Kerala Court April 2005 Judgments
Boban Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-29-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2801; 2005(2)KLT831
ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. B.A. No. 2593 of 2005 is filed by the first accused while B.A. No.2670 of 2005 is filed by the third accused in O.R.No.33/04-05 of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Cochin. These bail applications are filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The first accused, C.K. Boban was arrested on 18.3.2005. The third accused, K.T. Charly was arrested on 1.4.2005. The first accused moved an application for bail before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offence), Ernakulam unsuccessfully. He also field a bail application before the Court of the Sessions Judge (Vacation Court), Ernakulam which was also dismissed. The third accused moved for bail before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offence), Ernakulam, which was dismissed.2. There are four accused persons in the case. The petitioners in the bail applications under consideration are accused Nos. 1 and 3. The second accused, Ajish is an emplo...
Tag this Judgment!Shaji Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-26-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT303
ORDERA.K. Basheer, J.1. Is it mandatory that the accused should be invariably present in Court to answer the questions put to him under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code')? The above question has been answered in the negative by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Basavaraj R. Patil and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., AIR 2000 SC 3214.2. But the same question has cropped up in this case since, the learned Magistrate took the view that the accused could be allowed to answer the questions of the Court without being physically present, only if he was already exempted from personal attendance in the Court. Is this view correct? Is it in accord with the dictum laid down in Basavaraj's case3. The petitioner is being tried before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mannarkkad for offences punishable under Sections 324 and 447 I.P.C. He is presently employed in Jeddah in Saudi Arabia. He had left the country for Jeddah during the pendency of the ab...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rahman Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-26-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT250
A.K. Basheer, J.1. These two Writ Petitions are filed by a former Headmaster of an aided Upper Primary School. Since the issues involved in the two cases are closely interconnected, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Relevant facts may be briefly noticed.3. The petitioner was placed under suspension by the Manager with effect from August 15, 2002 on certain allegations of misconduct, irregularities in implementing the Noon Feeding Scheme etc.4. After the enquiry conducted by the Assistant Educational Officer under Rule 75 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules, the Manager had proposed to dismiss the petitioner from service. However the District Educational Officer, Palakkad took the view that the proposed punishment was disproportionately high. Thereafter the Manager had passed an order (Ext.P-2) reverting the petitioner from the post of Headmaster to that of lower grade full time Arabic Teacher. Though the above order was challenged by the petitioner before...
Tag this Judgment!Marykutty George Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-12-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT515
P.R. Raman, J.1. The above Writ Petitions raises common question of law and fact and hence they are disposed of by this common judgment.2. Petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos. 4354, 6582, 8413, 6562, 6731 and 9026/2005 are all licensees of shop rooms in the shopping complex owned by Pandalam Grama Panchayat - the second respondent in W.P.(C) No. 4354/2005. Since the petitioners are all similarly situated persons and the facts being common, it will be sufficient to refer to the facts stated in W.P.(C) No. 4354/2005.3. Petitioners as stated earlier, are licensees in occupation of the stalls belonging to the second respondent Pandalam Grama Panchayat. The first petitioner in O.P.No. 4354/2005 was thus in occupation of stall No. 1 since 1967, doing textile business and the 2nd petitioner was in occupation of stall Nos. 2 and 9 for the past 34 years and he was doing bakery business in the said stall. Third petitioner who was occupying stall No. 14, was doing business in ladies shopping centre. The t...
Tag this Judgment!George Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-08-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT717
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Petitioners are operators of stage carriages as defined in Section 2(40) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act').2. These Writ Petitions are filed challenging the validity of Rule 289 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, published as per S.R.O.No. 1286/1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').3. Rule 289 of the Rules, hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned rule', reads as follows:'289. Prohibition of audio-visual or radio or tape recorder type of devices:-- No public service vehicle other than a contract carriage shall be installed with any audio-visual devices.'4. O.P.No. 10181/2003 was filed in view of the check report issued by the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Kothamangalam stating that the stage carriage KL-17-4506, when stopped and checked, was found fitted with T.V. and stereo and hence, there is violation of Rule 289 of the Rules. The other Writ Petitions are filed anticipating action for violating the said rule. I...
Tag this Judgment!M. Far Hotels Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-08-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT988
K.S. Radhakrishnan, Ag. C.J.1. Possession is nine points of the law is a precept. Every claimant must succeed by strength of his own title not be weakness of his antagonists. Rightful owner cannot use force to put the person in possession out, but appeal to law; lest it may encourage lawlessness in the society.2. Writ petitioners are aggrieved by an order G.O.(P) No. 302/2004/RD dated 25.9.2004 issued by the Government of Kerala directing the District Collector to repossess from the writ petitioners the Kovalam Palace and the land appurtenant thereto measuring 4.13.30 hectares in Vizhinjam Village. The order was served on the first petitioner at 6.45. p.m. on 25.9.2004 (Saturday) directing the petitioner to deliver possession by 10 a.m. on (Monday) 27th September, 2004. Petitioners then filed W.P.(C) No. 28270 of 2004 on 27.9.2004 itself and highlighted the urgency of the matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice and got the matter posted on 28.9.2004. On a request made by the State the ...
Tag this Judgment!Suma Devi Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-08-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT870; [2005]142STC170(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, Ag. C.J.1. Constitutional validity of the amendments effected to Section 7(1)(b) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 by Sections 1 and 6(c) of the Kerala Finance Act, 2001 (Act 7 of 2001) is under challenge in these cases. Writ petitioners are aggrieved by the introduction of Section 7(1)(c) explanation reckoning primary crushers also for the purpose of computation of quantifying the compounded tax. Petitioners submit that Sections 1 and 6(c) of the Kerala Finance Act, 2001 (Act 7 of 2001) is unconstitutional and violative of Article 265 of the Constitution of India and the unreasonable levy of compound tax on the persons engaging in metal crusher operations is contrary to Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Further they contend that the retrospective operation of the amended provisions effective from 23.7.2001 as per Section 1 of the Finance Act, 2001 is a colourable exercise of power. They also contend that the enhancement of compounded ra...
Tag this Judgment!Bindu Vs. Commissioner of Entrance Examination
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-08-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Ker215; 2005(3)KLT842
K.S. Radhakrishnan, Ag. C.J.1. The question that is posed for consideration in these cases is whether an applicant who belongs to SC/ST community would loose admission due to the omission to mention the caste's name in the community certificate issued by the Tahsildar which is regulated by the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificate Act, 1996.2. Director of Ayurveda Medical Education invited applications for the Postgraduate degree course in various specialities in Ayurveda for the year 2004-2005. Selection of candidates and allotment to various specialities are made from the list published by the Commissioner for Entrance Examination conducted on all India basis. Out of 77 seats as per the prospectus, seven seats are reserved for Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe candidates subject to maximum one seat in a subject. Out of the seven seats reserved for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe from the State of Kerala six seats are reserved for S...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Coca-cola Beverages (P) Ltd. Vs. Perumatty Grama Panchayat
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-07-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT554
M.Ramachandran, J.1. W.A.No. 2125 of 2003 and W.A.No. 215 of 2004 arise from the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 34292 of 2003 dated 16.12.2003 (Reported in 2004 (1) KLT 731). The Writ Petition had been filed by a local authority (Perumatty Grama Panchayat) challenging Ext.P6 order passed by the Government. The above said order came to be passed on an adjudication, as directed by this Court at an earlier round of the proceedings. This had arisen, when the Panchayat refused to renew a licence, which had been earlier issued, facilitating an industrial establishment to manufacture branded items of beverages.2. The Writ Petition had been disposed of with certain findings, observations and directions, the details of which could be stated later. The second respondent to the proceedings is a limited company--Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'). Challenging such of those observations, which were likely to have hindered their normal manufacturing and...
Tag this Judgment!Balamani Vs. Tahsildar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-07-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Ker208; 2005(2)KLT746
K.T. Sankaran, J.1. The petitioner submitted an application on 22.4.2002 for being selected as the Stamp Vendor licensee in 'Peruvanna City' in Kozhikode Taluk, on the basis of Ext.R3(a) notification dated 4.4.2002, issued by the Additional Tahsildar, Kozhikode. The petitioner was called for an interview on 1.1.2003 as per Ext.P2 notice dated 5.12.2002. The petitioner appeared for the interview. The Original Petition is filed alleging that the third respondent was selected on extraneous considerations. The petitioner states that as per Ext.P1 application form, previous experience as a Stamp Vendor is a relevant criterion for selection. The petitioner had worked as Stamp Vendor at Pantheerankavu for a total period of two years, when the Stamp Vendor at Pantheerankavu was on leave. Ext.P3 issued by the Tahsildar, Kozhikode shows that the petitioner was allowed to work in the leave vacancy from 5.5.1994 to 4.11.1994. The petitioner was again appointed in the leave vacancy from 5.11.1994 t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »