Kerala Court March 2005 Judgments
Abdul Raffar Vs. Superintendent, Central Prison
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-29-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT426
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed to issue a direction to the respondents to grant 60 days special remission of sentence in lieu of wages as provided under Rule 384A of the Kerala Prison Rules, for the year 1997. The petitioner was found guilty, convicted and punished with simple imprisonment for two years by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur in C.C. No. 49/1991. The conviction and sentences were upheld by this Court as well as the Supreme Court. When the judgment of the Trial Court was confirmed by this Court, the petitioner surrendered and underwent the punishment at Central Prison, Viyyur from 6.3.1997 to 24.4.1997 as Convict No. 9900. He was released on bail with effect from 24.4.1997, consequent to the admission of the Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court. The Criminal Appeal filed by the petitioner before the Apex Court was also dismissed. The petitioner surrendered and is undergoing imprisonment from 3.1.2004 onwards.2. According to ...
Tag this Judgment!Usman Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-29-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT348
ORDERK. Hema, J.1. It is noticed that different criminal courts adopt different procedure in a proceedings under Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code' for short). Quite often, courts commence proceedings under Section 446 of the Code, even without being satisfied of the pre-requisites. Orders are seen passed which may not reflect the grounds of 'proof of satisfaction of the court that 'the bond has been forfeited'. Courts also do not advert to in the orders, anything regarding such 'proof, though recording of the grounds of 'proof of satisfaction is mandatory under the section.2. On the mere failure of accused in appearing in court either for a day or more, certain courts pass orders 'to forfeit' the bond under Section 446 of the Code, as though 'forfeiture' is an event to follow the court's order. In many cases, courts also order 'penalty', as if it is a punishment awarded by the court under Section 446 of the Code for breach of terms of bond. It is also noticed th...
Tag this Judgment!Vijayakumar Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT838
ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. The common petitioners in these petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seek to quash Annexure-I complaint in S.T. Case Nos. 8215 and 8213 of 2001 respectively.2. The facts leading to the filing of these petitions can be summarised as follows:On 7.3.2001 the 2nd respondent herein who is an inspector functioning under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition), Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CLRA Act' for short) inspected the Calicut Airport under the Airports Authority of India of which the petitioners are the principal employers and observed that more than 20 workers were employed by the contractor and noted the following irregularities:--i. The principal employer failed to amend the registration certification even though there were changes regarding the contractors working under him and this amounted to breach of Rule 29 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short).ii....
Tag this Judgment!Thomas Vs. Saidalavi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT724
K.R. Udayabhanu, J.1. Whether an appeal from the judgment of the Munsiff would lie straight away to the High Court bypassing the Court of the District Judge is the problem paused in the Writ Petition. The writ petitioners/appellants have roundly flayed the decision arrived at by the District Judge holding that it would not only as a trifle misleading but also as absolutely unsound. The District Judge, after detailed probing and deciphering of the issue that came up, ordered to return the appeal memorandum filed over the decision of the Munsiff, for presentation before the High Court direct.2. The course of sequence of the events in the matter is as follows: The original suit, i.e., O.S.No. 49/1982 for the relief of perpetual injunction with respect to the plaint schedule property was instituted in the Munsiff s Court on 3.3.1982 with valuation shown as Rs. 150/-. Subsequently alleging trespass effected, application for amendment in order to insert the prayer for recovery of possession ...
Tag this Judgment!Fr. Paul Chakiath Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT182
K.S. Radhakrishnan, Ag. C.J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment in O.P. No. 8760 of 2003. Original Petition was filed seeking a declaration that the entire land acquisition proceedings in pursuance of Ext.P1 to P5 have lapsed under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act as the award has not yet been passed even after the expiry of 2 years after the declaration under Section 6. Alternatively a Writ of mandamus was also prayed for directing second respondent to pass the awards in respect of acquisition proceedings in pursuance of Ext.P1 notification and Exts.P4 and P5 notices under Section 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act. Learned Single Judge did not grant the prayers. Aggrieved by the same this appeal has been preferred.2. Senior counsel appearing for the appellant Sri.M.C. Sen submitted that the land acquisition proceedings in pursuance to Exts.P1 and P2 have lapsed under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act on the ground that award has not been passed even after the expiry ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Mariyamma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-23-2005
Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Ker)361; [2006]280ITR225(Ker); 2005(2)KLT587
ORDERK. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. This Court by order dated 26.11.2004 disposed of the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the impugned order and remanding the execution proceedings to the executing Court for fresh consideration. The decision is reported in State of Kerala v. Mariamma : 2005(1)KLT173 . The matter arose from an order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in execution of an award passed in L.A.R. No. 120 of 1993 of that Court. This Court considered the principles to be followed while calculating the amounts due to a decree holder in a Land Acquisition Case, the obligation on the Land Acquisition Officer to deduct income tax from the amounts to be deposited, the method of calculating the interest awardable under different heads and also the principles to be followed while adjusting the part payments effected by the judgment debtor.2. After the pronouncement of the order, it was noticed that this Court committed an error in calculating the amount due to the...
Tag this Judgment!Hamsa Vs. Food Inspector
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-23-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT998
ORDERK. Thankappan, J.1. The only question to be decided in this Criminal Revision Petition is whether or not the petitioner is entitled for the benefit guaranteed under Section 19(2) of the Prevention of Adulteration Act.2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:- On 10.11.1989 at about 12 noon P.W.2--Food Inspector inspected the shop of the petitioner and after giving Form VI notice, he purchased 12 packets of chilly powder each containing 50 grams. The articles purchased were sampled into three packets and after complying with the legal formalities one sample packet was sent to the Public Analyst, Calicut for analysis and two other sample packets were handed over to the Local Health Authority. In Ext.P13 report the Public Analyst reported that the article contained non-permitted coaltar dye orange II and was adulterated. Accordingly, P.W.2-the Food Inspector filed a complaint against the petitioner as well as the 2nd accused, the manufacturer of the chilly powder, be...
Tag this Judgment!Thampi Vs. Malathi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-23-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT575
Plus C. Kuriakose, J.1. This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been instituted by the second defendant in O.S.No. 289 of 1998 on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Mavelikkara seeking to set aside Ext.P2 common order passed by the learned Munsiff on the original side, Ext.P3 execution petition and various orders passed on that petition including Ext.P5 order directing the arrest and detention of the petitioner and others and Ext.P8 order attaching the properties of the petitioner and others on the reason that the first respondent who is the plaintiff in the suit has abused the process of court in a manner as to cause serious prejudice and injustice to the petitioner.2. The facts, according to the petitioner are that the first respondent filed the suit for settlement of accounts between him and the defendants and also for a direction to the defendants to issue a certificate cancelling the hypothecation noted in the Registration Book of the plaint schedule v...
Tag this Judgment!Michael Vs. Paramara Group Devaswom
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-23-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT979
ORDERR. Bhaskaran, J.1. All these Rent Control Revisions are filed by the same tenant. He was the respondent in R.C.P,No. 23/2001 and R.C.P.No. 24/2001 on the file of the Additional Munsiff and Rent Control Court, Ernakulam. In R.C.P.No. 123 of 2001 he was not a party. The petitions under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act were filed by the Pararnara Group Devaswom represented by its Administrator.2. R.C.P.No. 23/2001 was filed under Sections 1(3), 11 (4) (ii) and 11 (7) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The contentions of the landlord in the Rent Control Petition were as follows:3. The petitioner is a religious institution. The building bearing No. 41/2260 owned by the petitioner was let out to the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 150 in the year 1979. The petitioner obtained title to the property as per final decree in O.S. 134/ 70 and O.S. 28/74 on the file of the Sub Court, Emakulam. Though the building let out to the respondent was having a ca...
Tag this Judgment!Manager, N.S.S. Karayogam U.P. School Vs. Soumya Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-22-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT867
J.B. Koshy, J.1. The petitioner (appellant in W.A.No. 1989 of 2004) claimed appointment as a teacher in the school of the first respondent (appellant in W.A.No. 1169 of 2004) under Rule 51B of Chapter XIVA of Kerala Education Rules (for short, 'KER'). Rule 51B provides as follows:'51B. The Manager shall give employment to a dependent of an aided school teacher dying in harness. Government orders relating to employment assistance to the dependents of Government servants dying in harness shall mutatis mutandis, apply in the matter of such appointments'.Her father while working as a teacher in the first respondent school died on 28.6.2000. A vacancy of teacher arose on 31.3.2004. Petitioner was fully qualified and entitled to apply invoking Rule 51B and she applied in time. Appointments in the schools are made after mid-summer vacation from the starting of new academic year. But, instead of appointing the petitioner, first respondent manager appointed additional third respondent with effe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »