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.
CochIn Shipyard Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-02-2005
Reported in: [2005(106)FLR123]; 2005(2)KLT760; (2005)IIILLJ46Ker
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The petitioner, which is a Public Sector Undertaking, is challenging Ext.Pl award of the 1st respondent Industrial Tribunal. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are the following:--2. A workman, named Mr. N.K. Ibrahim, was employed by the petitioner as Machinist, in its shipyard at Cochin. He was caught by the security personnel, when he was trying to take out surreptitiously, 1.75 litres of oil, in the tool box of his scooter. He admitted his guilt, to the security personnel and gave a written statement to that effect. Thereafter, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and a charge sheet was issued to him. He submitted his explanation, denying the charges. Though, he earlier admitted the theft committed by him, he denied the same in his reply. An enquiry was held into the charges of misconduct and upon finding him guilty of the charges, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of dismissal from service, after following the due...
Kerala Streevedi Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-01-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2293; 2005(1)KLT743
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, C.J.After delivery of the judgment, Ms. Bhadra Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioner has sought for a certificate for appal to the Supreme Court under Art. 134A of the Constitution of India. We do not see any such substantial question of law requiring and adjudication by the Supreme Court. The oral plea is rejected....
Sreedharan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-01-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT108
ORDERM. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. Accused in C.C.809/99 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Taliparamba are the revision petitioners. Prosecution case against the petitioners was that on 10.6.97 at about 1.30 p.m. petitioners were proceeding in autorikshaw KL 13B 6492 from Taliparamba side and first petitioner was driving the autorikshaw and they were carrying a licenced gun as well as an unauthorised country gun when they were arrested and guns were seized by the Police. After obtaining the sanction from the District Collector, they were charge sheeted before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate framed charge for the offence under Section 12 read with Section 25(IB)(g) of Arms Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. They pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined 9 witnesses and marked six exhibits. Petitioners were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and arguments were heard. The learned Magistrate then found that the petitioners were not properly charged for ...
Ajith Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-01-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT814
M. Ramachandran, J.1. In paragraph 2 of the Original Petition, the petitioners have given the details of their engagement as Hatchery Workers under the Matsyafed--2nd respondent (hereinafter referred to as Federation), in their various Units. Excepting the 6th respondent, others have been served with notice and because of the presence of the second respondent, I do not think this position is to be treated as a defect so as to stall adjudication of the issue. The claim urged is one for regularisation of service.2. The contention is that after imparting six months training in Hatchery Operation by technicians, who had been specialised and brought even from abroad, the petitioners have been engaged for work in Hatcheries of the second respondent, in different locations. Statements indicate that the last of them was engaged on 20.4.1995 and rest of them had commenced service from earlier dates, in some cases, from February 1993 onwards. Mr. A.X. Varghese, counsel for the petitioners, submi...
Palliyat Mariyomma and ors. Vs. Palliyat Kidave and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-01-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Ker170
V. Ramkumar, J.1. The plaintiffs in O. S. 1 /84 on the file of the Sub Court, Lakshadweep are the appellants in this appeal. The said suit filed on 23-1-1984 and arising from Androth Island of Lakshadweep and was one for a declaration that Ext.B1 gift deed dated 3-8-1983 executed by Khadeesumma in respect of the plaint schedule properties which are tarwad properties (Velliazhcha) in favour of her children, defendants 1 to 6 is not binding on the plaintiffs or the Palliyath tarwad or the plaint schedule properties comprising of 6 items of immovable properties. The plaintiffs also prayed for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from further alienating the plaint schedule properties or changing their character or acting against the interests of the plaintiffs or the said tarwad.2. The case of the plaintiffs can be summarised as follows :-The plaintiffs are residing at Palliayath House bearing No. C3/73 in Androth Island. The plaint schedule properties are the Velliazhcha or t...
Mariyomma Vs. Kidave
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-01-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT654
V. Ramkumar, J.1. The plaintiffs in O.S.No. 1/84 on the file of the Sub Court, Lakshadweep are the appellants in this appeal. The said suit filed on 23.1.1984 and arising from Androth Island of Lakshadweep and was one for a declaration that Ext.B1 gift deed dated 3.8.1983 executed by Khadeesumma in respect of the plaint schedule properties which are tarwad properties (Velliazhcha) in favour of her children, defendants 1 to 6 is not binding on the plaintiffs or the Palliyath tarwad or the plaint schedule properties comprising of 6 items of immovable properties. The plaintiffs also prayed for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from further alienating the plaint schedule properties or changing their character or acting against the interests of the plaintiffs or the said tarwad.2. The case of the plaintiffs can be summarised as follows:-The plaintiffs are residing at Palliyath House bearing No. C3/73 in Androth Island. The plaint schedule properties are the Velliazhcha or ta...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›