Kerala Court July 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.
Kottangodan Mohammed and ors. Vs. Cherathodi Kunhapputty and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-06-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)KLJ162
M. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. Appellant instituted O.S. 4 of 1985 before Munsiff Court, Parappanangadi seeking a decree for partition and allotment of his share in the plaint B Schedule property, having an extent of 2.42 acres in R.S. 223/1 of Cherukad Village of Eranad Taluk. Respondents 1 and 2 filed O.S. 299 of 1984 seeking a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction in respect of the same property contending that the property belongs to them absolutely. Plaint B schedule property admittedly originally belonged to deceased Pathummakutty Umma having obtained it on lease. Appellant is the son of Pathummakulty Umma in her first husband. Respondents 1 to 3 are the children born to her in her second marriage. Appellant contended that on the death of Pathummakutty Umma, plaint B schedule property devolved on all the legal heirs and therefore he is entitled to 2/7 shares and 3rd respondent is entitled to 1/7 shares and respondents 1 and 2,2/7 shares each. Respondents contended that plaint ...
Abdul Vahid Vs. Deputy Tahsildar (R.R) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-05-2007
Reported in: (2008)12VST243(Ker)
K.T. Sankaran, J.1. The third respondent is a dealer registered under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short, 'the Act'). The appellant is a surety to the third respondent and he executed exhibit P3 bond as directed by the sales tax authorities under Rule 6 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963 ('the Rules', for short). Exhibit P3 shows that the liability of the surety is to a tune of Rs. 1 lakh. A sum of more than Rs. 23 lakhs is due from the third respondent as sales tax arrears. Revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against the appellant as well.2. The writ petition was filed by the appellant herein praying for the following reliefs:(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the records leading to exhibit P5 demand notice and quashing the same;(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the first and second respondents to abstain from enforcing any demand against the petiti...
Food Corporation of India Vs. Cletus
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-05-2007
Reported in: [2008(116)FLR44]
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Original Petition was preferred by the respondent herein seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P21 order passed by the Managing Director, Food Corporation of India and also for a writ of mandamus directing the Corporation to appoint the petitioner as Assistant Grade-III (Depot) at Alappuzha with retrospective effect from 11.3.1977 and to give him all consequential service benefits. Learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition and granted a declaration that he would be in service as an Asst. Grade III (D) on a notional basis with effect from 11.3.1977. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been preferred by the Food Corporation of India.Qualification prescribed for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Grade-III as per FCI Staff Regulation, 1971 is Graduation. 70% of Assistant Grade-III posts are to be filled up by direct recruitment and the remaining 30% are to be filled up by promotion. As per the Staff Regulation 30% promotion vacancies are to b...
Radhakrishna and anr. Vs. Ananthakrishnan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-04-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Ker274
ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J.1. What is the proper Court-fee payable in a suit for recovery of possession instituted against the alleged tenants pursuant to finding by the Rent Control Court under the Proviso, to Section 11(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act that the denial of the landlord's title by the alleged tenants is bona fide is the question which arises in this writ petition under Article 227.2. Ext. P1 is copy of the plaint filed by the petitioners and one of the facts mentioned as constituting cause of action for the suit is the dismissal of rent control petition, which had been filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants on finding that the defendants' denial of the plaintiffs' title is bona fide. The prayer in the suit is to allow the plaintiffs to recover the suit schedule building, holding that the grounds envisaged by Section 11(2)(b) and Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act are established. The above prayer has been val...
M.P. Varghese Etc. Etc. Vs. Mahatma Gandhi University and ors. Etc.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-04-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Ker230; 2007(2)KLJ749
ORDERS. Siri Jagan, J.1. The petitioners in these writ petitions are principals of private aided colleges in the State. The issue involved in all these writ petitions is common and therefore these writ petitions are disposed of by this common judgment.2. The issue involved is as to whether aided private colleges would come within the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 ('the Act' for short).3. The contention raised by the petitioners is that the aided private colleges are not authorities coming within the purview of the definition of 'public authority' under Section 2(h) of the Act. They would submit that going by the scheme of the Act, the object behind the Act is to uphold the fundamental right to freedom of speech and. expression. According to them, since a fundamental right can be enforced only against the Government, Governmental agencies or instrumentalities of the Government, the Act can be enforced only against such authorities. In short, they would contend that the t...
Safna Vs. Ramankutty, S. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-04-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ1562; AIR2007Ker298; 2007(3)KLJ189
J.B. Koshy, J.1. A six year old girl child while walking through Mannarkkad - Perinthalmanna road was hit by a lorry bearing registration No. TDV 3769 which was driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner. The lorry was owned by the second respondent and insured by the third respondent. As a result of the accident, she suffered serious injuries like crush injury on the right leg, total loss of vascularity and extensive degloving injury on left thigh, amputation of right leg, wound on left thigh and knee and skin grafting also had to be done. She filed a claim petition through her guardian for Rs. 7,29,100/- limited to Rupees Six lakhs as compensation. Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the lorry driver and the lorry had valid coverage of insurance by the policy issued by the third respondent. But, tribunal only awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,53,576/-. Only quantum of compensation is disputed in this appeal.2. Ext. A4 is the wound certi...
Rekharani Vs. Prabhu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-04-2007
Reported in: I(2008)DMC235
Kurian Joseph, J.1. Whether a power of attorney holder is entitled to present a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is the interesting question arising for consideration in this case. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was duly solemnized on 29.10.2001, After three years, on the grounds of illicit relationship with another person, and cruelty, the appellant filed O.P. (HMA) No. 1470/04 before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram (later transferred to the Family Court, Nedumangad) seeking a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i) and (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. In the meanwhile, the appellant left for Gulf. However she executed a power of attorney, appointing her father as the power of attorney holder to prosecute the case before the Family Court. According to the appellant, O.P. (HMA) No. 1470/04 was got dismissed as not pressed on 17.12.2005 and on the same day, a joint ...
P. Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-04-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)KLJ644
ORDERV. Ramkumar, J1. In this revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C, the petitioner who is the 3rd accused in S.C.455 of 2003 on the file of the IV Addl. Sessions Court, (Court of Special Judge SPE/CBI-II), Ernakulam assails the order dated 8-6-2007 passed by the Special Judge dismissing G1.M.P. 2439 of 2007 filed by the petitioner herein seeking his discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C.2. I heard Advocate Sri. Raja Vijayaraghavan, the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, Sri. P.G. Thambi, the learned Director General of Prosecution and Sri. S. Sreekumar, the learned Standing Council for the C.B.I.ARGUMENTS FOR DISCHARGE3. The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner made the following submissions before me in support of the revision:The prosecution case is that one Naxalite Varghese who was allegedly killed in a police encounter on 18-2-1970 was shot dead by the first accused, a C.R.P.F. Constable by name Ramachandran Nair who is no...
C.L. Cleetus Vs. South Indian Bank Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-03-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Ker301; 2007(3)KLJ258
ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J.1. The 1st judgment-debtor in a decree obtained by the 1st respondent, the South Indian Bank impugns in this writ petition filed under Article 227, Exts. PI and P2 orders passed by the execution Court. Ext. PI is the common order passed on execution applications for setting aside ex parte order and for condonation of delay. Ext. P2 is the order passed on an execution application filed by the signatory to this writ petition seeking his impleadment as the next friend of the 1st judgment-debtor.2. I have heard the submissions of Mr. T. Krishnanunni, learned Counsel for the petitioner and also those of Sri K. Prabhakaran, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent Bank.3. Sri T. Krishnanunni would flay both Ext. PI and Ext. P2. As regards Ext. PI, the learned Counsel would submit that the learned Subordinate Judge was not justified in dismissing the applications filed by the petitioner on the ground of delay. There really was no delay and the condonation appl...
Manager Saraswathi Vilasam U.P. School Vs. Priyesh Aramana and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-03-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)KLJ99
Antony Dominic, J.1. First respondent herein, whose father late Sri. Damodaran was a Peon of an aided School of which the appellant is the Manager. While in service his father expired on 4-9-1998 and the first respondent filed Exts.P2 and P3 representations seeking appointment in the School on compassionate grounds. Since a decision on his representations was not taken, he filed O.P. No. 1554 of 1999 before this Court, which was disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment directing the appellant to consider the representation and pass orders thereon in accordance with law. Representation was considered and by Ext.P5, the request for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected stating that the deceased father of. the first respondent was governed by the provisions contained in Chapter XXIV B of the Kerala Education Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'K.E.R.') and unlike Rule 9A providing for appointment for appointment on compassionate grounds under Chapter XXIV A of K.E.R., there was no similar...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›