Kerala Court December 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.
Janamma and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-20-2006
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ815
K.T. Sankaran, J.1. When the Writ Petition came up for admission on 13-03-2006, the Government Pleader appeared for the respondents and sought time to get instructions. The case was thereafter posted on several occasions. Till today, the Government Pleader has not received any instructions in the matter. Therefore, the Writ Petition is being disposed of on the merits.2. Lands belonging to the petitioners were acquired for the purpose of National Thermal Power Corporation. Award No. 465/92 was passed. Applications were submitted by the petitioners under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for reference. The petitioners did not receive any communication from the reference court or from the office of the second respondent, District Collector. The petitioners filed representations before the third respondent, The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition (General). Third respondent issued Exts. P1 to P7 letters to the petitioners individually stating that the reference was made to the Sub Cou...
Anish V. Kumar Vs. Regional Transport Authority and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-19-2006
Reported in: II(2007)ACC759; AIR2007Ker108
Siri Jagan, J.1. These three cases raise a very peculiar issue viz. whether a permit can be issued connecting two intersecting points in a nationalised route in violation of the scheme notified by the Government although such prohibition of grant of permits would not in any way benefit either the KSRTC or the travelling public in any manner. In all these three cases, the nationalised route is the same but the intersecting points between which grant of permits are applied for are different. Therefore, for the purpose of deciding these cases, it is sufficient to refer only to the facts in one case, which we choose as W.P.(C) No. 26307/2004. The facts are as follows.2. The petitioner applied for a regular permit on the inter-district route Kadakkal-Parippally, (via) Nilamel-Pallickal. The R.T.A., Kollam considered the application and rejected it by Ext. PI decision dated 25-1-2003. Appeal filed by the petitioner against that order was dismissed by Ext. P5 judgment dated 31-7-2004 of the S...
Kamalaksha Vs. S.i. of Police
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-19-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)KLT299
ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. Petitioner who is the sole accused in C.R. No. 294/2006 of Kumbla Police Station for an offence punishable under Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the Abkari Act for allegedly having been found in possession of 240 litres of Karnataka arrack in 2400 packets on 19.10.2006 and who was also arrested on the same day, seeks his enlargement on bail.2. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that no final report has been filed even after 60 days of judicial custody of the petitioner. If so, by I virtue of the proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail as of right.3. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the J.F.C.M.-I, Kasaragod and subject to the following conditions:1. Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer between 9a.m. and 11 a.m. on...
University of Kerala Vs. Kiran Gopalakrishnan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-19-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Ker111; 2007(1)KLT341
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Can an examiner omit to give zero mark to a candidate on the ground that the answer to the question is not worthy of giving any marks is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.2. Petitioner in this case appeared for second and fourth semester examinations of MBA conducted by the University of Kerala during June-July 2005. He failed in one paper, each in the second and fourth semester examinations. Hence he has approached this Court seeking a direction to the University as well as the Controller of Examinations to value the answers in the answer scripts of the petitioner to question No. 15 of MBA (203) Research Methods for Management and question Nos. 4 and 9 of MBA (402) Strategic Corporate Finance of the Second and Fourth Semester Examinations of MBA (FT) respectively by the same examiners (1st and 2nd examiners respectively) and add the marks to the marks noted in Exts.P3 and P4. Learned single Judge directed the University to produce th...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vappu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-19-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ1511; 2007(1)KLT351
M.N. Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottappalam in O.P.(MV)No. 619 of 2003. Claimants are the parents, brothers and sister of the deceased, who died in a road accident. The petition was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act impleading the owner, driver and the insurance company of the bike on which he was travelling as a pillion rider and also the owner, driver and insurance company of the bus as respondents 4 to 6. The Tribunal found that the legal representatives are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 2,08,167/- and thereafter granted an award. It is against that decision the insurance company has come up in appeal.2. Learned Counsel for the insurance company would contend that though in a petition under Section 163A the question of negligence need not be considered, according to him, in order to resolve the dispute inter se between the respondents a finding has to be arrived at and the compensation has ...
Ali Vs. Recovery Officer, E.P.F. Organisation and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-19-2006
Reported in: 2007LabIC899
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Writ Appeal arises out of the interim order dated October 19, 2006 passed by a learned single Judge in W.P(C) No. 27541/2006 directing the appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs so as to avert his arrest and detention due to non-payment of an amount of Rs. 4,59,885/- due to the recovery officer under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. When the Writ Appeal came up for hearing we called for the Writ Petition also and we are disposing of both the cases together.2. Writ Petition was preferred seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exhibit P-4 order directing the petitioner to pay the above mentioned amount within fifteen days from the date of the order, failing which, it was stated that recovery proceedings would be initiated. Exhibit P-2 is a notice dated September 21, 2006 directing the petitioner to show cause why a warrant of arrest should not be issued and why he should not be committed to civil prison in execution of the c...
Jose Vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-18-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)KLT391
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. These Writ Petitions have been placed before us on a reference made by a learned single Judge doubting the correctness of the judgment reported in Mathachan v. Joint Registrar : 2006(2)KLT45 . In that judgment the learned single Judge has taken the view that Rule 43A(ii) of the Co-operative Societies Rules providing 15 clear days notice for moving a no-confidence motion is only directory and not mandatory. Learned single Judge has also taken the view that while going by the scheme of meetings for consideration of no-confidence motion a person against whom the motion is moved has no right to vote in that meeting.2. Petitioner in WP(C) No. 24820 of 2006 has approached this Court seeking a declaration that Ext.P1 notice issued by the Assistant Registrar to convene the meeting to discuss the no-confidence motion is in violation of the statutory provisions contained in Rule 43A of the Rules as 15 clear days notice has not been given to the members. He has also sough...
K.A. Jose Vs. R.T.O. and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-18-2006
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ128
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Kerala Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1994 (Act of 1974) is under challenge in all these original petitioners. A few of the writ petitioners have sought for a declaration that Section 2(1)(d), 2(1)(g), 2(1)(i) and Section 3 of the Kerala Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1994 (in short 'Entry Tax Act') are discriminatory and ultra vires of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 246, 265, 286, 301, 304(a), 304(b) and other consequential reliefs. State maintained the stand that the Act is within the legislative competence of the State since it was promulgated in exercise of its powers under Articles 245 arid 246 read with Entry 52 List II of the VII Schedule to the Constitution of India. Two batches of cases have also come up for our consideration; some pertaining to the levy of entry tax with regard to the goods brought from outside the State to the State of Kerala and some others with regard to the goo...
Thressiamma L. Chirayil Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-18-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)KLT303; (2007)7VST293(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Kerala Taxon Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1994 (Act 15 of 1974) isunder challenge in all these Original Petitions. A few of the writpetitioners have sought for a declaration that Section 2(1)(d),2(1)(g), 2(1)(i) and Section 3 of the Kerala Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1994 (in short 'Entry Tax Act') are discriminatory and ultra vires of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), 246, 265, 286, 301, 304(a), 304(b) and other consequential reliefs. State maintained the stand that the Act is within the legislative competence of the State since it was promulgated in exercise of its powers under Articles 245 and 246 read with Entry 52 List II of the VII Schedule to the Constitution of India. Two batches of cases have also come up for our consideration; some pertaining to the levy of entry tax with regard to the goods brought from outside the State to the State of Kerala and some others with regard to t...
Moideen Vs. Nabeesha
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-18-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)KLT324
R. Basant, J.1. Can the offer made by a husband that he is willing to maintain his wife on condition that she lives with his parents at the patrimonial home in his absence be reckoned as a sufficient offer under the second proviso to Section 125(3) or Section 125(4) or Section 125(5) of the Crl.P.C. to successfully resist the claim of the wife for maintenance? This is the only question of relevance which comes up for consideration in this Crl.R.P.2. This is the third tier of litigation and here I shall safely go by the facts as asserted by the petitioner in his evidence. It is his case that he works in a hotel in Mumbai and his wife must reside with his parents and siblings at her matrimonial home in Kasaragod District. He is not present in the matrimonial home and is able to come only annually taking leave from his place of employment. The wife refuses to live with his parents on the plea that she has been subjected to matrimonial cruelty. She made such allegations of cruelty against ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »