Kerala Court October 2007 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.
K.N. Surendran Vs. Secretary, Union Bank of India and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-16-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)KLJ696
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This writ petition is filed challenging the decisions contained in Exts.P2, P4 and P8 by which the writ petitioner, charge-sheeted as per Ext. P1, was imposed punishment following trial by Court Martial and such decision confirmed by the competent authorities, in appeals.2. Petitioner governed by the provisions of the Navy Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as die 'Act', was posted in Port Blair in Andaman and Nicobar Islands as the Base Victualing Officer with responsibility of supplying dry and fresh rations to troops of the Army, Navy and Air Force and their families positioned in Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Ext.Pl charge-sheet was issued on different counts relatable to discharge of his duties and responsibilities in Andaman and Nicobar Islands. By Ext.P2, he was found guilty of six out of seven charges, following trial by Court Marital at Port Blair. He was relieved from Naval Service immediately thereafter. After remitting the fine imposed on hi...
Mammen Mathew Vs. M.N. Radhakrishnan and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-15-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ845; 2008(1)KLJ98
ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner (Mammen Mathew) who is the Editor of Malayala Manorarna, Kottayam, seeks to quash Annexure-A complaint dated 15-3-2006 and all further proceedings in C.C. No. 1/2006 on the file of the J.F.C.M., Mannarkadu. The above case arose out of a private complaint filed by the first respondent herein (M.N. Radhakrishnan) alleging the commission of an offence under Section 499 IPC. and punishable under Section 500 I.P.C.The Complaint2. The averments in the above private complaint a copy of which has been produced as Annexure A can be summarised as follows:The complainant is the Manager of the Mannarkkad Branch of United India Insurance Company Limited. He was on leave for the period between 11 -4-2005 and 24-4-2005 and 26-04-2005 and 6-5-2005. At the time of entering on leave the complainant had, as usual, entrusted the keys of the branch office with the Senior Assistant. While the complainant was on leave as a...
C.P. Saleena Vs. the State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-15-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)KLJ748; 2008(1)KLT437
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. All these four writ petitions hinges on the question as to whether Smt. K.R. Beegum, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 21229/07 is entitled to preferential appointment under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules, in a vacancy which arose on 15-7-2005 in recognition of her earlier approved service for 112 days between 28-6-2000 to 17-10-2000, in a maternity leave vacancy in the post of HSA (Arabic). The question arises on account of the introduction of the first proviso to Rule 51A by amending Rule 51A, by G.O.(P) No. 121/05/G.Edn. dated 16-4-2005 published in the Gazette dated 27-4-2005, by which for claiming preferential right of appointment under Rule 51A a minimum continuous service of one academic year as on the date of relief pursuant to the prior service was made compulsory.2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of these writ petitions may be stated as under.3. Smt. K.R. Beegum was initially appointed as HSA (Arabic) in the M.S.R H.S.S., Malap...
Chandran Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-11-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ59
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. How is the period of detention under Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. to be ascertained? Is the petitioner entitled to set off under Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. for the period from 17-12-2004 to 21-06-2005, during which period he was admittedly in custody? Can the said period be reckoned as 'period of detention' undergone by him during investigation, enquiry or trial of the same case i.e. C.C. No. 111 of 2005 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichur, notwithstanding the fact that there was no specific order of remand by the learned C.J.M. authorising detention for the said period? These are the crucial questions surviving for consideration in this Crl. M.C. now.Though various other reliefs were also claimed by the petitioner in this Crl. M.C., now the learned Counsel for the petitioner presses only for set off for the said period in one case, i.e. C.C. No. 111 of 2005.2. A brief reference to skeletal facts appears to be necessary. On the night of 11/12-09-2004 11/12-...
Rasiya Vs. K.K. Chandukutty and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-11-2007
Reported in: II(2008)BC544; 2007(3)KLJ691
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Was the learned Magistrate justified in invoking his jurisdiction to award costs in the fact and circumstances of this case? When adjournment is sought on the ground that the counsel had taken ill all of a sudden, can or should that jurisdiction be invoked to award costs, the panacea for all evils to a non party/stranger - even when such non party/stranger is the Legal Services Authority? Thoughts on these aspects are aroused in this Criminal Miscellaneous Case.2. The petitioner is the accused in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed in 2006. The case was posted for trial to 11/9/2007. The learned Counsel for the petitioner took ill suddenly and had to be taken to the hospital. It is submitted that the counsel was ready to go on with the trial but for his taking ill all of a sudden and unexpectedly. The counsel could not conduct the trial on that day. The matter was reported to the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate made th...
Haridasan C. and anr. Vs. the State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-11-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)KLJ615
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The point that arises for decision in this Original Petition is, what is the age of retirement of N.M.R. workers, who were absorbed into the regular establishment and who were holding Class III posts in the Kerala Water Authority at the time of their superannuation.2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The 1st petitioner was appointed in the erstwhile Public Health Engineering Department through the Employment Exchange as C.L.R. Operator and thereafter, he was posted as N.M.R. Operator in 1968. The 2nd petitioner was also appointed in the P.H.E. Department on being sponsored by the Employment Exchange as N.M.R. Operator in 1968. The petitioners were absorbed into the post of Operator in the regular establishment from the category of N.M.R. Operator, as per the orders issued by the Government with effect from 12-10-1981. Later, when the Kerala Water Authority was formed, the petitioners were absorbed in the said authority. They were Class III emplo...
Nishil Vs. the Station House Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-10-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ2467; 2008(1)KLJ39
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Is an accused person, who was granted default bail under the proviso (a) to Section 167 Cr.P.C., which bail was cancelled later under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C., entitled to invoice the proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. again later? Will the fact that the final report was not filed within 60/90 days from the date of the remand after first arrest or the date of subsequent arrest on cancellation of bail entitle him for such default bail again? These interesting questions are raised in this application filed by the petitioner, who faces allegations for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 120B and 302 r/w. 149 I.P.C.2. To the crucial and vital facts first. The petitioner is one of the 11 accused persons, who have by now been arrayed as accused in the case. He is the 11th accused. The alleged incident took place on 26-7-2005. The crux of the allegations is that accused 1 and 2 entertained business rivalry against the deceased, one Thilakan. They were all engaged...
Aravindaksha Panicker N. Vs. the Accountant General and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-10-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)KLJ666
V. Giri, J.1. The question that is posed for consideration in this writ petition is one which seems to arise in several cases, in slightly varying forms. Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (for short 'DCRG') is the retirement benefit that a Government servant is entitled to, as part of his right, for the services rendered by him. In an ideal situation a Government servant would probably receive the DCRG due and admissible to him within a month of his retirement. Again, in an ideal situation, the Government servant would start receiving his pension in the month following his retirement. But obviously there are plethora of instances where it would not be possible, either to disburse the DCRG due and admissible to the Government servant immediately following the retirement. The statutory rules framed under the Public Service Act govern the right to receive pension and gratuity. They also provide for a time frame, within which, the liability of a Government servant, arising in relation to the p...
The Manager, Chulika Estate Vs. Kunjumohammed and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-10-2007
Reported in: [2008(116)FLR911]; 2007(3)KLJ652
Harun-Ul-Rashid, J. 1. Order dated 19-9-2001 of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Kannur in W.C.C. No. 241/1998 is under challenge. The 1st opposite party is the appellant herein.2. By the said order, the Commissioner allowed the application for compensation submitted by the 1st respondent directing the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs. 20,780/- within 30 days from date of receipt of the judgment of the Commissioner failing which revenue recover proceedings will be initiated to realise the said amount with 12% interest from the date of default. The 1st respondent/appellant was a workman under the appellant/1st opposite party. During his employment the 1st respondent sustained personal injuries. According to the 1st respondent during the course of his employment he met with an accident and his right hand little finger got injured and amputed. The fact that the 1st respondent sustained injuries on 9-12-1997 during the course of his employment is admitted by the appellant. T...
K.M. Aboobacker and anr. Vs. Station House Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-09-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ75
K. Thankappan, J.1. The appellants are found guilty by the trial court under Section 55(a) read with Section 55(i) of the Abkari Act. The allegation against the appellants as revealed from the prosecution evidence is that they were found transporting 48 bottles, each containing 180 ml Coconut Fenny, a foreign liquor, without having any transport permit under the provisions of the Abkari Act and the Rules framed thereunder. As per the charge filed by the Circle Inspector of Police, Kumbala, on 13-2-1998 at about 2.45 a.m. the appellants were found travelling in a motor cycle and the 1st appellant was riding the motor cycle and the 2nd appellant was holding a cardboard box and on stopping the vehicle, it was found that the box contained 48 bottles of Coconut Fenny and on seizing the cardboard box on preparing Ext. P1 seizure mahazar, the appellants were arrested. Further it is alleged that, the samples were taken for analysis and as per Ext. P5 chemical report, it was reported that the s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »