Kerala Court June 2007 Judgments
Sunit M.V. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-29-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)KLJ182
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. In these connected cases, the common third respondent was defaulter for abkari dues to the tune of Rs. 3,66,507/- for the year 1989-90. Revenue recovery notice is stated to be served on the third respondent on 2-6-1990. However, third respondent's one item of property was sold in court auction pursuant to decree obtained by petitioner in WPC 17165 of 2007 in which the property was purchase d by the plaintiff-petitioner himself. Suit based on a dishonored cheque was filed as OM No. 1079 of 1992 and it was decreed on 30-5-2000. It is seen from the decree produced that t is a compromise decree whereunder the third respondent undertook to pay the suit amount with 18% interest. In view of the decree and sale of property of the defaulter (third respondent) to petitioner in WPC 17165 of 2007, that property was not available before the recovery authorities for recovery of abkari dues. Therefore the property purchased by the petitioner in WPC 24955 of 2003 from this...
Tag this Judgment!ismail Pillai Mohammed Haneefa Vs. Mohammedali Vaidyan Ibrahim Kunju V ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-28-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Ker276
M. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. When a defendant fails to produce a document as directed by the Court in an application filed by the plaintiff whether his defence could be struck off under Rule 21 of Order XI of Code of Civil Procedure? Even if the defence is struck off can the Court deny the defendant his right to cross-examine the witnesses examined on the side of plaintiff? These are the substantial questions of law to be decided in the second appeal.2. Respondent instituted the suit before Munsiff Court, seeking a decree for injunction. Appellant, the defendant filed a written statement disputing the right and possession claimed by respondent. Trial Court framed necessary issues. Respondent filed LA. 837 of 1987 purporting to be under Rule 11 of Order XI seeking an order directing appellant, defendant to produce the original of the registered sale deed which is claimed to be in his possession. Trial Court directed appellant to produce the original sale deed. Appellant did not produce t...
Tag this Judgment!Dist. Co-operative Bank Vs. Baburaj Pankan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-27-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)KLJ757
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The Kerala Public Service Commission had published a notification dated 03-06-2004 which was published in the Kerala Gazette dated 15-06-2004 inviting applications for selection to the post of General Manager on district-wise basis in the scale of Rs. 8150-16150 for the vacancies in the Thrissur District Co-operative Bank, the Kannur District Co-operative Bank, the Idukki District Co-operative Bank and the Wayanad District Cooperative Bank.2. In this case we are concerned with the appointment in the Kannur District Co-operative Bank. Several persons applied in pursuance to the above mentioned notification. Public Service Commission conducted a written test and an interview and then published a ranked list for appointment to the post of General Manager in the Kannur District Co-operative Bank. Second respondent in the writ petition W.P.C. No. 12442 of 2007, one Abdul Nazar was the only person included in the ranked list. Later Public Service Commission issued an...
Tag this Judgment!M. Jayanthi Vs. Surendra Manjeswar and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-25-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)KLJ113
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Petitioner challenges Exts. P11, P14 and P17 orders which are referable to the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as the 'Conservancy Act', the Kerala Land Conservancy Rules, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the 'Conservancy Rules', the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act, 1960, 'the Assignment Act', for short, and the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964, 'the Assignment Rules, for short.2. Petitioner is the daughter of the sister of respondents 1 and 5 and thus, the granddaughter of Panchi and Korapaly.3. 47 cents in R.S. 87/9 and 20 cents in R.S. 87/8 of Manjeswar Village were assigned to Panchi and his wife Korapaly in 1936. As they failed to pay land tax due on the land, the assignment was cancelled in 1937. No documents were there to show that the above cancellation of the assignment was with notice to them or that the cancellation was known to the assignees. On 20-4-1959, the assignees filed application ...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Sankaran Nair Vs. E. Vijayalekshmi D/O Late K. Narayanan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-22-2007
Reported in: I(2008)DMC429; 2007(3)KLT280
Kurian Joseph, J.1. Whether a petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by one party before a Family Court can be directed to be transferred to another court where a maintenance case is pending between the parties, in exercise of the power under Section 21A(2)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is the question that arises for consideration in this case. The respondent/wife filed M.C. No. 294/2005 on the file of the Family Court, Kannur, caliming maintenance from the petitioner. During the pendency of the said petition the appellant/husband filed O.P. No. 723/2006 before the Family Court, Ettumanoor, for restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent/wife thereafter approached this court praying for transfer of O.P. No. 723/2006 on the file of the Family Court, Ettumanoor to the Family Court, Kannur to be tried along with M.C. No. 294/2005. The learned single Judge allowed the petition and passed the following order:Invoking the power under Section 21A(2)(b) of the Hindu Marria...
Tag this Judgment!P. Jaya Rajan Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-22-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ4067; 2007(2)KLJ676
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Is the petitioner, in whose favour directions under Section 438, Cr. P.C. had been issued, liable to continue to comply with the conditions imposed while granting such an order of anticipatory bail even when he later seeks and obtains regular bail from the competent Court? This is the question of interest raised before this Court in this Criminal Miscellaneous Case by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. I am informed that confusion prevails in the minds of even counsel and Magistrates on this aspect not to speak of the travails of the police and accused persons.2. To the skeletal facts first. The petitioner approached this Court with an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438, Cr. P.C. He who faces allegations inter alia under Section 406, I.P.C. was granted anticipatory bail for a period of one month by another Bench of this Court. The said Bench observed that the anticipatory bail order was to hold the field for a period of one month within which ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Muhammed Ashraf Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-22-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)KLJ830
A.K. Basheer, J.1. An interesting question touching upon the interpretation of Rule 45 in Chapter XIV-A K.E.R. has come up for consideration in this writ petition.2. The question is: Can a graduate teacher in an Upper Primary School claim promotion to the post of Head master if he has got half of the period of service of the seniormost undergraduate 'claimant'? In other words, the question is whether it is the total length of service of the seniormost undergraduate teacher in the school that has to be reckoned for, the purpose of deciding eligibility for promotion or is it the total length of service of the next eligible seniormost undergraduate 'claimant' that should be reckoned under Rule 45.3. The revisional authority, the Government, took the view that a qualified graduate teacher will be eligible for promotion if he has got half of the period of service of the seniormost claimant. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition at the instance of the undergraduate teacher....
Tag this Judgment!The State of Kerala and ors. Vs. Dr. Sina A.R. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-21-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)KLJ770
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The question raised in all these cases is with regard to the impact of the University Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 by which Sub-section (1) was inserted to Section 57 of the Kerala University Act, 1974 and to other similar University Acts and its impact on the Statutes, Ordinances and on the Direct Payment agreement entered into between aided colleges and the State Government. For the disposal of these cases we shall refer to the provisions of the Kerala University Act, Statutes and Ordinances.2. A learned single Judge in W.P.C. No. 12109 of 2006 took the view that filling up of the vacancies to the post of teachers in private aided colleges is governed by the provisions of the University Act and Statutes and the University Laws (Amendment) Act does not provide that for filling up of vacancies in existing sanctioned posts Government sanction is necessary, but sanction is required only for filling up the newly sanctioned posts. State maintained the stand that even...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Smt. Brigeet Chacko and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-19-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ348; AIR2007Ker268
J.B. Koshy, J.1. An Army personnel died in an accident while he was travelling in train from Howrah to Chennai. His legal representatives applied for compensation. He was employed in the Army and posted; at Arunachal Pradesh. He was on his journey to house and he was a bona fide passenger. The Railway Tribunal awarded Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation strictly in accordance with Part-1 of Schedule to Railways Accidents and Untoward Incidents Compensation (Amendment) Rules, 1997. Tribunal held as follows:A reading of the oral testimony of the 1st applicant and the documents filed by her, viz. Ext. A7 train journey ticket, Ext. A8 FIR, prepared by the Officer-in-charge, GRP Berahmpur PS. would clearly go to prove that the deceased TJ Chacko, had boarded the Train No. 2841 Coromondal Express at Howrah and proceeded towards Chennai on 20-11-2002 and that he was a bona fide passenger. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the applicants by holding that T.K. Chacko the deceased was a...
Tag this Judgment!P. Aravindakshan Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-19-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)KLJ735
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The issue for decision in this writ petition is as to what is 'hearing' in the context of an opportunity for it, before the dismissal of a Government servant.2. On certain counts of indiscipline, the Vigilance Tribunal, as the enquiring authority, entered findings prejudicial to the petitioner. Based on that, the Government tentatively decided to dismiss the petitioner from service. Ext.P6 show cause notice was accordingly issued, calling upon him to show cause against such tentative decision of the Government. He filed Ext.P8 reply, challenging the findings of the Tribunal on the merits, the findings of guilt and the proposed punishment. By Ext.P9, the petitioner was called to appear for a personal hearing before an officer in the Government. Ex.P10 is the notes of arguments submitted by him at that hearing. What followed is the impugned Ext.Pl 1 Government Order, by which, the tentative decision to dismiss the petitioner from service is affirmed.3. I...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »