Kerala Court November 2005 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.
Vijayabhanu Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-22-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT140
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Rule 6(26) of the Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules 1974 whether could be used as a shield by the State when they are at fault is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.2. Petitioner was one of the joint bidders of toddy shop Nos. 1 to 90/2000-2001 90/2000-2001 of Chittur Range. They bid the shops for an annual rental of Rs. 2,33,01,000/- and the sale was confirmed in their favour. Thirty percent of the bid amount was deposited as security. The Asst. Excise Commissioner granted licence to them to vend toddy in 90 shops of Chittur Range for the year 2000-2001 and they started business from 1-4-2000 onwards. On 6-5-2000 the Excise Enforcement and Anti-Narcotic Special Squad of Thrissur and Excise Range party of Chittur had conducted a joint raid at the toddy depot granted in the name of the petitioner and other joint bidders and booked a case for possession of 26170 litres of toddy as against the permissible quantity of 12675 l...
Kamaladevi Vs. Gopalakrishnan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-22-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT315
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. The appellant is the manager of an aided U.P.School. She is challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in O.P. No. 35376/2000 reported in 2002 (2) KLT 502. The appellant was not a party to the said Original Petition. However, aggrieved by the general directions in the said judgment, which resulted in the educational authorities issuing consequential directions to the disadvantage of the appellant in the form of Annexures A3 to A5, the appellant has come up in appeal on obtaining leave of this court for the same. The facts necessary for disposal of the Writ Appeal are summarised hereunder.2. The Original Petition, which was disposed of along with a connected O.P. No. 4010/2002, the common judgment in which is impugned in this appeal was filed by the President of the Parent Teacher's Association of Government Girls High School, Kollam, the 1st respondent herein, complaining about the advertisement hoarding erected by the second respondent in the Original Pet...
Motty Philipose and anr. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-22-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2271
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. This appeal is by accused 1 and 2, a student and his father, in S. C. No. 128/91 on the file of the 5th Additional Special Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram. They stand convicted for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 465, 466, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years each under Sections 420, 466, 468 and 471 with a direction that the sentences shall run concurrently. No separate sentence was ordered under Sections 465 and 120-B IPC. They faced trial with two others for the offences mentioned above. The 3rd accused was acquitted. The 4th accused is no more and the charge against him abated.2. The prosecution case was that they, along with CW. 1, an accused turned approver, hatched a conspiracy in order to forge a mark list of the Pre Degree Examination held in March, 1977 in which the first accused had appeared and to make use of it to secure admission for M. B. B. S. Course in the merit quota f...
Krishnan Vs. Mohammed
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-21-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Ker135; 2006(1)KLT156
ORDERS. Sankarasubban, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order passed in I.A.No. 1557 of 1997 in I.A.No. 1522 of 1988 in O.S.No. 6 of 1978 of the Sub Court, Ottapalam. Plaintiffs are the petitioners. The plaintiffs filed the suit for partition of the plaint schedule property. Plaint Schedule property was described as property in Sy.No. 103/11 with kole measurement of 30 x 22. Four boundaries were also given.2. First defendant in this case executed Ext.B2 deed by which the property was sold to the third defendant. The contention of the plaintiffs was that the sale deed is valid only on the share of the father and it is invalid regarding the other sharers.3. A preliminary decree was passed by the trial court allotting 3/15 shares. The said decision was confirmed in appeal. In Second Appeal, this Court was pleased to grant 3/7 share to the plaintiffs. After the preliminary decree was confirmed, the petitioners filed an application for final decree. The commissioner me...
Priyesh Vasudevan Vs. Shameena
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-18-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT1003
K.T. Sankaran, J.1. The main question of law involved in this Writ Appeal is whether a posthumous child of a teacher in an aided School, who died in harness, is entitled to get appointment under the Compassionate Employment Scheme on his attaining majority.2. Vasudevan, the father of the appellant, was a Sanskrit teacher in Punnur Cherupalam Aided Upper Primary School in Kozhikode District. Vasudevan died on 10.4.1980 while in service. Appellant, the child in the womb was born on 11.12.1980. He submitted an application for compassionate appointment under the Compassionate Employment Scheme as per G.O.(P)12/99/P&ARD; dated 24.5.1999, which was made applicable to teachers of aided schools under Rule 51B of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules. The application was made on 29.11.2000, within two years of his attaining majority. The appellant had the requisite qualification for appointment. The Manager of the School in Ext.P2 letter dated 10.1.2001, stated that the appellant is not el...
K.C. Den and Co. Vs. P.P. Mathai and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-18-2005
Reported in: II(2006)BC36
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. In these writ appeals, we perceive an unusual situation whereby the appellants are to be defeated by the very same weapon they brandish against their opponent, who is the 1st respondent in both these appeals. The essential facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are summarised hereunder.2. Government of Kerala, Water Resources Development, Project Circle, Muvattupuzha, by notification dated 10.12.2003, invited tenders for two works. For convenience, we shall adopt the very same nomenclature adopted by the Department for describing these two contracts, namely, PQ-26 and PQ-27. The tender had two parts. Pre-qualification bid and price bid. Price bids of only those persons whose pre-qualification bids are accepted would be opened. The bone of contention in both these appeals is the eligibility of the 1st respondent for pre-qualification. As we would note later in this judgment different people understood this eligibility for pre-qualification in different way...
StalIn Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-18-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT493
A.K. Basheer, J.1. The short but important question that arises for consideration in this bunch of cases is whether the Kerala Public Service Commission is justified in refusing to advise candidates like the petitioners included in the rank list of Pharmacist (Homoeopathy) on the ground that they did not possess requisite qualification in terms of the amended special rules framed by the Government after commencement of the selection process. In other words, the question is: Are the amended rules regarding qualification, atleast vis-a-vis the appellant and petitioners, prospective or retrospective in their operation2. A brief reference to the essential facts is necessary to answer the above question. We will be referring to the relevant dates and documents available in Writ Petition No. 18087/2005.3. The Kerala Public Service Commission (for short, the Commission) issued Ext.P1 notification in the Kerala Gazette on October 27, 1998 inviting applications for appointment, to the post, of ...
Jomon Puthenpurackal Vs. Lok Ayukta
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-18-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT705
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. Petitioner in this original petition is the complainant in Complaint No. 804/2001 before the Kerala Lok Ayukta. He has filed this original petition challenging the order of the Lok Ayukta passed on 17-10-2001 in the said complaint. The facts leading to the original petition are as under.2. The complainant is a person who claims to be a public interested human rights activist. He filed the complaint before the Kerala Lok Ayukta alleging as follows.(i) The respondents in collusion with each other manipulated the Engineering and Medical entrance rank list of the State for the academic year.(ii) The first respondent (Minister for Education) with the mala fide intention to delete the name of a student from the rank list and then to insert in that place the name of a student who has not even appeared for the entrance examination collided with the second respondent (the then Entrance Commissioner) and committed the manipulation of the rank list.(iii) In the Mathrubhumi dai...
Federal Bank Limited Vs. Sri. John Thomas and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-18-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Ker86; II(2006)BC411; [2006]132CompCas855(Ker)
Siri Jagan, J.1. An interesting question regarding payment of Court fee on counter claims filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal during the interregnum between 17-1-2000, which is the date of introduction of Sub-section (8) in Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act'), allowing filing of counter claims by defendants and 21-1-2003, which is the date of amendment of Rule 7 of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 (for short 'the Rules') prescribing Court fee for application to counter claim arises in this case. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal which lie in a very narrow compass, are as follows.2. The appellant-Federal Bank filed O.A. No. 161/2002 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam for recovery of certain amounts due from the 1st respondent herein. On 22-7-2002, the 1st respondent filed a counter claim raising money claims against the Bank in accordance with Section 19(8) of the Ac...
State of Kerala Vs. Ponnamma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-17-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT987
M. Ramachandran, J.1. These Writ Appeals are filed by the respondents feeling aggrieved about the direction issued by the learned Single Judge, whereby the provisional service rendered by the petitioners in the Writ Petitions were directed to be reckoned for the purpose of increment. Consequential steps were to be taken within a specified time limit. The learned Single Judge in the later cases had followed an earlier decision rendered by him in Sobhana v. State of Kerala, : 2004(3)KLT131 .2. The petitioners had to their credit provisional service, and later on had been selected by the Kerala Public Service Commission for appointment to the self same categories viz., Staff Nurses, Public Health Nurses and Junior Health Inspectors. The common feature is that such provisional service had been rendered by them prior to 1.10.1994, and all of them had joined duty only after 1.10.1994. The above date has significance in that the Government decision under Rule 33 of Part I of the Kerala Servic...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »