Kerala Court March 2007 Judgments
Hindustan Foundry Products Vs. Genl. Secretary, Trichur Engg. Workers ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-30-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)KLJ537
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. The Management in ID. No. 22/2001 on the files of the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad is the petitioner herein. The petitioner is challenging Ext. P9 award passed by the Tribunal in the said I.D.The issue referred for adjudication was:Whether the action of the management to refuse advances and denial of employment to the 3 workers, Sarvasree B.A. Ouseph, M.R. Bhoopesh and RB. Preman, is justifiable? If not, what are the remedies entitled to them.2. Before the Tribunal, both sides confined their submissions on the issue of denial of employment only, leaving out the issue regarding refusal of advances. Based on the pleadings filed by the parties, the Tribunal found that the real issue was regarding the dismissal of the three workers. The union, in its claim statement, stated that the three workers were dismissed from service without conducting a domestic enquiry and the charges levelled against them were false. In their written statement, the management contended that t...
Tag this Judgment!M.A. Mony Vs. M.P. Leelamma and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-29-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ2604; 2007(2)KLJ209
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Does the availability of alternative options for grievance redressal. deprive the aggrieved person of her right to approach the Magistrate with a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act? Does this Court have power to direct transfer of a petition under Section 12 pending before the Magistrate to a Family Court, where another dispute between the same parties is pending? These questions arise for consideration In these petitions. I am satisfied and both counsel agree that this transfer petition and the Cri. M. C. can be disposed of by a common order. Accordingly, I have taken up both these matters together for consideration.2. The first respondent in these petitions is admittedly the wife of the petitioner herein. The marriage had taken place as early as on 8-11-1977. The parties are living separately from 11-4-1982. It is unnecessary to refer to the prior history of litigations between the parties. Suffice it to say that at th...
Tag this Judgment!P.M. Padmanabhan Vs. K.P. Sethumadhavan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-28-2007
Reported in: (2007)2CompLJ483(Ker); [2007]78SCL180(Ker)
ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. Accused Nos. 1, 3 and 2, respectively, in CC 380 of 2004 on the file of JFCM-I, Kozhikode, are the petitioners in these miscellaneous cases filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In these proceedings, the petitioners seek to quash the complaint pending before the JFCM-I, Kozhikode, where the case is pending as CC 380 of 2004 after cognizance has been taken for an offence punishable under Section 108-I of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) for the alleged contravention of Section 108 of the said Act. The said complaint was filed by the common first respondent, namely, K.P. Sethumadhavan, a former director of a public limited company by name Al-Ameen (P.) Limited.2. The case of the complainant can be summarised as follows:2.1 The company is having a paid up capital of Rs. 1,00,000. The paid up capital was raised by the company by way of sale proceeds of the shares to the shareholders. The complainant has 2.5 per cent of the shares in ...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Gopalan R. Vs. Travancore Devaswom Board
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-28-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ215
K.K. Denesan, J.1. The petitioner retired from the service of the respondent-Board, on 31-03 -2004, while working as Assistant Secretary. The grievance sought to be redressed through this writ petition pertains to the non-payment of commuted value of pension due to him. The respondent has not accorded sanction for payment of commuted value of pension. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to commute his pension in accordance with the rules and upon such commutation he is entitled to receive the amount thus sanctioned, immediately on his retirement.2. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The respondent states that but for a vigilance enquiry pending against the petitioner, the entire terminal benefits including commuted value of pension would have been paid to him, by this time. Ext. R1(b) communication received from the Vigilance and Anti-corruption Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram addressed to the Secretary of the respondent shows that 'no vigilance case is pending against th...
Tag this Judgment!Sulabha Vs. Smt. Suseela and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-28-2007
Reported in: AIR2009Ker43; 2008(3)KLJ861
A.K. Basheer, J.1. Can the registering authority under the Registration Act, 1908(for short, the Act) refuse to register an agreement for dissolution of marriage on the ground that there is no statutory provision which compels the registering authority to register a document 'which is per se unenforceable and not compulsorily registrable'2. The above interesting question has come up for consideration in this Original petition in the following facts and circumstances.3. Petitioner is stated to be the wife of the one Mr. Anilkumar. According to the petitioner, she had been living separately from her husband. They had decided to effect divorce by mutual consent. Accordingly, a document styled as 'Vivahamochanam' (Divorce) was executed by them on a stamp paper worth Rs. 500/-. The document was presented for registration before respondent No. 1, the Sub Registrar, Varkala. However, the Sub Registrar refused to register the document. Therefore, petitioner preferred a complaint before the Ker...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala, Rep. by the Public Vs. P.V. Krishnan, Former Executiv ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-27-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ4005
K. Thankappan, J.1. The common questions involved in these appeals are (i) whether the court below was justified in acquitting the accused in the Calendar Cases against which the appeals are filed and (ii) whether the sanction order given by the Secretary, Vigilance Department to prosecute the accused in the above cases under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is legally correct or not. 2. The acquittal orders passed in the Calendar Cases were on the basis of the finding entered by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikde to the effect that the Secretary, Vigilance Department was not competent to issue the sanction order to prosecute the accused in the above cases. The grounds urged in the appeals are (i) the impugned orders are not sustainable on the ground that the trial Judge has no power to acquit the accused in view of the defective sanction granted by an incompetent officer and (ii) the trial Judge went wrong in ...
Tag this Judgment!Vijaya Home Loans Ltd. Vs. Byju
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-27-2007
Reported in: [2007(114)FLR1019]; (2007)IIILLJ226Ker
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Petitioner is challenging Exhibit P-5 order issued under Section 18(2) of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, hereinafter called the 'Act' by which the Deputy Labour Commissioner cancelled the termination of service of the first respondent and directed reinstatement and in the alternative payment of compensation by the petitioner. I heard counsel appearing for the petitioner, and counsel appearing for the first respondent.2. The main contention raised is that house building finance company run by the petitioner is not a commercial establishment within the meaning of Section 2(4) of the Act. While the contention of the petitioner is that the activity of the petitioner is not banking business or any of the activities referred to in the definition clause, counsel for the first respondent contended that petitioner is engaged in advancing loans for; house construction and therefore is an establishment engaged in banking business and in the altern...
Tag this Judgment!K.E. Jose Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-27-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ871
R. Basant, J.1. The petitioner is the respondent in an application filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as Domestic Violence Act). The second respondent herein, admittedly the wife of the petitioner, had filed the said application before the learned Magistrate. A copy of the said application is produced as Ext. P1. An interim order was prayed for under Section 23 of the Domestic Violence Act. The petitioner entered appearance and resisted the claim. He filed Ext. P2 counter statement. The learned Magistrate proceeded to pass an interim order under Section 23 of the Act.2. The petitioner came rushing to this Court on 15-03-2007 after the said order was passed on 14-3-2007 complaining that copy of the order has not been furnished to him by the learned Magistrate as mandated under Section 24 of the Domestic Violence Act.3. Section 24 of the Domestic Violence Act reads as follows:Court to give copies of order free of co...
Tag this Judgment!Kora Vs. the District Collector and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-27-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ183
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Petitioner's land was acquired for public purpose. He filed a petition before the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act contending that enhanced compensation was given for the adjacent lands acquired from the same notification for the same purpose. He relied on the awards passed in L.A.R. Nos. 8/2003, 19/2003, 27/2003 and 28/2003. Land Acquisition Officer informed that appeals were filed against the above award as L.A.A. Nos. 419, 470, 472 and 474/2006 and the appeals are pending before this Court and therefore question of granting enhanced compensation will be considered after disposal of the appeals. According to the petitioner he ought to have been awarded enhanced compensation under Section 28A. When the matter came up before the Learned Single Judge, petitioner relied on the observations in Thomas v. District Collector 2000 (2) K.L.T. 160. In the above case it was observed that on the ground that appeal is pending, Section 28A appl...
Tag this Judgment!V. Anil Kumar S/O. Raghavan Nair and K. Gangadharan S/O. Kanarakutty N ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-26-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)KLT303
K.S. Radhakrishnan, Ag. C.J.1. Question that is posed for consideration in this case is whether a petition filed before the State Election Commission by a voter of a Panchayat under Section 36 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 is maintainable for a decision as to whether a member has become disqualified under Section 35(k) when a member of the Panchayat already stands disqualified and his disqualification has attained finality as far as the member is concerned. 2. Third respondent by name Ussain was an elected member of Kunnamangalam Grama Panchayat. He was elected as member from Ward No. 6 of the Panchayat. On account of his continuous absence in the Welfare Standing Committee Meeting of the Panchayat of which he was a member for four times continuously, he entailed a disqualification. Secretary of the Panchayat accordingly issued a notice under Section 37(2) of the Act informing him of his entailment of disqualification under Section 35(k) of the Act vide Ext.P1 notice dated 2-6-...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »