Kerala Court July 2007 Judgments
The Manager, Pazhassiraja College and anr. Vs. the University of Calic ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-31-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)KLJ795
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Writ Petition has been preferred by the Manager of an aided college along with the Parent Teacher Association seeking a declaration that Section 57(1) incorporated by 'the University Laws (Amendment) Act 2005' and the guidelines issued by the Government vide Ext.P17 G.O.Ms. No. 95/2006H. Edn dated 10-8-2006 are invalid and ultra vires of the Constitution of India and contrary to the Direct Payment Agreement and also for a direction to the first respondent to issue staff Fixation order in view of Exts.Pl(a), P4, P6 and P7 and Ordinances relating to the workload and staff pattern of Teachers. Petitioners have also prayed for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to depute University and Government nominees so as to constitute the Selection Committees and to effect appointments to the vacant posts.2. 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 Unive...
Tag this Judgment!Mohanan and anr. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-31-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)KLJ221
K. Thankappan, J.1. The appellants faced trial for the offences punishable under Section 55(a) read with Section 55(1) of the Abkari Act along with the 3rd accused on the allegation that they were found in possession of 7 and 12 bottles of Indian made foreign liquor respectively on 6-12-2003 and 7-12-2003 in contravention of the Act or Rules framed thereunder. To prove the charge against the appellants, prosecution examined 7 witnesses and relied on Exts. P1 to P14. After the prosecution evidence, the appellants were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They denied the charge leveled against them. However, the trial court found the appellants guilty under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act and convicted them thereunder and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years each and to pay fine of Rs. One lakh each with def wit sentence of payment of the fine, to undergo S.I. for a further period of six months each. The trial court also allowed the benefit of Section 428 of...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Siraj Vs. the Regnl. Transport Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-30-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)KLJ817
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Constitutional validity of Sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 4 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1976, introduced by the Motor Vehicle Taxation (Amendment) Act, 2005, Act 24 of 2005 and Section 15 of the Act are under challenge before us on the ground that they are inconsistent with the provisions of Section 81 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and are also vitiated by colourable exercise of power and hence unconstitutional and void.2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the insistence for the production of certificate of remittance of contribution under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1985 as a pre condition for receiving motor vehicle tax under the Motor Vehicle Taxation Act. Sub-section (7) of Section 4 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act stipulates that proof of remittance of contribution to the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund upto the preceding month should be produced for receipt of motor vehicle tax Sub-section (8) states that n...
Tag this Judgment!Nalini Janardhanan and ors. Vs. Elamana Chinnammu and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-30-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ282
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.1. The important question which arises in this Writ Petition is whether 'decision' of the suit envisaged by Clause (a) of Rule 3 of Order XVII C.P.C. shall be a decision on the merits of the claims and contentions in the suit. As a corollary, the question whether a decision taken purportedly under Rule 3(a) which does not deal with the merits of the claims and contentions can be set aside under Order IX also arises. The question whether appearance of a party through a counsel who is not prepared to conduct the case but only seeks an adjournment will amount to appearance of the party for the purpose of Rule. 3(a) also arises.2. Plaintiff is the petitioner. On her demise during the pendency of the Writ Petition, her legal heirs have been impleaded as additional petitioners. The suit was for prohibitory injunction against trespass into the suit properties. After trial, the suit was dismissed. But the court of first appeal decreed the suit. On Second Appeal to this Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Mary Thomas Attullil Vs. District Collector and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-27-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Ker271; 2007(3)KLJ285
ORDERThottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. These writ petitioners are filed by the same person.2. Petitioner's husband died on 27-3-1996. It is her case that his mortal remains were buried in the burial ground of the Thrikkakkara Grama Panchayat.3. Petitioner filed O.P. No. 5311 /97 seeking a direction to keep the burial ground open between 8 a.m. and 1 p.m. on 26-3- 1997 for offering prayers. It was then submitted before this Court that the Panchayat had given one hour time. Accordingly, that writ petition was disposed of on 24-3-1997 directing that the petitioner may be allowed to conduct religious prayers for one hour from 11 a.m. to 12 noon.4. Thereafter, she filed O.P. No. 18635/ 97 for a direction to keep the crematorium open on 2-11-1997 for the petitioner and family to observe 'All Souls Day'. In the light of the judgment in O.P. No. 5311/97, this Court permitted the petitioner to have religious ceremonies for one hour, from 11 a.m. to 12 noon on 2-11-1997.5. The petitioner then fi...
Tag this Judgment!K.A. Pradeep Vs. Branch Manager, Nedungadi Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-27-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Ker269
ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J.1. In this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner, who is a power of attorney holder of the 2nd defendant in a suit for recovery of money filed by the first respondent bank, challenges Ext. PI order by which the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed an application filed by him for leave to represent his principal in the suit. The interlocutory application was filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Rule 22 of the Civil Rules of Practice producing power of attorney dated 18-1-2003 executed by the 2nd defendant in the suit in his favour and Ext. PI is the order on that application.2. A counter affidavit was filed to the application by the respondent bank wherein the objections were to the effect that the power of attorney is not attested by witnesses and that the same has not been duly authenticated by the notary. The objections found favour with the learned Subordinate Judge who took the view...
Tag this Judgment!Rethinath K. Menon Vs. the Secretary to Government and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-27-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)KLJ611
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Writ Appeal No. 2199 of 2002 is preferred by the Manager of an aided high school, who was the fifth respondent in O.P. No. 30612 of 2002 and Writ Appeal No. 2276 of 2002 is preferred by the seventh respondent in the original petition. Original petition was preferred by the seventh respondent seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exts. P4 and P12 orders and also for a declaration that he is entitled to have all the service benefits including salary and other consequential benefits.2. For the disposal of these appeals we may refer to the parties according to their status in the original petition. Fifth respondent was the Manager of V.V.S. High School, Mannuthy which was taken over by the Government as per notification issued under Section 14(2) of the Kerala Education Act for a period of five years. Petitioner was appointed by the District Educational Officer, Thrissur who was in management of the school, as a full time menial on 29-06-1992, the said appointment ...
Tag this Judgment!Varkey Abraham S/O. Varkey Vs. the Secretary to Government,
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-25-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)KLT702
K.T. Sankaran, J.1. The main question which arises for consideration in this Writ Appeal is whether a person whose family possesses large extent of lands could apply for invoking the powers of the Government under Rule 24 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, to assign, in public interest, dispensing with the provisions contained in the Rules, land adjoining his extensive lands and that too, to get assignment of an extent of land more than that could be assigned under the Rules. 2. The petitioner in the Writ Petition (appellant herein) was in possession of 34.97 acres of land. He filed a statement before the Land Board, as required under Section 85(A)(1) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The Land Board transferred the statement to the Taluk Land Board, Meenachil, under Section 85A(3) of the said Act. The Taluk Land Board, in its proceedings dated 11-9-1976, accepted the return and held that the petitioner was not required to surrender any excess land. He was not required to surrender exce...
Tag this Judgment!T.K. Gangan Menon Vs. Bright Credit and Real Estate (P) Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-25-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Ker293; 2007(3)KLJ174
ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J.1. Ext. P3 proceedings of the learned Munsiff permitting the plaintiff to file a counter-affidavit to the proof affidavit filed by the first defendant D.W. 1 in lieu of his chief-examination under Order XVIII, Rule 4(1) and ultimately rejecting Ext. PI proof affidavit on the ground that objection has been filed by the plaintiff to Ext. PI is under challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution initiated by the defendant.2. I have heard the submissions of Sri D. Krishna Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner and those of Sri C. K. Sreejith, counsel for the 1st respondent plaintiff and Sri B. Parthasarathy, counsel for the 3rd respondent. Sri Krishna Prasad would refer to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of Order XVIII, CPC and submit that there is no provision for permitting the opposite party to file counter -affidavit to an affidavit which has been filed by a witness in lieu of his chief-examination. Proviso to Sub rule (1) of Rule 4 of Order XVII...
Tag this Judgment!Anilkumar K.V. Vs. Kerala State Electronics Development Corporation an ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-24-2007
Reported in: (2008)ILLJ149Ker
ORDERThottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. After completion of one year training with it, the petitioner was appointed as a Deputy Engineer in the service of the first respondent Corporation - KELTRON on June 2, 1991 and was confirmed on December 3, 1991 as per Exhibit P-3 order.2. Along with his official duties in the service of the first respondent, the petitioner did some honorary work, for the Ernakulam District Panchayat. Later, that activity turned out to be one which called for his continuous involvement in the service of the Panchayat. This led to the petitioner seeking different slots of different types of leave and the first respondent granting such leave, though occasionally, with great reluctance and after notifying the petitioner that such exercise does not appear to be in the interest of KELTRON.3. Be that as it may, after a particular spell of earned leave, the petitioner rejoined duty and applied for long leave without pay. That was not granted. He, however, continued to co...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »