Kerala Court November 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.
Shuja Baby and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-07-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ366
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. These two original petitions relate to sanction of additional divisions in St. John's High School, Mattom, Mavelikkara, on staff fixation for the year 1999-2000. O.P. No. 18706/2000 is filed by the manager of the school challenging Ext.P5 order of the Government whereby the Government had refused sanction of additional divisions to which the petitioner was found eligible for the year 1999-2000. O.P. No. 18651/2000 is filed by the teachers appointed by the manager in the additional posts to which the school was eligible for the additional divisions in accordance with the staff fixation. Since the two original petitions relate to the same subject matter, they are disposed of by this common judgment.2. The issue involved arises in the peculiar circumstances which are detailed as follows: For the year 1998-99 there were 49 class divisions in the St. John's High School. During the year 1999-2000, the District Educational Officer (DEO) visited the school on 7-6-1999 for v...
Simon and ors. Vs. Rappai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-07-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)KLJ488
ORDERT.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. This Revision Petition is filed by the tenants challenging the judgment rendered by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. This respondent herein is the landlord. The landlord filed RCP No. 42/1998 to evict the tenants under Sections 11(2), 11(3) and 11(4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The rent control court dismissed the eviction petition, and on appeal by the landlord the appellate authority has allowed eviction under Section 11(3) and 11(4)(v) of the Act.2. The facts of the case which are necessary for disposing of the revision petition are the following:The tenant premises is a shop room in the ground floor of a multi storeyed building. The landlord is occupying a similar shop room adjacent to it on the northern side of the petition schedule room. The same is owned by his wife, and the landlord is conducting jewellery shop named 'Maharani Jewellers' in the said shop room. The petition schedule shop room was purchased...
Velikkal Anjaneyan and anr. Vs. Kanjiroli Abdul Razak and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-07-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ349
V.K. Mohanan, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of remand in A.S. 4/2003 on the file of the District Court, Kozhikode. The appellants are defendants 1 and 7, who are respondents 1 and 7 in the appeal. The suit was one for partition claimed to be on the basis of title obtained from court sale, A short, difficult, but interesting question arises in this appeal is as to whether an auction purchaser, who purchased the undivided share in an immovable property sold in execution of a money decree whose execution petition for taking delivery dismissed as time barred, is entitled to maintain a separate suit for partition and for separate possession of his share and whether such a suit is barred by Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure2. The suit property belonged to defendants 1 to 6 and their father one late Madhavan. The said Madhavan was adjudged insolvent on 31-7-1975. His 1/7th share was sold in court auction and knocked down in favour of the 7th defendant. The other six shares ...
Usha K. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-07-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)KLJ765
V. Giri, J.1. The petitioners in all these cases were employees of the Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'), having been appointed on casual basis in the first instance and regularized in the respective posts pursuant to orders issued by the Government. Their services were subsequently terminated by orders passed by the Government followed by consequential orders issued by the Corporation. Those orders are under challenge in these writ petitions.2. Most of the contentions taken up by the petitioners are common. Common issues are also involved. Therefore, the writ petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. W.P.(C) No. 27782/07 is taken as the leading case for the purpose of convenience.3. Petitioners 1 to 33 were working as Junior Assistants in the service of the Corporation. Petitioners 34 and 35 were working as Record Keepers and petitioners 36 to 38 were working as sweepers. The 2nd ...
R.S. Moideen Vs. Govt. of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-06-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ137; 2008(3)KLT666
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. Petitioners are challenging notification under Section 4(1) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act') and declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act. The land owned by the petitioners were sought to be acquired for the construction of an autorickshaw stand. According to the petitioners the Panchay at has no source of funds. The need projected is not a public purpose. Section 227 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act provides that Panchayat may provide landing places, halting places and cart stand (including stand for animals and vehicles of any description) and levy fees for their use. Construction of autorickshaw stand is a public purpose. It is also averred that the sixth respondent has forwarded a report to the fifth respondent stating that this land is not fit for constructing an autorickshaw stand. Whether the land proposed to be acquired is fit for starting an autorickshaw stand, etc. are matters to be considered by the requisitioning authority. ...
Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. Baby Fran ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-05-2007
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR59]; (2008)2LLJ805Ker
J.B. Koshy, J.1. This appeal is filed by the Employees State Insurance Corporation. The appellant insisted that the respondent should insure its employee under the ESI Act and issued notice demanding contribution. The respondent applicant approached the El Court contending that it is not a covered establishment and only 8 persons are employed in the establishment. If 10 or more persons are employed, coverage is necessary. It is contended by the ESI Corporation that the two persons by name Manoj and Muhammed Ali are manufacturing and supplying part of de-freezing machineries manufactured by the respondent and since they are doing the work in connection with the factory, they also should be 1 counted for purpose of fixing employment strength in the factory.Respondent establishment relied on the decision of this Court in Choisons v. ESI Corporation 2005 (107) FLR 589 (Ker) to argue that those two persons who are not working inside the premises are not covered in the ESI Scheme. Considerin...
K.P. Varkey Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-01-2007
Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Ker)65; [2008]304ITR133(Ker)
H.L. Dattu, C.J.1. Since the issues involved in all these appeals are common, they are clubbed, heard and disposed of by this common order.2. I.T.A. Nos. 122 of 2007, 124 of 2007, 123 of 2007, 131 of 2007, 132 of 2007 and 125 of 2007 are filed by K.P. Varkey, Proprietor, M/s. Tolin Rubbers. These appeals pertains to the assessment years 1996-97 to 2001-02. They are filed against the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, Cochin in I.T.A. Nos. 406 (Coch)/2005 to 411 (Coch)/2005.3. K.V. Tolin, Proprietor, M/s. Tolin Pre-Treads has filed I.T.A. Nos. 96 of 2007, 116 of 2007, 113 of 2007, 114 of 2007, 112 of 2007 and 115 of 2007 and they also relate to the assessment years 1996-97 to 2001-02. They arise out of an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T.A. Nos. 412 (Coch)/2005 to 417(Coch)/2005.4. Smt. Annie Varkey, Proprietor, M/s. Toshima Rubber Products has filed I.T.A. Nos. 121 of 2007 to 130 of 2007 and they arise out of an order passed by the...
The Ernad Primary Co-op. Agrl. and Rural Devt. Bank Ltd. Vs. State of ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-01-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ363
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner is a co-operative society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the 'KCS Act'. It was formed by bifurcating a co-operative land mortgage bank which was registered under the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932, for short, the 'Madras Act'. Thereafter, the Kerala State Co-operative (Agricultural and Rural Development Banks) Act, 1984 came into force. That Act, for short, 'the CARD Act', governs the loan transactions of the petitioner.2. On the basis of the provisions of the CARD Act, the petitioner is entitled to seek O.P. No. 29506 of 2000-K Decided on 01-11-2007 sale of charged property, without intervention of court. In certain situations, the Bank, with permission, bids in auction. Sales certificates have been issued by the Sale Officer in favour of the petitioner. The issue raised in this writ petition is as to whether those sale certificates are exempted from levy of stamp duty u...
Dr. V.K. Rajan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-01-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ909
J.B. Koshy, J.1. In all these cases, main questions to be considered are common. Validity of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance') and jurisdiction of District Judge under the Ordinance after enactment of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short 'P.C. Act') are the main questions to be considered in these cases. In Cri. Appeal No. 1400 of 2007 appellant was facing investigation for the case registered against him for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act alleging that the appellant had amassed wealth disproportionate to his income. The check period is 1-1-1994 to 12-5-2005. While the investigation was continuing, an application was filed by the Investigating Officer before the District Court for attachment of his properties invoking provisions of Sections 3 and 5 of the Ordinance. The District Court passed an order attaching certain properties scheduled in the petition. When the ...
Sivaprasad A. Vs. the Kerala Public Service Commission
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-01-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)KLJ655
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Question that the come up for consideration in this case is whether a Government servant who had taken leave without allowance subject to the conditions stipulated in Appendix XII-A of the Kerala Service Rules would be ineligible to apply for appointment by transfer to the category of Assistant Engineer (Civil) as per the Kerala Engineering Service (Civil and General Branch) Rules.2. Public Service Commission published a notification in the Gazetted on 12-10-2004 for appointment by transfer against 10% quota of Assistant Engineers earmarked for in service candidate who are graduates in engineering. Petitioner who had the requisite qualification as prescribed under Special Rules submitted application on 10-11-2004. Petitioner was sanctioned leave by the Government vide GO(Rt.) No. 1017/05/WRD dated 31-8-2005 for five years from the date of avail, in order to take up employment abroad subject to all the conditions stipulated in Appendix XII-A of the Kerala Servic...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »