Kerala Court June 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.
Kerala Self-financing Engineering College Managements Association Rep. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-07-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Ker220
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Question that is posed for consideration in this case is whether the managements of various unaided Engincering Colleges can devise their own method of admissions to the Engineering Courses in their colleges for the year 2007-08 by adding marks obtained by the candidates in the Entrance Examination conducted by the Commissioner for Entrance Examination with the marks obtained by the candidates in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics in the Plus-two qualifying Examination.2. Learned single Judge referred the matter for consideration by a larger Bench in view of the ruling of the Division Bench in Lisie Medical & Education Institution v. State of Kerala 2007 (1) KLT 409 setting aside Section 3 of Act 19 of 2006 which insisted on admissions only from the rank list prepared on the basis of the State Entrance Examination. Proposals were made by the petitioner before the Admission Supervisory Committee for adding the marks obtained by the candidates in the qualifying e...
V.S. Vasudevan Vs. the Federal Bank Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-07-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)KLJ688
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.1. Ext. P6 order passed by the execution court dismissing an application submitted by the petitioner, the 2nd judgment-debtor that his property be executed from sale on the ground that he is an agriculturist who is cultivating the property in question and is depending for the income derived from such cultivation for his livelihood is under challenge.2. Heard both sides. Mr. Shoby K. Francis, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Subordinate Judge did not grant an effective opportunity to the petitioner for adducing evidence for substantiating the contention that the petitioner's property is not liable to be sold. According to me, no useful purpose would have been served even if the petitioner had been permitted to adduce evidence to substantiate his case that he is an agriculturist. It is to be noticed that exemption which is given under Section 60(1)(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure is exemption from attachment and sale. In the instant case ...
M.K. Govindankutty Menon Vs. Reena W/O Late Kaithachirayil and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-05-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Ker254; 2007(2)KLJ664
ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J.1. In this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner, a retired member of the State Higher Judicial Service impugns Ext. P3 order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge on an application for attachment before judgment filed by respondents 1 to 3 who were plaintiffs in a suit for damages suffered by them due to the death of one Thomas, husband of the 1st respondent and father of respondents 2 and 3, by electrocution. The allegation in the plaint was that live electric wire had beer] laid by respondents 4 to 7 who were defendants 3 to 6 in the suit on the boundary of the property belonging to the petitioner who was the 1st defendant in the suit, so as to protect the cultivations standing thereon from attack of rats, bandicoots, rabbits, wild boars etc. The ridge over which the live electric wire was laid was being used by various persons of the locality to the knowledge of all the defendants and it is contended that the instruction giv...
C.C. Devassia Vs. Kerala Small Industries Devt. Corpn. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-04-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)KLJ689
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Heard.2. Petitioner was the Manager of the Sales Emporium of SIDCO in Ernakulam during the year 1995. SIDCO procured furniture from St. Mary's Wood Works & Industries and supplied it to the Harijan Hostel at Ernakulam, on requisition. Those goods were found to be substandard, by the Government, following inspection on the basis of anonymous complaints. SIDCO black listed the manufacturer and warned the petitioner.3. Going by the counter affidavit, the Forest Department had certified that the wood used is Aanjili wood and there was no adverse comment about quality of the wood or the workmanship of the articles. The action taken by SIDCO against the manufacturer led to O.P. No. 15824/1998 before this Court, resulting in SIDCO being directed to release amounts to that unit, with interest.4. Thereafter, the Vigilance Department of the State Government enquired into the matter and found that the furniture supplied to the Harijan Hostel were substandard and ...
E.K. Antony and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-04-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)KLJ812; (2008)ILLJ605Ker
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The petitioners were employees of the Chaldean Syrian Bank Ltd., hereinafter 'Chaldean', for short, which then was carrying on certain activities referable to banking or Travancore Chitties Act or the Cochin' Kuries Regulation. In terms of Section 38 of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959, by Ext.Pl, the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Economic Affairs) accorded sanction to the State Bank of Travancore, hereinafter, 'Bank' for short, for acquisition of the business including assets and liabilities of Chaldean on the terms and conditions set out in Ext.P2. Pursuant to that, the petitioners entered into service of the Bank, having regard to the provisions contained in Clause 16 of Ext.P2 Scheme. With the passage of time, the State Bank of India issued the State Bank of Travancore (Employees') Pension Regulations 1995, hereinafter, the 'Pension Regulations', for short, in exercise of powers conferred under Sub-sect...
Bhavani Auto Distributors Vs. K. Muraleedharan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-01-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ3934; 2007(3)KLT392
ORDERK. Thankappan, J.1. Complainant in on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Ernakulam is the appellant. First respondent, accused in the complaint, was acquitted on the ground that no notice was served on the 1st respondent and the appellant could not prove that the 1st respondent have knowledge of the notice or he had refused to receive the same. The case of the appellant is that the 1st respondent purchased spare parts worth for Rs. 23,989/- and issued Ext.P1 cheque for that amount and when it was presented for encashment, the same was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds in the account of the 1st respondent. On receipt of intimation of dishonor of the cheque, a lawyer's notice was caused to the 1st respondent demanding of the amount covered by the cheque. The said notice was returned to the appellant with the endorsement 'not claimed'. Thereafter, the complaint was filed. To prove the case against the 1st respondent, the appellant himself was examined as P...
E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Suresh Babu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-01-2007
Reported in: [2007(114)FLR1158]; (2007)IIILLJ1076Ker
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation has filed this appeal challenging the judgment passed by the Insurance Court, Alappuzha by which it was found that workman is entitled to get the benefit for an employment injury. The respondent was working at Ernakulany Regional Milk Producers Union Dairy. He met with an accident on May 16, 1995. The respondent claimed the disablement benefit. It was contented that the injury sustained by him was an employment injury and on account of that injury he lost vision of one of his eyes. Since the Regional Director refused to grant reliefs, he filed petition before the Insurance Court. The main contention raised by the appellant was that the petitioner was not an employee on the date of the accident as he was drawing salary in excess of Rs. 3,000/-. The contention was rejected by the Insurance Court and directed the appellant to extend the disablement benefit to the respondent. Challenging that finding, this appeal is filed....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›