Kerala Court May 2005 Judgments
Dharmodayam Company Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-31-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Ker253; [2005]126CompCas586(Ker); 2005(3)KLT332
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Writ Petitioners challenge the constitutional validity of Sub-section 1(a) to Section 4 of the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975 introduced by the Kerala Finance Act, 2002 (Act 7 of 2002) with effect from 1.4.2002 as beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature and also prayed for a declaration that the same is unconstitutional, void and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus directing the Union of India to exercise its powers under Section 1(3) of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 (Central Act) to notify that Act within the State of Kerala. Learned Single Judge rejected the prayers of the writ petitioners and dismissed the Writ Petitions, against which these appeals have been preferred.2. Before examining the above mentioned prayers we may trace the history of both the legislations, Kerala Chitties Act, 1975 as well as the Chit Funds Act, 1982 and the provisions contained therein for...
Tag this Judgment!Sucheendran Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-31-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT499
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Appellant/petitioner was appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade II on 1.8.1987. The main relief sought in the Original Petition was for a direction to appoint the petitioner as Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade II and as Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade I with effect from the dates the third respondent was posted to those posts (19.10.1984 & 19.9.1989 respectively). It is an admitted case that while working out communal rotation, a mistake happened and at the place of third respondent, the petitioner ought to have been promoted. During the pendency of the Original Petition, the petitioner retired from service on 28.2.2002. By Ext.P10 dated 8.5.2002, he was allowed notional effect to his appointment as Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade II with effect from 19.10.1984 and as Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade I with effect from 19.9.1989. However, he was not given the backwages, but only notional benefits with retrospective date of appointment as well as retrospec...
Tag this Judgment!Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-27-2005
Reported in: [2005(106)FLR880]; 2005(3)KLT96; (2005)IIILLJ271Ker
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Original Petition was filed by the appellant herein challenging Ext.P7 award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No. 18 of 1993. Industrial Tribunal though held that the enquiry was conducted fully incompliance with the principles of natural justice and that the findings of the enquiry officer were proper and valid and supported by legal evidence, took the view that punishment imposed on the workman is disproportionate with the gravity of the charges levelled against her and hence ordered reinstatement with continuity of service and all other benefits but withholding full wages for a period of one year. Learned Single Judge found no infirmity in the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal and dismissed the Writ Petition against which this Writ Appeal has been preferred.2. Sri.Antony Dominic, counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Industrial Tribunal was not justified in interfering with the punishment imposed on the delinquent workman after...
Tag this Judgment!Philip Thomas Vs. Secretary to Government
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-27-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT299
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. W.P.(C) Nos. 16770 and 19348 of 2003 are filed challenging Government Order, G.O. Ms.78/87/G.Edn. dated 31.3.1987 (Ext.P-1 in W.P.(C) No. 16770/ 2003) and G.O.(Rt) No. 5641/99/G.Edn. dated 31.12.1999 and G.O.(Rt) No. 1388/03/G.Edn. dated 4.4.2003 (Exts.P-1 and P-3 in W.P.(C) No. 19348/2003 respectively). The essence of challenge in these two Writ Petitions are against the approval of appointment of Sri. Jossy Stephen (6th respondent in W.P.(C) No. 16770/2003). The 6th respondent passed certificate examination in Physical Education conducted by the Karnataka Government which is accepted by the Government of Kerala as an alternate qualification by Ext.P-1 Government Order in W.P.(C) No. 16770/2003. He was so appointed for different periods from 18.8.1994 to 4.11.1994, 4.10.1995 to 27.1.1996 and 11.6.1996 onwards on regular basis. Pursuant to the judgment (Ext.P-4 in W.P.(C) No. 16770/2003) of this Court in O.P.No. 18762/2001, the Government has passed final orders app...
Tag this Judgment!Pushkaran Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-27-2005
Reported in: [2005(107)FLR144]; 2005(3)KLT657
J.B. Koshy, J.1. The appellant, a police constable was proceeded with departmental action for major penalty and was imposed with punishment of withholding two increments with cumulative effect. It was alleged in the charge sheet that on 27.09.1989, the delinquent police constable while on sentry duty in Kodakara police station from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. hired an autoriksha driven by one Shaji and reached Vattekadu from where he seized some spurious liquor possessed by one Subran and the said Subran was released without registering a case and asked to come to the station next day.2. After conducting an enquiry, the appellant was imposed with a punishment of withholding two increments with cumulative effect. It was affirmed by the Appellate Authority. In review petition also punishment was upheld. The learned Single Judge found that the enquiry was conducted fairly and no grounds were made out to interfere in the punishment. In fact, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the author...
Tag this Judgment!Ahammed Vs. Krishnalal
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-27-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT1004
ORDERR. Bhaskaran, J.1. The challenge in this Rent Control Revision is directed against the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority holding that the revision petitioner-tenant of the building shown in the Rent Control Petition is liable to be evicted under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.2. The petitioner in the Rent Control Petition purchased the property by registered sale deed dated 27-3-2002 from the original owners and filed the Rent Control Petition in the same year contending that the tenant has in his possession a building reasonably sufficient for his requirement in the same city and that he is liable to be evicted under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act. The tenant contended that as per the rental agreement dated 2-9-1996 between the tenant and the original landlords, he was entitled to be in possession of the tenanted premises for a period of ten years and the Rent Control Petition, filed before the...
Tag this Judgment!Pradeepan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-27-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT1075
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. Accused Nos. 1 and 4 in S.C. No. 146/01 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-II, Fast Track), Thalassery, are the appellants in Crl.Appeal No. 1599 of 2003. Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 6 in the above said case are the appellants in Crl.A. 1685 of 2003. Crl.Appeal No. 800 of 2004 is filed by the State challenging the acquittal of the 5th accused in the said case. The mother of the deceased (K.T. Jayakrishnan Master) has filed Crl.R.P.No. 573 of 2004 challenging the acquittal of the 5th accused. The Investigating Officer who was examined as P.W.30 in the case has filed Crl.M.C.No. 5125 of 2003 for expunging the adverse remarks made against him and also to vacate the direction issued by the learned Sessions Judge to the Government to take action against him. Since all the appellants were found guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to death, the learned Sessions Judge referred the case for confirmation under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Sasidharan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-26-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT185
ORDERK. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The accused in C.C.No. 254 of 1990 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Attingal is the revision petitioner. The learned Magistrate found the revision petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, convicted and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six moths. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner filed Crl.A.No. 77 of 1993 before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The learned District Judge also concurred with the learned Magistrate and dismissed the appeal. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed challenging those concurrent findings.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this Criminal Revision Petition are as follows:-- The accused and the de facto complaint are relatives. The de facto complainant is a housewife, aged about 42 years on the date of the incident. She is having two children. One of the sons is physically handicapped. The accused used to teas...
Tag this Judgment!Benny Sebastian Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-26-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT292
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J.1. Petitioner herein is a sales tax assessee doing business in medical equipments. These Revision Petitions relate to the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97. The assessment was completed. Thereafter, a notice was issued by the Deputy Commissioner to revise the assessment suo motu. According to the Deputy Commissioner, the Intelligence Wing of the Department had detected purchase suppression on the petitioner's accounts for the years 1995-96 and 1996-97. The offences were compounded and compounded penalty was paid. The petitioner filed a reply stating that the alleged purchases were not effected by them. Thereafter, Deputy Commissioner after issuing notice reopened the proceedings. The contention of the assessee was that merely because the offences were compounded, assessments cannot be reopened. When the Intelligence Officer found out certain suppressions after inspection and issued show cause notice, offences were compounded. We are of the opinion that the Deputy ...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi Venketesh Temple Vs. Commissioner H.R.C. Endowments
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-26-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT345
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed by Shri Lakshmi Venkatesh Temple, represented by its Managing- Trustee. According to the petitioner the Temple and its properties belong to the Gowda Saraswatha Brahmin Community. Bye-laws have been adopted for the administration of the Temple. His Holiness Srimad Sudheendra Theertha Swamiji of Kashimutt Samasthan has the supreme authority in all dharmic matters concerning the Temple. The affairs of the temple are managed by the Trustees in accordance with the provisions of the bye-laws. The first respondent in this Writ Petition is the Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Administration Department, Kozhikode. Petitioner in this Writ Petition challenges Ext.P2 notice issued under Section 76 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Endowment Act') demanding a sum of Rs. 25,763/- as audit fees. Petitioner challenges the provisions of Section 76 of the Endowme...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »