Kerala Court October 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.
Kerala Water Authority Vs. Surendran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-11-2006
Reported in: [2007(112)FLR772]; [2007(2)JCR42]; 2006(4)KLT983; (2007)IILLJ678Ker
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. Whether the writ petitioner, who is a physically challenged person, appointed under Rule 9(a)(i) of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (for short K.S. & S.S.R) on 4.8.1998, on being sponsored by the Employment Exchange and who joined duty on 5.8.1998, in the post of Pump Operator under the Kerala Water Authority on daily wage basis, is entitled to re-appointment in service, is the point that arises for decision in this Writ Appeal.2. The physically challenged are our less fortunate brothers. The fate has been cruel to them. Most of us, who are fortunate not to have physically challenged children, cannot fathom the depth of their pain and anguish, caused by their disability. It is the duty of the society to ensure that they are extended equal opportunities in all walks of life. Our Parliament has enacted the Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, providing special protecti...
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Co.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-11-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ARBLR405(Kerala); 2007(1)KLT196
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Does the law, even after the introduction of amended Section 89 into the Code of Civil Procedure permit, tolerate or enable the court to compulsorily refer the parties to arbitration even without their consent and against their volition? This is the question that is mooted for consideration in this Revision.2. When the question was raised initially by the learned Counsel, Sri K.L. Varghese, it was considered ridiculous and blasphemous that the court can even think of having such a power. Having heard the counsel in detail, I am satisfied that the question-deserves to be considered in depth.3. To the vital facts first. The suit is one for realisation of money filed by the plaintiff, the first respondent herein. Defendants 1 and 2 in the suit are the petitioners before me. They had entered into an agreement with defendants 3 and 4 relating to the work of construction of Goshree Bridges to link Cochin City with the Vypeen Islands. They, i.e. defendants 1 and 2, had en...
John Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-11-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT932
A.K. Basheer, J.1. Is respondent No. 2, the Corporation of Cochin, justified in rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner for remission of building tax during the period of its non-occupation on the ground of delay? Shorn of unnecessary details, the essential facts relevant for adjudication of the issue are stated hereunder.2. Petitioner is the owner of a three storied building within the limits of Cochin Corporation. According to him the second and third floors of the said building were not occupied either by him or by any tenant from April 1, 1999 to September 30, 1999. On April 9, 1999 he submitted an application for remission of building tax during the relevant half year period. The said application was rejected by the Corporation on the ground that it was not submitted within the stipulated period. A similar application for remission submitted by the petitioner on April 5, 2000 for the period from April 1, 2000 to September 30, 2000, was also rejected on the same groun...
Murukankutty Vs. Amarnath Shetty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-11-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KLT971
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The grievance raised in this petition, to initiate contempt of court proceedings, is that, in spite of Annexure A judgment containing a time bound direction to restore the land covered by the judgment in M.F.A. No. 804/90, the Custodian is, for one or the other reasons, postponing it, thereby committing contempt of court.2. The answer by the alleged contemner is that because of the enforcement of the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 (for short 'the Act'), the land, being an ecologically fragile land in terms of Section 3(1) of the Act, lying contiguous to vested forest has statutorily vested with the Government, notwithstanding the judgment directing restoration. Therefore, the Custodian is unable to restore the land.3. This contention is countered by the petitioner relying on the decision reported in Joseph v. Lissy Jacob 2000 (3) KLT SN 68 wherein it has been held that a plantation which had been directed to be res...
Kodungalloor Town Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Surendra Babu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-11-2006
Reported in: [2007(112)FLR189]; 2006(4)KLT653; (2007)2LLJ337Ker
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The question that is posed for consideration in this case is whether workman is entitled to claim the benefit under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act from the date of filing the application or from the date of the award. Learned single Judge allowed the application of the workman and ordered that the workman is entitled to get the benefit under Section 17B from the date of coming into force of Ext. P1 award, till the disposal of the Writ Petition.2. Shri M.P. Ashok Kumar, counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in granting the benefit under Section 17B of the Act from the date of the award. Counsel submitted that the workman can claim the benefit only during the pendency of the proceedings before this court. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Commandant, Defence Security v. Secretary, N.C.C.G.U.E. Assn. 2001 (2) KLT 104. Counsel also placed reliance on the decisi...
K.M. John Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-11-2006
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ184
A.K. Basheer, J.1. Is respondent No. 2, the Corporation of Cochin, justified in rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner for remission of building tax during the period of its non-occupation on the ground of delay? Shorn of unnecessary details, the essential facts relevant for adjudication of the issue are stated hereunder.2. Petitioner is the owner of a three storied building within the limits of Cochin Corporation. According to him the second and third floors of the said building were not occupied either by him or by any tenant from April 1, 1999 to September 30, 1999. On April 1999 he submitted an application for remission of building tax during the relevant half year period. The said application w as rejected by the Corporation on the ground that it was not submitted within the stipulated period. A similar application for remission submitted by the petitioner on April 5, 2000 for the period from April 1, 2000 to September 30, 2000, was also rejected on the same ground....
In Re: 122 Prisoners
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-10-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ3241; 2006(4)KLT597
ORDERK. Hema, J.1. In a petition filed by 122 under-trial prisoners voicing several grievances, Advocate C.S. Dias, who was appointed by this Court as Amicus Curiae, brought to the notice of this Court that there are huge number of under-trial prisoners languishing in different jails in the State, undergoing detention for more than even the maximum period of sentence prescribed for the offence or offences alleged against them. It was also submitted that this was mainly due to non-production of such prisoners in court for want of sufficient police escort.2. Sensing the immediate need for an urgent intervention at the hands of this Court, a direction was issued to the Director General of Police (Prisons) to file a statement whether there are any such prisoners in the jails. A shocking statement dated 20.9.2006 was filed by the D.G.P. (Prisons), in response to the direction of this Court. The statement revealed that there are as many as 109 under-trial prisoners in the various jails of Ke...
Shibi Francis Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-10-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Ker296; 2008(1)CTLJ129(Ker)
ORDERK.R. Udayabhanu, J.1. The writ petitioner who is the registered owner of a car, Innova 2.0 G3 with Registration No. KL-4/S-3655, has sought for a direction to the second respondent, Sub Inspector of Police, North Police Station, Alappuzha to register a case on the complaint submitted by her dated 22-7-2006 regarding the theft of her vehicle and also for a direction to have an expeditious recovery of the above vehicle and produce the same before the judicial First Class Magistrate, Alappuzha having the jurisdiction over the area. It is submitted that the petitioner had executed loan agreement as per which she had availed finance from the third respondent, Financier with the condition that the same shall be repaid in equal monthly instalments. Blank cheques were also obtained by the financier as a further security for the transaction apart from the vehicle. The monthly payment was at the rate of Rs. 14,000/- and the amount is to be paid in 57 instalments. Agreement is dated 13-2-200...
Babu P.K. Vs. the Chief Engineer, Kseb and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-10-2006
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ35
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The contention of the petitioner in this writ appeal is that the service that he had put in Kerala State Electricity Board before his joining in Government service is also be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of computing pension due from Government on his retirement from the Government service. Pension is payable only on the basis of Rules provided in Part III KSRs, taking into account the qualified service as reckonable in terms of the said Rules. No provision in the said Rules enabling counting the service in the Kerala State Electricity Board for the purpose of grant of pension on retirement from Government service, is brought to our notice. The trump card that the appellant possesses is Annexure -A2 Government Order No. G.O.(P) 228/2001/Fin. Dated 02-02-2001 which indicates that the Government intends to add a note to Rule 20 Part III KSRs. Such a note is not yet notified. The said Government Order in its last sentence provides that 'The formal ...
Kerala Nadvathur Mujahideen Vs. HussaIn Madvoor
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-09-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)KLT92
M. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. Can a counterclaim be allowed to be raised subsequent to the filing of the written statement? Can it be permitted to be raised by way of amendment of the written statement and if so under what circumstances? These are the questions to be decided in this petition.2. The brief facts of the case necessary for decision in the case are as follows:Kerala Nadvathul Mujahidecn is a registered Society registered under Societies Registration Act. First respondent was its Secretary. The society represented by the then Secretary filed O.S.568/02 before Munsiff Court, Kozhikode seeking a decree for declaration that the resolution taken at the meeting convened on 17.8.02 by first respondent/second defendant is invalid and is not binding on the petitioner society. A decree for permanent prohibitory injunction was also sought. First respondent filed a written statement on 19.2.03 disputing the claim and denying the plaint allegations. Petitioner filed I.A.2858/02 and I.A.29...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »