on account of paralysis.The first accused along with his wife and two children was residing in a building about 20 feet away from the 'tharawad house' in the same compound. Al and A2 left the tharawad and shifted their residence to a nearby rented house. Therefore, father was taken to the residence of the deceased son which was nearby. Since the father was taken to his house, 'tharawad' was locked. On 27-1-1997 the deceased came to his house in the evening after work as usu...
Tag this Judgment!ibrahim Kannu Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT1034
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Removal of a government servant from service on the ground of conviction for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act be not sustained for the reason that it is not an offence involving moral turpitude is the question that has been referred to us for consideration.2. Learned Judge referred this case expressing some doubts with regard to the correctness or otherwise of the reasoning of another learned Judge of this Court in OP.No. 10336 of 2002. Petitioner in this case challenges Ext.P3 order of dismissal dated 13-12-2004 placing reliance on the judgment in OP.10336 of 2002. Learned single Judge felt that there cannot be a blanket declaration of law that the disciplinary authority shall not impose the penalty of dismissal or removal from service or any other major penalty on the sole ground that the conviction was for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned single Judge pointed out neith...
Tag this Judgment!Sameer, P.K. Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-28-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Ker164
ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. The petitioner is the husband of the 2nd respondent herein. O.P. No. 286/2005 is filed by the 2nd respondent herein before the Family Court, Kozhikode, seeking dissolution of her marriage with the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is an NRI working at Dubai and that even though he has despatched through post Ext.P5 counter wherein he has also sought for a counter relief of restitution of conjugal rights, the Family Court is insisting on his personal appearance before that Court. He has entered appearance through counsel initially and thereafter in person before the Family Court, but he had to return to Gulf due to his occupational compulsions. It is the case of the petitioner that he submitted the counter to O.P. No. 286/05 filed by the 2nd respondent and the counter relief therein by sending the same through post from Dubai. He has further alleged that the Judge of the Family Court does not comply with Rule 5(3) and inform the petitioner abo...
Tag this Judgment!Narayanan Nambudiri Vs. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-27-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Ker97; [2006]129CompCas793(Ker); 2005(4)KLT754
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Whether formation of opinion by the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants under Section 21 read with Regulation 12(11)(i) is a condition precedent to confer jurisdiction on the disciplinary authority to conduct an enquiry on professional or other misconduct is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.2. Petitioner is a Chartered Accountant by profession practising for the last quarter of a century. He was the Central Statutory Auditor of the Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. for the year ended on 31st March 1994 and he had audited the profit and loss account for the year ended on 31-3-1994. Audit work was carried out very systematically with the assistance of experienced staff and was conducted as per the audit programme which was prepared taking into consideration the system of internal control deployed by the bank. While conducting the audit work of the bank a clerical error occurred in the calculation of interest received. A sum of Rs...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. George Jacob
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-27-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Ker111; 2005(4)KLT709
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. The above Writ Appeals are filed by the State and the two Writ Petitions are filed by an individual and an institution who seek to get their sale deed registered with the appropriate Sub Registrar's Office. The issue involved in these cases relate to payment of stamp duty in respect of sale deeds. Since the issue raised in all these cases are the same, they are being disposed of by a common judgment. The short facts required for the disposal of these cases are as follows.2. By Finance Act, 2005 (Act 10 of 2005), with effect from 1-4-2005, the Legislature amended the schedule to the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 enhancing the stamp duty payable on conveyance deeds. Petitioners in the Writ Petitions from which these writ appeals arise and the petitioners in the above two Writ Petitions are stated to be persons who got sale deeds executed prior to 1-4-2005 and presented the same for registration before the appropriate Sub Registrars' Office. However, the sale deeds bore stamp...
Tag this Judgment!Gopalakrishnan Vs. Director of Public Instruction
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-27-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT774
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Question that is posed for consideration in these cases is whether B.Ed, is an equivalent training qualification for appointment for the post of Headmaster of an L.P. School under Rule 45-A of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules.2. A Division Bench of this Court in Thulasibhai Amma v. Asst. Educational Officer, 1993 (2) KLT 245 held as follows:'A reading of the second part of Rule 45 A would show that not only a TTC issued by the Board of Public Examination is a requirement, but also 'any other equivalent training qualification prescribed for appointment as Primary School Assistant'.The Bench we may say with due respect had failed to consider what was the equivalent training qualification for appointment to the post of Primary School Assistant. The Bench proceeded as if B.Ed, is an equivalent qualification for the post of Primary School Assistant. The Bench in fact quoted with approval the decision of a learned single Judge in Mathew v. State of Kerala,...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala State Electricity Board and anr. Vs. P.C. Mathukutty and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-27-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Ker165
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The Kerala Financial Corporation, hereinafter called 'the KFC' had taken over the firm, M/s. Sakthi Electrical Industries Private Limited, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 29(1) of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. Later in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 29(2) of the Act, KFC has executed sale deed No. 859 of 2003 of the Sub Registry Office, Vennikulam in favour of the petitioners after inviting tenders and accepting the highest offer made by the petitioners. Ext. P1 is the sale deed executed which contains the following clause.Electricity dues and other statutory dues if any shall be paid by the purchaser.2. Petitioners after purchasing the industrial unit started a new unit under the name and style 'M/s. A.M. Cartons'. The Board examined the petitioners' application and sent reply dated 7-1-2004 informing them that power to the extent of 33 K.W. could be allotted to the petitioners on condition that the petitioners w...
Tag this Judgment!Moosa Vs. Jomon Puthanpurackkal
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-26-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT685
ORDERM. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. First respondent filed a complaint before Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode alleging that the five accused shown therein committed offences under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption of Act, 1988 (for short PC. Act). First accused was the then Minister for Education and second accused, the then Principal Secretary, Education Department, State of Kerala: 5th accused was an Ex-MLA and accused 3 and 4 are leaders of Indian Union Muslim League, one of the ruling political parties in Kerala. Petitioners in Crl.R.P. 1215705 were the original accused 3 and 4 who are now arrayed as accused 1 and 2. Revision petitioner in Crl.R.P.1135/05 is the 5th accused who is now arrayed as third accused. They are challenging the order of Enquiry Commissioner for Special Judge, dated 14.2.05 whereunder charge for the offence under Section 9 of the Act read with Section 34 of IPC was framed against accused 1 to 3. The learned Special J...
Tag this Judgment!Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-25-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT1026
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J.1. In all these applications, the prayer is that refund order as directed in the judgment of this Court while remanding the case, should be issued in the name of the party/ appellant and not in the name of the counsel for the appellant. Chapter VII of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 deals with refunds and remissions. Section 67 relates to refund in cases of remand. The section says that the court fee should be refunded to the appellant. Section 66 provides for refund of court fee to plaintiff or appellant. Section 68 directs payment of court fee to the applicant. Section 69 allows refund of court fees to the party by whom the same have been paid.2. In the above circumstances, not only in these cases, but, hereafter, the Registry should see that when court fee is to be refunded, refund orders should be issued in the name of the party (appellant/plaintiff) who paid the court fee and not in the name of the counsel for the appellant unless otherwise o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »