Kerala Court May 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.
Mukesh Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-29-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT63
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The petitioner was a candidate, who applied for appointment to the post of Welfare Officer Grade-II in the Department of Jail, pursuant to Ext.Pl notification. The qualifications prescribed for the post were:(1) Degree from a recognized University.(2) Degree or Diploma in Social Service or Social Work, obtained from a recognized University or Institution.(3) Ability to read and write Malayalam.The petitioner, who is a Master's Degree holder in Social Work, applied for the post. During the selection process, the petitioner found that respondents 3 to 9 were also allowed to participate in the interview, though their qualification was M.A. Degree in Sociology. So, this Writ Petition was filed, seeking appropriate reliefs. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the rank-list was published in which, the petitioner was included as Rank No. 5. In the rank-list, persons with M.A. Sociology qualification were placed above the petitioner. The petitioner prays for a ...
In Re: Sr. Abaya
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-26-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3843; 2006(2)KLT1001
ORDERK. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. This suo motu Criminal Revision is taken against an order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam on 26.9.2005 while considering the final report filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation in Crime No. RC 8(S) 93/SPE/KER/SIC-II, popularly known as Sr. Abhaya case. The short, but interesting, question arising for consideration in this Criminal Revision Petition is the power of the committal Magistrate to conduct local inspection of the place of occurrence while considering a final report filed under Section 173(4) Cr.P.C. in respect of a case exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions.2. Sr. Abhaya, aged 21, daughter of Sri Thomas and Smt. Leelamma was a student of Pre-degree course of BCM College, Kottayam. She was staying in St. Pious Xth Convent at Kottayam. On 27.3.1992 she woke up at 4 AM and went to the kitchen of the hostel to drink cold water which was kept inside a fridge. She was found missing and nobody had seen her alive thereafter...
Abraham Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-26-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT138
Kurian Joseph, J.1. Whether an order under Section 85(9A) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 is liable to be reopened under Section 85(9) is the question to be decided in this case. Ext.P2 notice issued by the 2nd respondent Taluk Land Board is under challenge. As per the said notice dated 27.5.1999 the ceiling case No. C.R. 784/73 on the files of the Taluk Land Board, Ernad, transferred to Taluk Land Board, Nilambur and renumbered as S.R.I 15/97 was sought to be reopened by invoking the power under Section 85 (9A) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. One main ground taken in the Writ Petition is that of limitation. Proviso to Section 85(9A) clearly provides for a period of three years from the date of introduction of the amendment for such reopening and it is now settled law that beyond the period of three years there cannot be reopening under Section 85(9A). Two decisions of this Court on the point are (1) Mary Michael v. Taluk Land Board 2001 (2) KLT 603) and (2) State of Kerala ...
R. Sivaraman Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-26-2006
Reported in: III(2007)BC729
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. An unsuccessful complainant in a case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is the appellant. According to him he advanced a loan to the respondent. In repayment thereof the respondent issued Ext. P1 cheque dated 1.9.1996. When presented to the Bankers it bounced. Demand for repayment was not acceded to. It was in the above circumstances the complaint was filed. The defence offered was that he had issued a blank cheque on borrowal of only Rs. 4,500/- on 31.5.1996. The appellant had made use of that cheque for the purpose of this case. Therefore the cheque cannot be stated to be issued in discharge of the liability alleged. It is also submitted that out of the cheque leaves issued and produced as Ext. Dl series only Ext. P1 was made use of on 31.5.1996 when he is alleged to have availed of a loan of Rs. 4,500/- from the appellant. These are sufficient circumstances to rebut the presumption if any, that is arising out of issuance of the cheque.2. The cheque was admitt...
Pushpalatha Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-25-2006
Reported in: III(2006)ACC840; 2006(3)KLT166
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction that immediate and effective steps be taken for introduction of gas kits in two and three wheelers in the State and for forbearing from taking action against the owners of vehicles who convert their vehicles with LPG kits.2. Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). was amended by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2000 providing for the facility of conversion of vehicles using LPG and CNG as fuel. That amendment was published in the Gazette of the Government of India on 14-8-2000. The proviso to Section 52(1) thus brought in by substitution of the amending Act of 2000 is that where the owner of a motor vehicle makes modification of the engine, or any part thereof, of a vehicle for facilitating its operation by different type of fuel or source of energy including battery, compressed natural gas, solar power, liquid petroleum gas or any other fuel or source of ener...
Devassia Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-25-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3480; 2006(3)KLT30
R. Basant, J.1. The appellant/accused assails the concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.2. The prosecution alleged that the appellant had married deceased Mini on 16.2.1998. She was allegedly subjected to matrimonial cruelty of the culpable variety by the appellant after 16.2.1998 till 21.6.98. Unable to stand the trauma, Mini allegedly committed suicide on the night of 21.6.98. The prosecution alleged that the appellant was guilty of various acts of matrimonial cruelty punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC and abetment the commission of suicide punishable under Section 306 of the IPC.3. The investigation commenced with Ext.P1 - First Information Statement lodged by P. W.2 -- brother-in-law of the accused on the basis of which Ext.P1(a) FIR was registered. It culminated with the charge sheet submitted by P.W. 18. Consequent to the plea of not guilty raised by the appellant, P.Ws.1 to 21 were exam...
Pushparaj Vs. Manoharan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-24-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT951
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. This Writ Appeal comes up for hearing before this Full Bench since a Division Bench was of the opinion that the Full Bench decision of this Court in Sasidharan Nair v. State of Kerala 2003 (1) KLT 998, which overruled the Division Bench decision in Manager, A.U.P. School v. State of Kerala 1988 (1) KLT 402, requires reconsideration at the hands of a larger Bench.2. The bone of contention in this case, between the appellant and the 1st respondent, is the post of Headmaster of an aided U.P. School on promotion under Rule 45 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules (KER), The 1st respondent is a matriculate with T.T.C and the senior most teacher of the school. After having entered service as an Assistant Teacher in another aided L.P. School on 2-6-1975, he joined the present school on 10-8-1977 after obtaining transfer in terms of Rule 11, Chapter XIV A of the KER, as the junior most teacher of the present school on 10-8-1977. The appellant commenced service in t...
Johnson Vs. R.T.A.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-24-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ker307; 2006(2)KLT1016
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Third respondent was granted a variation of a stage carriage permit. Consequently, the timings were also fixed. Petitioner is also a stage carriage operator. Both the services operate on the same route from Kozhikode to Kunnamkulam which is stated to be for a distance of more than 102 kms.2. By Ext.P4 judgment, at the instance of the petitioner, this Court ordered the Secretary, RTA to consider the petitioner's objection regarding timings. Thereupon, Ext.P6 order was issued after a timing conference.3. Fourth respondent challenged Ext.P6 before the Tribunal by filing a revision under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal passed Ext.P9 interlocutory order without giving a pre-decisional opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.4. The petitioner challenges Ext.P9 contending that the third proviso to Section 90 provides for a pre-decisional hearing, without which even an ex pane interlocutory order cannot be passed by the Tribunal unles...
Devaki Antharjanam Vs. Narayanan Namboodiri
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-24-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Ker38; 2006(2)KLT1022
K.T. Sankaran, J.1. The first defendant challenges the final decree for partition. The plaintiff is the husband of the first defendant. The 2nd defendant is their son. The plaintiff and first defendant has a daughter as well. They are Namboodiris. In the illom partition, the plaint schedule property and more extent was allotted to the plaintiff, first defendant and their children. As per a subsequent partition, the plaint schedule property was allotted to the plaintiff and defendants. Each of them has one third share in the plaint schedule property having an extent of 13.5 cents in which a residential building and a commercial building are situate. Preliminary decree declared their shares. The plaintiff filed the application for passing the final decree. A Commissioner was appointed. He submitted a plan, report and account. The trial court accepted the same and passed the final judgment and decree. The defendants unsuccessfully challenged the final judgment and decree before the Distri...
Suresh Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-24-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ4562; 2006(3)KLT231
ORDERJ.M. James, J.1. The question that arise for consideration in this Criminal Revision Petition is whether, the High Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction and confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the courts below in a case under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, in short 'the Act', could postpone the execution of the sentence, till such time as the revision petitioner, accused, moves the appropriate Government under Section 432 or 433 Cr.P.C., for remission or commutation of the sentence or order the Government to commute the sentence.2. The revision petitioner, V. Suresh, the first accused in S.T. 861 of 1995 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Neyyattinkara, was found guilty under Section 16(1)(a)(i), read with Section 7(i) and (iii) and Section 2(ia)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, in short 'the Act', and under Rule 5, read with Appendix B, item A.05.09, as well as Rule 50 of the Prevention of Fo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »