Kerala Court February 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.
Abdul Nazar Vs. Mariam Beevi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-09-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT308
K. Thankappan, J.1. Writ Petition is filed by the plaintiff against the order passed in I.A. No. 3737/2004 in O.S. No. 576/2003 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. By the impugned order Ext.P-3, the Court below allowed the application filed by the respondents for accepting the written statement after setting aside the ex parte order passed against the respondents.2. The Suit itself was for recovery of an amount of Rs. 2,20,000/- with interest alleged to have been due from the defendants -- respondents. Now the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Ext.P-3 does not contain any reason for allowing the application for accepting the written statement after setting aside the ex parte order beyond the period prescribed under Order IX, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Further it is submitted that once the Court below had exercised the same jurisdiction and set aside an ex parte order passed against the respondents and in that circumstances, th...
Bhoovanachandran P.N. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-09-2005
Reported in: (2005)IIILLJ547Ker
K.M. Joseph, J.1. The petitioner challenges the imposition of the penalty of compulsory retirement from service. The said penalty was imposed when he was working as Deputy Tahsildar in the Revenue Department. The petitioner worked as Village Officer at Kanjirappally. The charge against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings was that while working as Village Officer, Kanjirappally during the year 1993, the petitioner by abusing his official position as a Government servant, demanded and accepted Rs. 1,000/- as illegal gratification from one Mr. T. S. Muhammed Basheer as a motive for sending a report recommending issue of a solvency certificate on his application, to the Tahsildar, Kanjirappally and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty. Petitioner was served with the said Charge with Statement of Allegations on July 2, 1997. A detailed enquiry was held by the Vigilance Wing under the Kerala Civil Service Vigilance Tribunal Rules, 1960.2. Before the T...
Ganesh Prasad Vs. Board of Revenue (Lr)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-08-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ3178; 2005(2)KLT645
K.M. Joseph, J.1. The petitioner's deceased father was a licensee under the Arms Act to possess a SBBL gun since 1956, for nearly thirty years. The petitioner claims that there was a partition in his family and he was allotted properties under the registered Partition Deed. It appears, on the death of his father, a brother of the petitioner, Shri Mahabaleshwara Bhat was possessing the said gun. Since the petitioner required the gun, he applied for a licence supported by a consent letter of his brother, but his brother subsequently withdrew his consent. The District Collector, called for a report, from the Revenue and the Police authorities. The Tahsildar recommended grant of licence in favour of the petitioner. However, the Superintendent of Police reported that there are lot of licensed weapons already and hence he did not recommend the application of the petitioner for licence. The District Collector rejected the petitioner's application. The rejection was confirmed in an appeal file...
Rosamma Vs. Director of Public Instruction
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-08-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT538
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This is an unfortunate case of a mite against the might.2. The petitioner is a lady Drawing Teacher. She reached this Court some time in 1992 instituting a Writ Petition which led to Ext.P1 judgment. It was found categorically by this Court in that judgment that the 4th respondent, the Manager of a corporate educational agency, is liable to pay the amounts due to the petitioner by way of salary from 16.6.1983 to 4.9.1992 after deducting whatever amounts she would have received by salary from the school. That judgment was rendered in two connected Writ Petitions. The Manager, the State and the petitioner were among the parties to those cases. It was contended by the Corporate Manager before the learned Judge at the hearing of the cases leading to Ext.P1 judgment that even if the petitioner had any claim by virtue of Rule 51A of Chapter XIV-A since she had not intimated the 4th respondent (the Corporate Manager) about her anxiety to join in the school, s...
George Vs. Oommen
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-07-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT92
ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. The tenant is the revision petitioner. Respondent/landlord filed R.C.P. No. 3 of 1997 before the Rent Control Court, Chengannur under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Control Act') against the petitioner herein. The Rent Control Court held that the bona fide need is not established. With regard to the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act, the Rent Control Court held against the tenant. The landlord filed R.C.A. No. 7 of 2000 before the Additional Rent Control Appellate Authority I, Mavelikkara, challenging the order of the Rent Control Court. The tenant filed a Memorandum of Cross Objection challenging the finding of the Rent Control Court that the tenant is not entitled to the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11 (3). The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and ordered eviction under Section 11 (3) of the Act. The Memorandum of Cross Objection filed by the te...
JolrIn Jose K. Vs. District Educational Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-07-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Ker231
ORDERThottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This writ petition is filed seeking to quash any decision to remove the petitioner from the polls of the School and for a direction to admit him in the class forthwith. A declaration that the action taken by the Headmistress of the school in removing the petitioner from the rolls of the school is illegal, is also sought for. The petitioner seeks a further declaration that he is entitled to continue in the school till the end of the academic year.2. The petitioner, stated to be 17 years old and represented by his father in this writ petition, was the student of the X standard of the Aided School of which the 2nd respondent is the Headmistress. The writ petition contains certain averments touching certain incidents in which the petitioner appears to be, at least, implicated.3. A statement was filed on behalf of the first respondent. Notice by special messenger was taken out to the Headmistress, the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent, Headmistress ha...
Annamma Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-07-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT254
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner and the 4th respondent scouted to this Court and before the Government and other statutory authorities, in relation to their rival claims for being appointed as H.S.S.T. (English) in the School of which the 3rd respondent is the Manager, as on 1.8.2000, the date on which, by Ext.P4, the petitioner was appointed to the said post.2. Leaving aside a ground of attack to the impugned Ext.P16 on the ground that the same has been issued through an officer who was not the one who heard the parties before the issuance of such order by the Government, I proceed to decide the issue regarding the merits of the rival claims since the same involves consideration and interpretation of certain decisions of the Apex Court, as also the Government Orders which are relevant as on the date of the occurrence of the vacancy to which the petitioner has been so appointed.3. By G.O.(MS) No. 162/98/G.Edn. dated 13.5.1998, the Government of Kerala came out with its...
Ramakrishnan Vs. Canara Bank
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-04-2005
Reported in: [2005(105)FLR623]; 2005(1)KLT899; (2005)IIILLJ145Ker
M. Ramachandran, J.1. The question that has been raised here is the legality and desirability of the disciplinary proceedings that have been initiated against the petitioners, consequent to the memorandum of charges that have been issued to them. The first petitioner is the Senior Manager of a Public Sector Bank (first respondent herein) and the second and third petitioners are respectively the Manager and Officer of the said Institution. The petitioners are now implicated in C.C. No. 10 of 2002 as accused 4 to 6, now pending before the C.B .I.-II Special Court, Ernakulam, along with certain others. The contention raised is that since charges have been laid and thus when the criminal proceedings are already in progress, disciplinary proceedings concerning the identical issues are likely to cause great prejudice to them. Their defence in the criminal case is likely to be exposed, which would be opposed to the principles of adversorial procedure. Counsel Sri. S.P. Chaly had appeared on b...
Raman Namboodiri Vs. Administrator
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-04-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT86
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. This Writ Petition raises an important question with regard to the appointment of Melsanthi in the Guruvayoor Temple. As per the notification of the Devaswom, the post of Melsanthi in the Temple is open only to Namboothiris residing in Sukapuram and Peruvanam and should have 'Agnihothram' or 'Bhattavrithi'. Age limit is between 35 and 65. Since the petitioner complied with all the qualifications mentioned in the notification, applied for the post. But his application was not considered on the ground that he was 'Parivethanakkaran'. According to the petitioner, the concept of 'Parivethanakkaran' has no relevance in the present day society. The term 'Parivethanakkaran' is defined in verse 171 of Chapter III of Manusmrithi as 'a younger brother who marries before his elder brother'. Among Brahmins the marriage of a younger brother before the marriage of the elder brother was considered to be a sin and among brothers only the elder one was supposed to marry. The purp...
Prasad Vs. R.T.A. Ernakulam
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-04-2005
Reported in: II(2005)ACC661; 2005(2)KLT227
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Advocate Sri. P. Gopalakrishna Menon takes notice on behalf of the 3rd respondent and the learned Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 1 and 2 in W.P.(C) No. 4006/2005. Hence, service is complete in these matters. They are taken up for final disposal on consent of parties.2. The order impugned in all these Writ Petitions is the same, that is, the decision of the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam on Item No. 149 of its meeting held on 26.10.2004 where by the 3rd respondent in all the above Writ Petitions (Smt. Leela) has been granted a variation of a regular permit already issued to her. She has a regular permit for her stage carriage to operate on the route Alwaye-Vaikom Bus Stand. She sought variation by avoiding the portion in that route from Chottanikkara to Vaikom and instead, wanted to operate from Alwaye to Tripunithura with one trip to Chottanikkara.3. The petitioners are indisputably the persons operating in the sector over whi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »