Kerala Court August 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.
The Kerala State Warehousing Corporation and ors. Vs. K.S. Devadasan a ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-17-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)KLJ598
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Writ petition was preferred by the respondents herein challenging Ext. P8 order dt. 3-2-2007 issued by the Managing Director of Kerala State Warehousing Corporation terminating their service as drivers based on a resolution passed by the Board of Directors in exercise of the powers conferred under Clause 12(2) of the Kerala State Warehousing Corporation Staff Regulation 1963 and also for other consequential reliefs.2. Corporation had invited applications for the post of driver on 25-7-2005 in the scale of pay of Rs. 3350-5275. Petitioners had also applied along with several other persons. Petitioners were ultimately appointed as drivers in the service of the corporation and their probations were also declared early. Noticing that the appointments were effected by the previous Managing Director of the corporation without following the rules or regulations and with the mala fide intention to appoint the petitioners, the Board of Directors of the Corporation, in i...
Johnson Vs. Premjith
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-16-2007
Reported in: I(2008)BC217; 2007CriLJ4364; 2007(3)KLJ146
K. Thankappan, J.1. This appeal is filed against the judgment in C. C. No/'1329 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Karunagappallay. The complainant in the above Calendar Case is the appellant.2. The case of the complainant was that the accused-respondent herein borrowed from him an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and issued Ext. PI cheque towards discharge of the above liability which when presented to the bank for encashment was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds in the account of the accused. Since the amount covered by the cheque was not repaid in spite of issuance of notice prescribed under the statute, the appellant filed the complaint. To prove the case against the accused-respondent, the complainant himself was examined as PW 1 and the Manager of the Bank was examined as PW 2 and Exts. P. 1 to P. 6 were produced. On the side of the defence, DWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Exts. Dl to D3 were produced. After closing the evidence of the complainant, ...
Duroflex (P) Ltd. Vs. Technology Information, Forecasting and Assessme ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-16-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ARBLR206(Kerala)
J.B. Koshy, J.1. The appellant, a private limited company, having its registered office at Alleppey entered into an agreement with the respondent. In the agreement there is a clause for arbitration. Clause XVII of the agreement reads as follows:XVII. Arbitration and Jurisdiction--a. If any dispute or difference arises between the parties hereto as to the construction, interpretation, effect and implication of any provision of this agreement including the rights or liabilities or any claim or demand of any party against other or in regard to any matter under these presents but excluding any matters, decisions of determination of which is expressly provided for in this agreement, such disputes or differences shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the Secretary of the Department of Science & Technology, Government of India, or that of his nominee and his decision will be final and shall be binding on all the parties. A reference to the arbitration under this clause shall be deemed t...
Thankavelu Vs. Ramesh Babu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-14-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Ker292
ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J.1. Whether the petitioner who makes bread and other bakery products, all by himself, for distribution/sale will qualify as a labourer for the purposes of Section 60(12){c) of the Code of Civil Procedure is the question which arises for consideration in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.2. The learned Munsiff under Ext. p6 order repelled the claim of the petitioner that he is a labourer and therefore his immovable property under personal occupation is exempt from attachment and sale. In his evidence as P.W.1, the petitioner-Sri. Thankavelu conceded that he owns a bakery by name 'Thankavelu Bakery' at Velanthavalam and distributes the products, bread and biscuits to other bakeries and shops in the locality. It became evident in the case that manual labour is put in by the petitioner in his bakery and that he does not have anybody else to assist him in his work. The learned Munsiff obviously thought that the property of a person who makes b...
Capt. B.S. Prakash Vs. Food Corporation of India and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-14-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)KLJ505
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Question that arises for consideration in this case is whether this Court has got jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the material, essential and integral part of cause of action arose outside the jurisdiction of this Court.2. Original petition was preferred seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exts. P7, P8, P11 and P14 orders and also for a mandamus directing the respondents to drop the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and also for other consequential reliefs. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner while he was employed as District Manager at Purnia (Bihar) during June 1981 to November, 1982. Memo of charges dated 19-10-84 was served on the petitioner while he was working in the Office of the Food Corporation of India at Trivandrum. Petitioner replied to the memo of charges. Enquiry officer was appointed and on completion of enquiry petitioner was imposed with ...
Johny Joseph Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-14-2007
Reported in: (2008)13VST64(Ker)
ORDERH.L. Dattu, C.J.1. This revision petition is filed questioning the legality or otherwise of the orders passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T. A. No. 552 of 2002 dated April 29, 2003. The assessment year in question is 1988-89.2. The assessee is engaged in the business of running a photo processing lab. According to the assessee, his activity is confined to taking of photographs of customers and delivering their photographs. This activity, according to the assessee, is a skilled labour, which is not exigible to tax.3. The assessee had filed his annual returns before the assessing authority. The same is rejected by the assessing authority. After such rejection, the assessing authority had issued a pre-assessment notice, proposing certain turnovers to be exigible to tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The view of the assessing authority is that the activity of the assessee would come within the meaning of the expression '...
F.A.C.T. Service Co-operative Societies Vs. Balakrishna Menon K. and o ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)KLJ235
K.T. Sankaran, J.1. The third respondent in O.P. No. 2596 of 2003 is the appellant. The writ petition was filed by the first respondent praying for a writ of mandamus directing respondents 2 and 3, namely the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies to take action under Section 32 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). There is a further prayer to issue a direction to the third respondent to give pay revision benefits to the petitioner with effect from 1-4-1999 and also the consequential retirement benefits as directed by the Assistant Registrar in Ext. P3 proceedings. A declaration is also sought by the writ petitioner to the effect that he is entitled to get the benefits of pay revision with effect from 1-4-1999 till his retirement on 30-11-2000 and consequential retirement benefits in accordance with law.2. The petitioner in the writ petition was an employee of F.A.C.T. Service Co-...
Haneefa Vs. Pathanamthitta Municipality
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-13-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)CTLJ287(Ker)
K.M. Joseph, J.1. Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext. P3. The respondent-Municipality called for tenders for executing the work of metalling of the yard of the New Municipal Bus Stand under construction vide Ext. P2. Tenders were opened on 20.06.2007. Petitioner quoted the lowest rate at 23.1% below estimate cost and the third respondent quoted the next higher rate of 17.6% below the estimate cost. The 10th item in Ext. P3 is in respect of the report of the Secretary on Ext. P2 to reject petitioner's lowest tender and to accept the next higher tender of the third respondent. The petitioner's tender was rejected on the basis of the remark by the second respondent namely the Municipal Engineer to the effect that petitioner has not pledged the earnest money with the Secretary. According to the petitioner, this view arises out of a misapprehension of the true scope of a pledge. A pledge is complete according to the petitioner upon possession being handed over. Learned Cou...
VipIn V. Rajan and anr. Vs. Sub-registrar (Marriage Officer)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-10-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Ker264; I(2008)DMC55; 2007(3)KLJ255
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Question that has come up for consideration in this case is whether a writ of mandamus can be issued directing the Marriage Officer to entertain an application which was submitted without complying with Section 15(f) of the Special Marriage Act on the ground that the provision is directory.2. Petitioners have approached this Court challenging Ext. P4 order dated 18-7-2007 issued by the Marriage Officer rejecting the petitioners' application stating that they have not satisfied the provisions of Section 15(f) of the Special Marriage Act. Petitioners submit that Section 15(f) being a directory provision a writ of mandamus can be issued to receive the application, though the condition stipulated therein has not been satisfied. Petitioners had solemnized their marriage on 16-7-2007 at St. John Baptist Church at Palarivattom and hardly two days thereafter they preferred an application before the Marriage Officer under Section 15 of the Special Marriage Act for regis...
The Director of Panchayat and anr. Vs. M.V. Ajayakumar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-10-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)KLJ603
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Respondent here in has preferred O.P. No. 9371 of 2002 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P4 order p assed by the Director of Panchayats and also a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to assign seniority to him in the cadre of U.D. Clerk in accordance with order dated 25-03-1991 passed by the Director of Municipal Administration and also for other consequential reliefs. Learned single judge quashed Ext. P4 and declared that the petitioner is entitled to get seniority as U.D. Clerk in the Panchayat Common Service from 25-03-1991, the date of Ext. PI order of promotion as U.D. Clerk.2. Government Pleader Sri. Benny Gervasiz submitted that the learned single judge overlooked the fact that the petitioner was not test qualified when persons who were in Panchayat Common Service in Ernakulam district along with the petitioner were promoted as U.D. Clerk on 18-07-1990 and 31-08-1990 and none of the petitioner's juniors were promoted as U.D. Clerk in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »