Kerala Court August 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.
Joy Vs. Registrar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-09-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT518
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This Writ Petition relates to a motion of no-confidence as regards the President of a Co-operative Society.2. The petitioner contends, firstly, that he cannot be ousted from the office of the President of the Society by a no-confidence motion since he came into office and is continuing as such on the basis of Ext.P1 agreement entered into between the members of the Committee, whereby they had agreed among themselves as to who shall be the President at the first instance and when he was ceases to be so, as to who shall then hold office. The Co-operative Societies are expected to work as a democratic institution. That is how they are conceived and provided for in the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' and the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'. Ext.P1 is an agreement whereby the elected members of the Committee have agreed among themselves as to assuming the office of the Presi...
Raghul Construction Engineers and Contractors Vs. N.T.P.C.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-09-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT629
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Two arbitration awards passed by the same arbitrator were set aside by the civil court by a common order. These two appeals are filed by the contractor against that common order. Parties are the same.2. Appellant/Contractor was awarded two contracts with the respondent National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) for (1) the construction of temporary office-cum-storeshed No. 2 at plant area of Kayamkulam STPP and (2) construction of an approach road to the southern block of plant area of Kayamkulam STPP. Clause 56 of the general conditions of contract provides for arbitration. First paragraph of Clause 56 reads as follows:'Except where otherwise provided for in the Contract all questions and disputes relating to the meaning of the specifications, designs, drawing and instructions herein before mentioned and as to the quality of workmanship or materials used on the work or as to any other question, claim, right, matter or thing whatsoever in any way arising out of or relat...
Abdul Russak Vs. Cheranelloor Grama Panchayat
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-08-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT38
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner is a contractor, who had supplied goods to the first respondent Panchayat.2. There is no dispute that the Stores Purchase Manual, issued by the Authority of the Government of Kerala, binds the Panchayat and regulates its activities, in so far as the purchases are concerned. Clause 52 of the Stores Purchase Manual provides that security may be taken in any of the nine forms enumerated therein, namely (i) Cash, (ii) Government Promissory Notes, Municipal Debentures or Port Trust Bonds, (iii) Stock Certificate of the Central or State Government/s (iv) National Savings Certificates, Government of India 12 years National Plan Savings Certificates and 10 year Treasury Savings Certificate, (v) Treasury Savings Bank Deposits, (vi) Post Office Savings Bank Deposits, (vii) Post Office Cash Certificates, (viii) Deposit receipts of recognized Banks and Co-operative Societies approved by Government for the purpose, and (ix) Bank guarantees from Sched...
Antony Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-08-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT69
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Section 157 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') governs motion of no-confidence. Sub-section (9A) thereof reads as follows:'Election shall be by means of open ballot and the member who casts his vote shall write his name and affix his signature on the reverse side of the ballot paper', (emphasis supplied)2. The question raised is as to whether the vote of a member on a no-confidence motion will be invalid solely on the ground that he wrote his name and affixed his signature on the facing side of the ballot paper and not on its reverse side contrary to Section 157(9A).3. Ext. P2 minutes shows that the ballot paper has to be signed on its reverse and that otherwise the vote will be invalid, were among the instructions given by the President of the meeting to the members. Yet, petitioner, a literate, wrote down his name in Malayalam and affixed his signature on the facing page of the ballot paper. His vote has been...
Syndicate Bank and ors. Vs. Celine Thomas and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-08-2005
Reported in: (2006)IILLJ413Ker
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. Entitlement to gratuity payable on retirement reckoning the pay revision which came into effect after such retirement with retrospective effect is the moot question arising in this case. Facts are not in dispute, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was arrived at between the Indian Bank Association representing the Nationalised Banks and the organisations of the officers of such Nationalised Banks on June 23, 1995 concerning wage revision and other attendant benefits. The wage revision did have retrospectivity, as per the MoU, with effect from November 1, 1992. It was provided that the actual monetary benefit on account of such revision will be made available only to those who were in service on July 1, 1993 and afterwards. Different dates also were mentioned in respect of revision of H.R.A., D.A., Provident Fund, Compensatory Allowance etc. It was also made clear that in respect of those who retired between November 1, 1992 and October 31, 1994, the benefits of...
Mary Chacko Vs. Jancy Joseph
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-05-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Ker291; 2005(3)KLT925
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Whether a woman can be arrested in execution of an order passed under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.2. O.P. No. 740 of 1993 was filed by the fourth respondent in the Original Petition herein before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam (for short 'Forum') against the writ petitioner and others for recovery of an amount of Rs. 45,000/- in all which was due to her. Writ petitioner and others were partners of a firm engaged in money lending business. The Forum passed an order on 10.2.1995 directing the writ petitioner and others to pay Rs. 65,768.87 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the principal sum of Rs. 45,000/- from 15.6.1989 to 12.4.1992 and thereafter on the total amount of Rs. 65,768.87 and also Rs. 300/- as costs within one month. Amount was not paid, consequently E.P. No. 155 of 1995 was filed before the Forum for execution of the order. First opposit...
K.P. Raveendran and anr. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-05-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Ker319; 2006(1)KLT427
ORDERThottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Can a rural area, after its transit to be an urban area, thereby becoming a 'Smaller urban area' or a 'larger urban area' in terms of Article 243Q of the Constitution of India, be re-transited to be a rural area? If so, can it be done under an exercise for the purpose of the provisions of Part IXA of the Constitution? Is the impugned 'de-linking' of certain urban areas from the municipalities, for being treated as rural areas, unconstitutional? If such action is permissible in terms of the Constitution, could it be subjected to control by judicial review? If so, is the impugned action vitiated by illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety, the three well recognized grounds? Broadly, these are the issues that arise for decision in these writ petitions. Section 4(2)(b) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, hereinafter, the 'Municipality Act', for short, is also challenged in WP(C) No. 16997 of 2005, as unconstitutional.Relevant common fact...
Fathima Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Police
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-05-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT1036
M. Ramachandran, J.1. According to the petitioner, she had taken all necessary steps for developing 46 cents of wet land belonging to her in Edakochi Village after complying with required legal formalities. Mr. Joseph Franklin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there was no cultivation for the past 25 years in the said land and when the application had been filed with Revenue Authorities, it had been directed that it be routed through the local authorities. The counsel refers to the procedure to be followed under the Kerala Municipality (Levy and Collection of Land Conversion Cess) Rules, 2003, published by the Government as SRO No. 189/2003 in respect of land situated in Municipalities, Municipal Corporations and Town Panchayaths. This is a levy authorised by Section 230(3) of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1994. The procedure for collection of cess is gatherable from Rule 4 of the said Rules which could be extracted herein below:'4. Procedure for collection of...
Sesu Naik Vs. District Judge
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-05-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT527
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. A very important substantial question arises in this case - whether an incumbent who obtained appointment and later promotion on the strength of he being member of a community included as Scheduled Tribe as per the Presidential Order can be denied of all such benefits, if on a subsequent enactment that community is excluded from the list of Scheduled Tribes.2. The appellant-writ petitioner is a member of Marati community in Kasaragod Taluk in Kasaragod District. This community was included as item No. 28 in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, promulgated by the President exercising powers under Article 342(1) of the Constitution of India. Later by reason of an enactment in terms of Sub-Article (2) of Article 342, namely, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 2002, which was enforced with effect from 7.1.2003, this community was taken out of the list of Scheduled Tribes.3. The petitioner obtained appointment as Lower Division ...
Superintendent of Police, C.B.i. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-03-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT823
ORDERK. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The accused in Crime No. 534 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam have filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Case for quashing Annexure No. XX Complaint filed by the second respondent and also Annexure XXI First Information Report registered by the Sub Inspector of Police, Ernakulam Town North Police Station in pursuance of that complaint.2. In the Criminal Miscellaneous Case it was averred that the second respondent is the second accused in Crime No. RC 3(S)/1994, CBI Kerala registered under Section 120B read with Sections 302, 201 and 34 I.P.C. relating to the death of Sri. K.G. Munna, whose charred body was found in a partially burnt Ambassador Car at Thuvassery Kunnu on MLA Road, Kottapuram on 11.4.1992. The case was initially investigated by the local police and then by the Crime Branch of Kerala Police. The father of the deceased filed O.P. No. 15974 of 1992 before this Court and this Court directed the C.B.I. t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »