Kerala Court June 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.
State of Kerala Vs. Saritha
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT1033
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. An interesting question in relation to sanctioning of the post of a Specialist Teacher namely Music teacher or Physical Education Teacher, Drawing teacher or Sewing teacher as the case may be, in an Upper Primary School is raised in these Writ Appeals. The relevant provision in this regard is Clause (a) of Sub-rule 2 of Rule 6 B Chapter XXIII of the Kerala Education Rules, which reads as under:'One post of Specialist teacher namely Music teacher or Physical Education Teacher or Drawing Teacher or Sewing Teacher as decided by the District Educational Officer concerned during staff fixation in the case of departmental schools and as required by the manager in the case of aided schools will be sanctioned in each Upper Primary School or Upper Primary section of a High School having an effective strength of 500 pupils and above in the complete Upper Primary sections on the 6th working day of each academic year.'2. The learned single Judge, in the judgment impugned in...
MartIn K. Mathew Vs. Vijayan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT962
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The question involved in these two Writ Appeals is with regard to the application of 2nd Proviso to Rule 13B of the General Rules in K.S. & S.S.Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The appellant as well as the writ petitioners, who are the respondents herein, belongs to the category of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Category 1A in the Kerala Police Service. The appellant, who is also Addl.3rd respondent in O.P.No.23598 of 2000 has passed the Account test for the Executive Officers of Kerala prescribed Under clause (e) of R.8 of the Special Rules for Kerala Police Service, to be passed during the period of probation, by one appointed to the category of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The writ petitioners-respondents did not pass that test. They applied for exemption in terms of Rule 13B of the Rules from passing the said obligatory test prescribed for declaration of probation. The Government declined their request as per Ext.P3 marked in O.P.No....
Ravi Chandran Vs. Subramanian
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-24-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT611
M. Thanikachalam, J.1. The complainant, in C.C.No. 204 of 1997 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. VI, Coimbatore, having failed in his attempt to get a conviction against the respondent/accused, has come to the Court as appellant, seeking the same relief.2. It is the case of appellant/complainant, that the accused/respondent along with another, had borrowed a sum of Rs. 90,000 on 4.7.1994, that in order to discharge the said debt, he had issued a cheque dated 19.3.1997 for a sum of Rs. 1,47,000, which includes interest, that when the cheque was tendered for collection, the same was returned with an endorsement 'funds insufficient', that even after the issue of mandatory notice, the accused failed to pay the cheque amount and in this view, since he had committed the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, he should be dealt with accordingly.3. The accused/respondent upon appearance appears to have not only denied the liability, but also the issuance of the c...
Annie Francis Vs. D.E.O.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT238
J.B. Koshy, J. 1.Whether the management of an educational institution established by a minority community has a right to appoint a qualified high school teacher (HSA) of its choice as headmaster without strictly looking into the seniority, claiming protection under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, is the main question to be decided in this case. A vacancy of headmaster arose in the second respondent's school with effect from 1.4.1999. At that time, petitioner/appellant was working as High School Assistant (Malayalam) in the second respondent's school owned by a Church. She is a graduate in Malayalam. She has passed B.Ed. and has got 19 years of service. Third respondent got inter-management transfer to the school as provided under the Kerala Education Rules. She is also fully qualified (graduation with B.Ed.) to become headmistress. She has seven years of teaching experience as UPSA and 15 years and ten month's experience as HSA. Management appointed third respondent as the ...
Kerala Homoeo Medical Graduates Association Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT620
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This Writ Petition has been preferred as a public interest litigation by the Kerala Homoeo Medical Graduates Association and another, seeking a declaration that the first proviso to Section 38 of the Travancore Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 is repugnant to the pro visions of Section 15 read with Sections 21 and 13 of the Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 and is therefore unconstitutional. Petitioners also sought for a declaration that from 1.8.1974 no person is entitled to practice Homoeopathic System of Medicine in the State of Kerala without recognised qualification and registration as registration is mandatory under Sub-section 2 of Section 15 of the Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1973. Petitioners also sought for various other reliefs.2. Counsel for the petitioners brought to our notice the judgment of this Court in Vanchiyoor Madhom Dhanwanthari Sannidhanam v. State of Kerala (2003 (1) KLT 520) and contended that this Court has prevented per...
Kamala Rajaram Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1447; 2005(3)KLT617
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Petitioner, a medical practitioner, faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 304A IPC. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation.2. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner is that she was guilty of professional negligence in the matter of treatment of a patient, who unfortunately breathed her last after delivery.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the nature of the alleged inadequacy in the professional conduct of the petitioner can by no stretch of imagination be held to be culpable rashness or negligence which alone can attract an allegation or charge under Section 304A IPC.4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision reported in Dr. Suresh Gupta v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr. : 2004CriLJ3870 and contends that at any rate, the alleged conduct of the petitioner while she allegedly treated the patient in question cannot qualify to be term...
ObrIn Vs. Sub Inspector of Police
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT861
V. Ramkumar, J.1. The short question in this Writ Petition for police protection is as to whether the 2nd respondent Trade Union is entitled to obstruct the loading and unloading work in the small scale industrial unit of the petitioner by name 'Dash Machines'.2. The above unit which is stated to have been started seven years ago is involved in the manufacture of moulded items such as caps, inner lids, electronic choke cover, CFL holder cover etc. According to the petitioner, the nature of work in the said unit involves the burning of plastic granules and moulding the same into various shapes as per the requirements and packing and bundling the finished products for sale. The employees for doing the aforesaid operations are claimed to be the petitioner and four permanent workers.3. Opposing the Writ Petition, Advocate Sri. Jose Kuttiyany, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent Union made the following submissions before us:The Industrial Estate at Ollur was started in the...
Sahir Shah Vs. Bank of India
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Ker42; II(2006)BC386; [2007]138CompCas745(Ker); 2006(1)KLT161; [2006]66SCL14(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Whether permission of the Debt Recovery Tribunal is a pre requisite for a Bank or Financial Institution to invoke the provisions of Section 13B of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'Securitisation Act') after the insertion of the proviso to Section 19 of the Enforcement of Security Interests and Recovery of Debts Laws Amendment Act, 2004, is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.2. Bank of India, respondent herein, filed O.A.No. 318 of 2001 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal on 23.11.2001 for realisation of an amount of Rs. 4,81,92,595.74 from the writ petitioners and others jointly, severally and personally together with interest at 18% per annum with quarterly rests from 23.11.2001 till date of payment and also for costs of the proceeding. While the O.A. was pending, the Bank invoked the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Securitisation Act vide notice date...
Syndicate Agricultural and Rural Development Foundation Vs. Labour Cou ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-2005
Reported in: (2006)IILLJ175Ker
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Writ petition was preferred by the appellant challenging the award passed by the Labour Court, Kannur holding that the termination of service of the respondent worker is illegal and ab initio void and also against the direction given to the management to reinstate her in service with full back wages and continuity of service. Learned single Judge repelled the challenge. Aggrieved by the same this appeal has been preferred. Government of Kerala under Section 10(l)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the issue regarding termination of respondent to Labour Court for adjudication. Worker was terminated from service while she was holding the post of Office Assistant. She was put in charge of the establishment which was publishing a monthly publication by name 'Karshaka Lokam'. She was appointed as Office Assistant on March 10, 1984. She was getting monthly salary of Rs. 400/-. Syndicate Agricultural and Rural Development Foundation was looking after all...
Ayyappan Pillai Vs. Mohana Chandran Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-22-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT492
P.R. Raman, J.1. Petitioner is the landlord and the respondents are the tenants of building No. 767 situated in the Thrikkadavoor Village of Kollam District. Petitioner initiated eviction proceedings against the respondents by filing R.C.P.No. 16/1999 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kollam. The R.C.P. was dismissed by the Rent Control Court against which he preferred R.C.A. No. 31/2000 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority reversed the order of the Rent Control Court and ordered eviction. It was confirmed in revision by this Court in C.R.P. No. 2111/2002, a copy of the same is produced as Ext.P2 in the present petition. Thereafter the tenants filed Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court. When the matter was pending before the Apex Court a settlement was reached between the parties and the Apex Court by its order dated 7.1.2005, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P3 in this petition disposed of the S.L.P. in terms of the settlement dated 29.10...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »