Kerala Court February 2007 Judgments
Thazhath Valappil Prasanth Vs. Kalliani and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-23-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ910
M. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. Appellant is the only son of deceased Velliyattu Narayanan. Appellant filed O.S. 169/81 before Munsiff Court, Payyannur on 7-9-81 with his maternal uncle as his next friend. The suit was subsequently returned for presentation before proper court and was represented as O.S. 318/82 before Sub Court, Thalassery. Later it was transferred to Sub Court, Payyannur, and numbered as O.S. 83/87. The suit was for partition of twelve items of properties scheduled in the plaint. His mother was the second defendant and grandmother (mother of Narayana) was first defendant. It was contended by appellant that plaint schedule properties are the self acquired properties of Narayanan and on the death of Narayanan, it devolved upon his wife, second defendant, mother first defendant and son, plaintiff and each of them are entitled to one share and though Ext. A8 partition deed was executed by defendants 1 and 2, it was against the interest of plaintiff and second defendant did no...
Tag this Judgment!Ramanan Vs. Chitrasenan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-22-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Ker174
K.T. Sankaran, J.1. Registry has noted a defect that the Appeal is not maintainable before the High Court since valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction is below Rs. Two lakhs. Appellant has replied stating that the amount decreed together with interest would be above Rs. Two lakhs and therefore, the Appeal is maintainable. Since such question arises very often, we thought, it would be expedient to lay down the principles.2. In the present case, suit was filed by the respondent herein for specific performance of contract or in the alternative, for realization of the advance of Rs. 1,50,000/-paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. The valuation for specific performance is Rs. 1,60,000/- and that for the alternative relief is Rs. 1,50,000/-. The Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Irinjalakuda passed a decree for return of the advance amount together with interest at 6% per annum from 28-2-2003. The appellant has shown in the Memorandum of Appeal that the interest payable under t...
Tag this Judgment!K. Kanakachandran Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-22-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Ker155
ORDERK. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The point that arises for decision in this case is concerning the interpretation of Section 16(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts leading to the case are the following:2. The petitioner challenges Ext. P1 notification, by which respondents 3 and 4 were appointed as members of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. The Commission consists of a President and 4 members, in the light of Section 16(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 read with Rule 16 of the Kerala Consumer Protection Rules, 2005. Section 16(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act deals with the appointment of President of the Commission, who is or has been a Judge of a High Court. Section 16(1)(b) of the Act deals with the appointment of other members. The proviso to Section 16(1)(b) says that not more than 50% of the members to be appointed should be persons having a judicial background. The meaning of 'person having a judicial background' is explained in...
Tag this Judgment!Govind Jayan Vs. Arya Sanjeev and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-22-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ633
K.S. Radhakrishnan, Acting C.J.1. Petitioners in all these cases are aspiring for admission to the MBBS Course conducted at the Trivandrum Medical College. Except Govind Jayan, appellant in WA Nos. 2190, 2191, 2340 and 2341 and 2341 of 2006, rest of them are rank holders in All India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Rank List. Govind Jayan is rank holder in the State rank list. One Swarup Sasidharan holding rank No. 2292 in the All India Rank List filed WP(C) 24602 of 2006 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to accommodate him to one of the vacancies at Trivandrum Medical College in the All India Quota. He has also sought for a direction to respondents not to fill up one vacancy of 1st year MBBS admission at Government Medical College. Trivandrum from the State merit list. When the writ petition came up for hearing before learned single Judge on 4th October 2006 it was reported by learned Government Pleader that Swarup Sasidharan was already accommodated at Trivandrum Medical Co...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Dimpi V. Divakaran and anr. Vs. Mahatma Gandhi Univ. and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-22-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ545
K.M. Joseph, J.1. Case of petitioners, in brief, is as follows:They are Post Graduates in Politics and International Relations. First petitioner is holder of M.Phil. Degree in International Politics from the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University (hereinafter referred to as JNU). Second petitioner's M. Phil. Is in Chinese Studies from JNU. They are qualified to be appointed as Lecturers in Internationa] Relations in the Universities in Kerala. They are holders of Ph. D. from JNU. A vacancy of Lecturer in the School of International Relations and Politics arose in the first respondent University, when one Dr. K.N. Harilal, Lecturer got relieved from the University to join the Centre for Development Studies, Thiruvananthapuram. The University is duty bound to appoint Lecturers by following the procedure under Clause 3 Chapter III of the MG University Statutes. It reads as follows:Appointment of teachers:Teachers of the University shall be appointed by the Syndicate ...
Tag this Judgment!Thankappan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-21-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ3462
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Appellant herein stood as surety for one Pushpan who was an accused in a Sessions Case pending before the Additional Sessions Court, Alappuzha. The EY/ above accused failed to appear before the Court despite several opportunities were granted. Notices were issued to the appellant and other sureties, but, accused was not produced. After bond was forfeited, notice was issued against the appellant along with the other sureties. At paragraph 10 of the order, it is stated as follows:10. As evidenced by his own sworn statement he also played fool to get a man out of the clutches of law. Such a person is not entitled for the clemency of the Court. Moreover the accused still remains unapprehended. Therefore I see no reason to grant any remission as such the 2nd counter petitioner is directed to pay a penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. Issue distress warrant for realisation of the sum.Case was registered against the sureties only after bond was forfeited. Proceedings were initiated under...
Tag this Judgment!Usha K.S. Vs. the District Education Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-21-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ526
K.M. Joseph, J.1. Case of petitioner, in brief, is as follows:Petitioner is a Post Graduate Degree holder in B.Ed. in Malayalam. She is working as HSA in the second respondent's School. Petitioner challenges Ext.P1 order and seeks a direction to second respondent to promote her to the post of HM from 31-5-2006 when she became eligible to be promoted. It is her case that she is the third senior-most teacher as per the seniority list. The third respondent is the senior-most teacher. But, she does not possess B.Ed. Qualification or its equivalent qualifications. Therefore, she was overlooked when the vacancy arose on 31-3-2001. One Smt. Susamma Varghese was appointed. This was challenged before this Court and this Court did not accept the claim of third respondent. It is anticipating that the same issue will arise on the retirement of Smt. Susamma Varghese, petitioner filed representation along with the second seniormost teacher, who retired on 31-5-2006. It is pursuant to the direction o...
Tag this Judgment!Alex and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-20-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ2835; 2007(1)KLJ616
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. The petitioners are accused and an F.I.R. has been registered against them, inter alia, under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short 'the Act') and Section 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners have, in these circumstances, come to this Court with a prayer that the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. may be invoked to quash the F.I.R. registered against them.2. What are the reasons? Two reasons are urged. First of all, it is said that the F.I.R. does not specifically reveal that the complainant is a member of the Scheduled Caste or that the accused do not belong to any Scheduled Caste. Relying on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Manohar M. Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra 2005 Cri LJ 4653, it is contended that when the First Information Statement is bereft of such vital details, the F.I.R. can be quashed.3. Secondly and alternatively, it is contended...
Tag this Judgment!K.K. Ramachandran Master Vs. Dr. K. Jyothilal and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-20-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ659
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Does Rule 22 of the Kerala Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the 'Conduct Rules', create a bar to jurisdiction and proceedings under the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', to act on a complaint filed by a Government servant without the written permission of the Head of office or the Government, as the case may be2. The first respondent, a gazetted Government servant filed Ext. P1 complaint before the Lok Ayukta, making a complaint against certain actions attributed to the petitioner. Petitioner filed Ext. P2 interlocutory application before the Lok Ayukta taking the stand that those proceedings are not maintainable in view of Rule 22 of the Conduct Rules. This writ petition is filed alleging that the Lok Ayukta is not taking up that interlocutory application for consideration.3. The Conduct Rules are framed primarily to govern the filed of discipline among Government servants. A perusal...
Tag this Judgment!Santhosh Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-20-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ619
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. The petitioner faces allegations under Section 55(g) of the Kerala Abkari Act. After investigation, final report has been filed before the learned Magistrate by the police and accordingly, cognizance has been taken and committal proceedings has been registered.2. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner is that at 5.45 p.m. on 25-11-2002 he was found transporting jaggery and kareenja patta in an autorikshaw when he was intercepted by the police party. He allegedly abandoned the articles and took to his heels. These articles can be used for the purpose of manufacturing liquor and it is the case of the prosecution that the possession of these articles was for the purpose of manufacturing liquor and consequently the act of the accused is punishable under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations against the petitioners are factually untrue and false. That question cannot, of course, be resolved by ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »