Kerala Court June 2005 Judgments
Gopakumar Vs. Kerala State Nirmithi Kendra
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-29-2005
Reported in: [2005(107)FLR960]; 2005(3)KLT991
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The first among the two Writ Appeals is by respondents 1 and 2. They will be described as the appellant, in this judgment. The second is by the writ petitioner.2. The writ petitioner was appointed as Accountant on 17.1.1990. He was promoted, according to him, as Assistant Manager (Accounts) on 22.9.1997. Later he was placed under suspension on 30.4.1999. He was not paid subsistence allowance though an enquiry was proceeded with. He represented for payment of subsistence allowance. That request was declined as per Ext.P7 order relying on KESNIK Disciplinary Proceedings and Appeal Rules, 2001 Ext.P9. Clause III(e) of the said Rules provides that an employee/volunteer placed under suspension shall not be eligible for any honorarium or other benefits, but in the event of he being fully exonerated, the period of suspension shall be treated as duty for all purposes. Accordingly the petitioner approached this Court impugning Ext.P7 denial of subsistence allowance and t...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammed Basheer Vs. Mujib Rahman
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-29-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT697
ORDERK.R. Udayabhanu, J.1. The spearhead of the contentions of the revision petitioner is that the Appellate Authority has grossly misunderstood the words of the apex court that the judge of facts when assessing and ascertaining the bona fides of the need set up should place himself in the armchair of the landlord and ask the question to himself whether in the given facts substantiated by the landlord, the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere, honest. His grievance is that the court has a trifle identified itself with the landlord instead of dispassionately examining the genuineness of the proposed need and resorted to a contrived justification to hand out an order to ease him out of the commercial space.2. At the outset, we would like to clarify that, really, when the Supreme Court in Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chandra Gupta : [1999]3SCR1260 counselled as above, what is meant is that the Judge should visualise himself in the place of the landlord am...
Tag this Judgment!Thomas Tharakan Vs. Meenakumari
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT330
ORDERM. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. The complainant in C.C. 452/02 and 453/02 is challenging the order of the learned Magistrate directing the petitioner to produce the documents relating to the chitty transaction under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner filed the complaint alleging that first respondent committed the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Before completing the evidence of the petitioner, first respondent accused filed CMP 11990/04 in C.C. 452/02 to call for certain documents from the custody of the petitioner. Petitioner objected to the production of the documents. As per order dated 17.2.05 the learned Magistrate found that in the nature of the case the documents sought to be produced are desirable for a fair trial and therefore directing the petitioner to produce the records concerning the chitty transaction of the first respondent with the petitioner firm. The prayer to summon the other two sets of the documents were rejected. P...
Tag this Judgment!Lekshmi Vs. Vasantha Kumari
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-28-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Ker249; I(2006)DMC114; 2005(3)KLT476
R. Bhaskaran, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of the counter petitioners in O.P.(G&W;) 85 of 1998 on the file of the Additional District Court, Alappuzha. The parties are referred to hereinafter according to their status in the District Court. Petition was filed by the grand mother of the third respondent Rahuldas (who was described as unmarried child in the petition) for appointing her as guardian of the child born to the first respondent. Originally the prayer was for visitorial right and subsequently it was amended for joint guardianship. Thereafter the petition was amended for appointment of the petitioner as guardian. The reason stated was that the mother got herself converted to Islam after marrying a Muslim. The first respondent's husband died in a motor accident. Thereafter the child was brought up by the mother. The petitioner before the Family Court is the mother of the deceased father of the child. The Family Court has appointed the petitioner as guardian of the child an...
Tag this Judgment!Shaji Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT995
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Applications for regular bail. The petitioners are accused 1 and 2. Altogether, there are 5 accused persons. They face indictment for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 301, 302 and 364 read with Section 34 of the IPC.2. The 1st accused is a senior official of the Police Department. The 2nd accused is a relative of his. The deceased was related to both the petitioners-accused.3. The prosecution alleges that the petitioners had entered into a conspiracy to do away with the deceased. The 1st accused had engaged accused 3 to 5 who were also allegedly the co-conspirators. The 1st accused entertained bitter animosity against the deceased who was employed by him and who allegedly had an illicit relationship with the wife of the 1st accused.4. In furtherance of the conspiracy, the 2nd accused allegedly misled the deceased and ensured that he was delivered to the custody of the 1st accused who along with accused 3 to 5 took him away in a Maruthi van, murdered him...
Tag this Judgment!Soyi Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-28-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT32
ORDERM. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. Additional second accused who was impleaded by learned Judicial First Class Magistrate invoking power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. has filed the revision. The controversy to be resolved are (1) whether the learned Magistrate is entitled to amend or alter the charge and thereafter invoking power under Section 319 is competent to implead a person as an accused and (2) whether the accused so impleaded is entitled to apply for discharge before the learned Magistrate.2. Learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 326 and 324 of I.P.C. The sole accused was facing trial. Charge was framed for the said offences. Prosecution case is that accused after hiring autorickshaw of de facto complainant/second respondent with three others reached near building No. IX/7 of Veliliyamattom Panchayat at about 9 p.m. on 25-6-2003, pulled the second respondent out of the autorickshaw and inflicted injuries with a stone and committed offences under Se...
Tag this Judgment!Sheeba Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-28-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD(Cri)41; I(2006)BC419; [2006]132CompCas313(Ker)
ORDERK.P. Balachandran, J.1. The third accused in C.C. 88 of 2002 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Trichur has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to have Annexure 2 complaint quashed. It is on the basis of Annexure 2 complaint that the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act recording the sworn statement of the complainant/second respondent herein. The first respondent is the State, Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are not impleaded in this petition.2. The case of the second respondent in Annexure 2 complaint in short is that in discharge of debt due from the first accused firm the second accused has issued Annexure I cheque drawn on the account maintained by the first accused firm at the Nagercoil branch of the Indian Overseas Bank signed by him on behalf of the first accused firm in his capacity as its Managing Partner, that it was so issued in the presence of the third petit...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. Philip Antony
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-27-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Ker283; 2005(3)KLT396
ORDERK.R. Udayabhanu, J.1. The revision petitioner/respondent (K.S.E.B.) in O.P.(Ele.) 155/2001, the proceedings with respect to tree cutting compensation and under orders to pay additional compensation, has roundly indicted the decision alleging that the methodology chosen by the Court and the enhanced compensation awarded is absolutely unjust and manifestly illegal and certainly to be interfered by this Court in revision. The total sum including the compensation award at the prelitigation phase would amount to Rs. 32,508/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of cutting. It is pointed out that the amount of compensation arrived at is based on no materials and further no details are available or ascertainable from the order as to how such an amount is arrived at.2. It is seen that the order of the Court below is divided into two parts, the former part designated as 'preliminary award' and the subsequent segment as 'final award'. The preliminary award recites the pleadings as we...
Tag this Judgment!Vijayan Vs. Accountant General
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-27-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT733
Pius C. Kuriakose, J. 1. This Writ Petition is instituted by a teacher of M.M. High School, New Mahe, Thalassery who contends that the offer submitted by him, under Rule 56(iv) of Part III of Kerala Service Rules for voluntary retirement has not become effective and that he has withdrawn from such offer before the same became effective, seeking inter alia the following reliefs:-1) a direction to respondents 4, and 5, the Manager and Headmaster respectively of the school to allow him to continue as High School Assistant in the school;2) to direct the Deputy Director of Education, the District Educational Officer and the Manager (respondents 2 to 4) to accept his letters seeking withdrawal of the application for voluntary retirement; and3) to prohibit the respondents from terminating his service;2. According to the petitioner, his wife is a teacher in Cheruvancherry U.P. School, Kuthuparamba; his eldest daughter is studying in Engineering College, Moothakunnam with two more years for com...
Tag this Judgment!Devadasan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-27-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT739
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J. 1. The main prayer in this Writ Petition is for a writ of mandamus directing respondents 3 and 4 to afford protection to the life and property of the petitioner as well as for construction of the compound wall of the petitioner's property.2. The petitioner is the owner of a property comprised in Sy.No. 404/4 of Maranallur Village. As early as in the year 1982, the second respondent--Panchayat passed a resolution to acquire a portion of the property of the petitioner for constructing a road. The Director of Panchayats directed the second respondent-Panchayat to drop the proposed acquisition under Ext. P-1. It is averred that in order to wreck vengeance, the second respondent is attempting to take possession of a portion of the property belonging to the petitioner without resorting to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioner had filed a suit and obtained a decree against the Panchayat. It is averred that at the instance of the Panchayat, the comp...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »