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.
Gopakumar Vs. P. Easwar Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-17-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ker242; III(2007)BC150
ORDERK. Thankappan, J. 1. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 573 of 1998 on the file of the II Additional Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram is the revision petitioner.2. The suit was filed for recovery of an amount of Rs. 75,000/- from the defendant, respondent herein, on the basis of an agreement entered into between the parties. During the pendency of the suit, a question was raised before the Court below by the defendant as to whether the document dated 30-8-1997 was a bond or only an agreement by which the time for payment of the amount as per the earlier agreement was extended. By the impugned order, the court below found that the document dated 30-8-1997 was a bond as it creates an obligation on the part of the signatory to pay off the amount. Aggrieved by the above finding, this Civil Revision is filed.3. Heard counsel on either side. Learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner relying on the decisions of this Court reported in State Bank of Travancore v. Thayikutty Amma 198...
infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Ltd. Vs. B.P.L. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-17-2006
Reported in: [2008]144CompCas544(Ker)
M. Ramachandran, J.1. The first respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as 'BPL Ltd.') had filed an application as M.C.A. No. 84 of 2004, being an application under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956, read with Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, requesting for an order, whereby a meeting may be permitted to be held for consideration for approving a scheme of compromise or arrangement proposed to be made between a company and its creditors. Consequential prayers had been so made for orders governing the procedures to be complied with.2. There were 15 respondents arrayed as parties to the proceedings, including the present appellant Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Ltd. ('IL and FSL'). By order dated March 14, 2005, the said application had been allowed and it had been ordered that a meeting of the secured creditors be convened on April 16, 2005, for the purpose. A retired judge of this Court had been appointed as chairman for the meeting. In effect, this or...
Sainaba Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-16-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ker269; 2006(1)KLT654
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Petitioners in these cases have raised claim for freedom fighter's pension before the Central Government under the Swantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme (for short SSS Pension Scheme) contending that on receipt of the freedom fighter's pension under the Kerala Freedom Fighter's Pension Rules, 1971, the grant of pension under SSS Scheme is automatic. Learned single Judge took the view that granting of freedom fighter's pension by the State Government would not automatically qualify the incumbent to claim Central Government pension under SSS Pension Scheme. Contrary view has been taken by another learned Judge in Sobha v. Union of India : 2005(3)KLT431 .2. We are in these cases called upon to examine the question as to whether once the State Government or the Central Government grants pension to a particular individual is he automatically entitled to get pension either under the State Government or under the Central Government scheme or vice versa. Let us exami...
Muhammed Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-16-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT440
K.S. Radhakrishnan, Ag. C.J.1. Common questions arise for consideration in both the Writ Petitions. Learned single Judge by order dated 4.11.2005 has referred these matters to the Division Bench since it requires an authoritative pronouncement on the question raised.2. Writ Petition was preferred seeking a declaration that the reservation of Presidentship of Pulppatta Grama Panchayat in favour of women is illegal and unreasonable. Further declaration is also sought that there cannot be any successive reservation of the Presidentship of the Panchayat either in favour of SC/ST or Women and that if the office of the Presidentship is reserved either for SC/ST or Women in the previous election in the succeeding election the Presidentship should be ear-marked for general category candidates. First petitioner in W.P.C.No 28924 of 2005 was a candidate in the election held on 26.09.2005 from Ward No. 13 (Palackathodu) and the second petitioner was a candidate from Ward No. 18 (Cheruputhur) to t...
Abdul Russak Vs. Alappuzha Municipality
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-16-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT881
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. The petitioner is one among the persons, who had quoted on the invitation of tenders by the first respondent, Municipality, for supply of certain electrical materials. None of the tenders were accepted.2. Thereupon, the Municipality, in its wisdom, proceeded to invite quotations from certain manufacturing companies directly, with a view to get the best products at a negotiated price.3. However, it is the admitted situation that even going by the Division Bench decision of this Court, W.A.No. 1574 of 2004, the Local Self-Government Institutions are bound to follow the Stores Purchase Manual prescribed by the State Government. In terms of the Stores Purchase Manual, tenders should be obtained by:(1) Advertisement (open tender), (2) Direct invitation to limited number of firms (limited tender) and (3) Invitation to one firm only (single tender or private purchase).4. While the single tender systems is available as per Clause 18 of the Stores Purchase Man...
State of Kerala Vs. Suja Kumari
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-16-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT846
M. Ramachandran, J.1. In this batch of Writ Appeals, the Government challenges the judgments passed in different Writ Petitions, whereby the claims put in by the petitioners for regularisation as Higher Secondary School Teachers were held as admissible, relying on principles laid down by a set of earlier cases. Writ Appeal No. 2323 of 2004 could be considered as a representative case and it arises from W.P.(C).No. 21983 of 2003 and connected cases. Operative portion of the judgment runs as following:In view of the factual and legal position as stated above these Writ Petitions are allowed directing the second respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioners for all purposes and grant their eligible benefits, in case the only impediment was that the petitioners had not obtained B.Ed degree from a University approved by the Universities in Kerala. Excepting W. A.No. 1829 of 2005, in all other cases the objectionable feature pointed out by the State was that the respective teacher...
Quilon District Petroleum Dealers' Association Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-16-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT862
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking a declaration that the petroleum dealers owning tanker lorries for the purpose of lifting petroleum products from the installations of the petroleum companies to the retail outlets are not transporting undertakings for the purpose of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund Act, 1985 or the Welfare Fund Scheme there under and are not, therefore, liable to pay any contribution under the said Act and the Scheme. A writ of mandamus compelling the respondents to desist from insisting on payment of such contribution as a pre-condition for receiving quarterly tax under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 is also sought for.2. Heard Adv. Sri. B. Suresh Kumar on behalf of the petitioners and Sri. John Joseph Vettikkad on behalf of the first respondent State of Kerala.3. The Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Welfare Fund Act') was made to provide for the c...
Saranya Zaveri Vs. Kamadon Academy Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-16-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT994
M. Ramachandran, J.1. By this appeal, orders passed by a learned single Judge dated 18-11-2005 in Contempt of Court Case No. 1177 of 2005 are subjected to challenge.2. The appellants in the present proceedings are the defendants in a suit filed by the respondent herein, wherein it had been alleged that there were violation of trademark and intellectual property rights. The suit is pending before the District Court, Ernakulam. The appellants had contended that the suit was not maintainable for a variety of reasons. However, as desired orders were not obtained, a Writ Petition had been filed as W.P.(C).No. 22776 of 2005 by the appellants under Article 227, of the Constitution of India. In the above said proceedings, on 10-08-2005 an order had been passed, whereby status quo on the conduct of both the parties till the disposal of the Writ Petition had been ordered. It reads:- 'All actions and programmes held by the writ petitioners after obtaining the order from this Court through this Wr...
Gem Granites Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-15-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT899
K.S. Radhakrishnan, Ag. C.J.1. The question that is posed for consideration in this batch of cases is whether State Government has got power to demand dead rent as per Rule 29(1)(d) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 for the period during which minor lease was kept idle. Learned single Judge found no infirmity in the demand and dismissed the Original Petitions. Aggrieved by the same these appeals have been preferred.2. For disposal of these cases we will refer to the facts in O.P. No. 630 of 1999 against which W.A. No 148 of 2003 was filed. Petitioner is a partnership concern carrying on business of quarrying and exporting granite. By proceedings dated 14.05.1996 first respondent granted quarrying lease for extraction of granite dimension stone of M/s. Indus Granites over an extent of 6.7608 hectares in survey numbers 122/1 and 122/2 of Vandanmedu village in Udumbanchola taluk in Idukki district for a period of three years. Lease deed was executed in favour of M/s. Indu...
Suni Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-15-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT618
V. Ramkumar, J.1. Accused Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 in S.C. No. 435/2000 on the file of the Addl. Sessions Court, Thalassery for offences punishable under Sections 143,147,148 and 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. challenge the conviction entered and the sentence passed against them by that court for the aforementioned offences.2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows:On 1-11-1998 at about 9.30 a.m. the 8 accused persons owing allegiance to the B.J.P. out of their political enmity towards the persons belonging to the C.P.I. (M) and in furtherance of their common object of causing the death of Pavithran a C.P.I.(M) activist, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly in front of the veranda of shop No. 37 of Thrippangottur Panchayath at Poyiloor and armed with deadly weapons like chopper, sword-stick, hatchet etc. and committed rioting. They attacked Pavithran who was sitting in front of the aforesaid shop by inflicting a stab injury on his right leg with a hatchet. When Pavi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »