Kerala Court January 2006 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.
C.C. Sivaprasad Vs. K. Sasidharan and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-27-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ker167
Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. Auction purchaser, second respondent in E.A. 290/ 92 and E.A. 147/02 in E.P. 64/88 in O.S. 20/87 on the file of Sub Court, Cherthala is the appellant. First respondent is the first judgment debtor and the petitioner in E.A. 147/02 and E.A. 290/02. Second respondent is the decree-holder Bank and the first respondent in the E.As. Second respondent decree-holder instituted O.S. 20/87 for realisation of Rs. 31635.25 with interest against first respondent who was the first defendant, and defendants 2 and 3. On SI-10-1987, a decree was granted in favour second respondent to realise Rs. 31,365.25 with 14 1/2% interest. Second respondent filed E.P. 64/88 for execution of the decree on 25-5-88. First respondent filed an objection disputing the executability of the decree. Overruling the objection, executing Court issued notice under Order XXI, Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code). First respondent filed an objection on 9-1-90 cont...
Radhakrishnan Vs. Kerala Lok Ayukta
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-25-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT661
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J. 1. The petitioner, who was the Additional Private Secretary to the then Minister for Health and Family Welfare, has filed this Writ Petition, challenging Ext. Pl order issued by the Lok Ayukta and also Complaint No. 14/06, in which, the above said order has been passed. The brief facts of the case are the following :2. The Lok Ayukta received Ext. P2 petition, stated to have been filed by the President of the Kerala Government Medical Officers Association, Thiruvananthapuram dated 16.08.2005. The said forum instructed the 6th respondent, the Superintendent of Police, attached to it, to hold a discrete enquiry into the allegations contained in Ext. P2. The said Officer conducted an enquiry and filed Ext. P3 report, stating that the allegations contained in Ext. P2, against the petitioner, are substantiated by evidence. After considering the said report, the 1st respondent Lok Ayukta issued the impugned order Ext. Pl, which reads as follows:This is a complaint, f...
Suprabha Vs. Sivaraman
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-25-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ker187; II(2006)DMC404; 2006(1)KLT712
R. Bhaskaran, J.1. This appeal is filed by the petitioner before the Family Court, Thiruvalla. The petition was filed by Suprabha through her next friend for realisation of Rs.9,55,160/-being the value of the gold ornaments, cash paid and other movables given at the time of marriage of Suprabha with Santhosh. The respondents before the Family Court are the parents of Santhosh as Santhosh committed suicide subsequent to the marriage. There is also a child born in the wedlock. The case of the appellant is that Suprahha was mentally and physically tortured in the house of the respondents and she became a mental patient. The ornaments belonging to her and the child were taken by the respondents and not returned to her. The Family Court returned the petition stating that one of the parties to the marriage is no more and hence the petition is not maintainable before the Family Court,2. In this appeal, the appellant challenges the finding of the Family Court that the petition is not maintaina...
Abdul Khader Vs. Surburban Chit Funds (P) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-24-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ker199; I(2007)BC231; 2006(1)KLT749
R. Basant, J. 1. The delay in the judicial process in this country is scandalous. Rather than blame darkness it is certainly better to light a candle. Observance one's Dharma - by the litigant, counsel, the adjudicator and the State appears to be the only way out.2. There must be adequate courts. We must have competent adjudicators who do their homework promptly before and after trying/hearing the cases in court. We do also need prompt litigants ably assisted by counsel who do not fail in their duty to themselves and to the system. A transformation in the attitude to civil litigation by all concerned appears to be the need of the hour. This case brings into focus the unfortunate consequences flowing from the absence of such a wholesome culture.3. The petitioners are defendants 1 and 4 in a suit for money based on what is referred to as a 'surety agreement'. A1 together, there are 5 defendants. The suit stood listed for trial in the final list on 13/1/06. It is, in these circumstances, ...
Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) Vs. Grasim Industries Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-24-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT821
K.S. Radhakrishnan, Ag. C.J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the State of Kerala and the Assistant Commissioner (Appeals), Department of Commercial Taxes, aggrieved by some of the observations of the learned single Judge, especially with regard to the interpretation of Rule 32(21) of the Kerala General Salestax Rules and also with regard to the finding of the learned single Judge that respondent has no obligation to produce accounts after the expiry of four years of the assessment year to which it relates.2. Original Petition was preferred by the respondent herein seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exts.P1 to P14 notices in Form No. 50 calling upon the respondent to produce books of accounts for the year 1979-80 to 1992-93. Notices were challenged on the ground that respondent is bound to maintain books of accounts only for a period of four years after the assessment year. It was pointed out that Exts.P1 to P14 notices were issued beyond the period stipulated in Rule 32 and the ...
Subramanian Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-24-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT967
Kurian Joseph, J.1. Whether a pensioner can be denied family pension is one of the interesting questions arising for consideration in this case. Petitioners were recruited through the Employment Exchange on a provisional basis for appointment under the Small Farmers Development Agency on 12-3-1976. The SFD A was abolished in the year 1982 and the District Rural Development Agency was formed. Petitioners were transferred to DRFA. Though the petitioners continued uninterruptedly they were not given the benefits due to the regular employees except the stagnation increment. In the matter of regularisation the petitioners approached this Court in O.P.No. 20212/1996 and consequently they were regularised in service in the Rural Development Department as per Ext. P2 Government order dated 29.9.1998. Since the service benefit were not granted, the matter was again taken up before this Court leading to O.P. No. 24923/1999. The Government thereafter issued Ext.P3 government order dated 23-12-200...
Sidhardhan Vs. Prasannan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-24-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)BC177; [2006]133CompCas13(Ker); 2006CriLJ2568; 2006(2)KLT55
ORDERA.K. Basheer, J.1. The petitioner is being prosecuted for an offence punishable Sub-section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in two cases - CC. No. 323/2003 and CC. No. 95/2004 -- on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, No. I, Attingal. Respondents 1 and 2 respectively are the complainants in the above cases. The petitioner moved two applications before the trial court under Sections 219 and 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a single trial of the two cases, since according to the petitioner, the alleged offences in the two cases were committed within a span of one year. The learned Magistrate dismissed the applications holding that the prayer made by the petitioner cannot be granted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The said order passed by the learned Magistrate is under challenge in this Criminal Revision Petition.2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondents as also Sri. P.B. Suresh Kumar who was requested to assist the co...
Velayudhan Nair Vs. Kalliyanikutty Amma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-24-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT884
V. Ramkumar, J. 1. The sole defendant in O.S.109/1989 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Manjeri was the original appellant in this Second appeal. Pending this second appeal he died and his legal representatives have been impleaded as additional appellants. The said suit instituted by the respondent herein was one for a declaration of the plaintiff's title and possession over the plaint schedule properties on the strength of Ext.A1 will executed by Velu Nair, the father of both the plaintiff and the defendant and for consequential injunction or in the alternative, for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule properties on the strength of plaintiff's title.2. The trial court as per judgment and decree dated 31-1-1990 dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove that Ext.A1 will dated 13-10-1977 was duly executed by the plaintiff's father deceased Velu Nair and that the plaintiff has not succeeded in dispelling the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execu...
Commissioner of Land Revenue Vs. Preethi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-24-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT24
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. Competence to issue Ext.P1order of suspension dated 24.6.2005 was the moot question raised in the Writ Petition which led to this Writ Appeal. The said order was passed by respondent No. 2, Deputy Commissioner of Land Revenue placing the petitioner, an Upper Division Clerk under suspension pending disciplinary action. The petitioner prayed for reinstatement in Ext.P5 representation and questioned the competence of respondent No. 2 in Ext.P6 petition, both addressed to the officer just above respondent No. 2, namely the Commissioner for Land Revenue/Necessarily, that shall have to be construed as an appeal under Rule 22 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1960 which provides for an appeal against an order of suspension. Rather than the first respondent deciding Exts.P5 and P6 by himself, he forwarded the same to the second respondent and he decided his competence and passed Ext.P7 orders to the effect that he was competent to...
Sivasankaran Vs. Manager, K.M.U.P. School
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-23-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT478
A.K. Basheer, J.1. The short but interesting question that has come up for consideration in these Writ Petitions is whether the claim of a Language/Specialist teacher of an aided upper primary school for promotion to the post of Headmaster is in any way inferior to that of a qualified Upper Primary School Assistant with equal qualifications. Yet another ancillary question that has cropped up is whether a graduate teacher with B.Ed., who had entered service with those qualifications, is entitled to claim a superior right for promotion to the post of Headmaster as against a senior graduate teacher with B.Ed., who had acquired those qualifications much later.2. Relevant facts as are available in Writ Petition No. 4397/2005 may be briefly noticed.3. The post of Headmaster in K.M. Upper Primary School, Edayur fell vacant on March 25, 2003 when the incumbent Headmistress entered on leave preparatory to her retirement on superannuation. The Manager promoted and appointed respondent No. 5 who ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »