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.
Mariam Koshy Vs. Jolly Varghese and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-10-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)KLJ606
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The point in controversy is whether Ext. R2(a) letter dated 25-11-1989 given by the petitioner relinquishing the post of Headmaster is a permanent relinquishment within the meaning of Rule 44(1) of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules.2. The headmaster of an aided L.R School had availed of leave from 25-11-1989 to 09-02-1990. Petitioner and others in the school were not qualified to be promoted to the post of headmaster. One Kesava Pillai was the only eligible person to be appointed to the post of headmaster since he had completed 50 years of age. Petitioner had neither acquired the test qualification; nor had she completed 50 years of age at that time and hence she could not be appointed as headmaster. However, Manager had obtained relinquishment letters from all the teachers including the petitioner even though petitioner could not have aspired for that post at that time. Later the post of headmaster became vacant on 30-06-1990 and therefore Kesava Pil...
The Managing Director, K.S.i.D.C. Vs. Janakiamma Panjakshiamma and ors ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-10-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)KLJ594
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. All these appeals have beer filed by the second respondent in-the Land Acquisition References which were disposed of by tie court below by a common judgment. The appellant is the requisitioning authority for whose purpose the land was acquired, viz. for the purpose of establishing Industrial Growth Centre at Pallipuram. The notification under Section 4(1) is dated 24-1-1997, possession of the land was taken on 15-9-2000 and award was passed on 16-9-2000. The Land Acquisition Officer passed t lie award fixing and value at the rate of Rs. 14,586/- per are. As per the impugned judgment, the court below has enhanced the land value and fixed it at the rate of Rs. 29,982/- per are.2. The main grounds urged by the appellant in the appeal are that the court below was not right in rejecting Ext.R5, the basic document. It is also urged that the document Ext. A2 relied upon to fix the enhanced market value, is a post notification document and hence the same does not ...
Showkath Ali and ors. Vs. the State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-10-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ923
Antony Dominic, J.O.P. No. 31168/20011. Main prayer in O.P. No. 31168 of 2001 is for quashing Ext.P6 order issued by the first respondent granting exemption to 37 Assistant Sub Inspectors of Police from passing Departmental test invoking Rule 39 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'K.S.& S.S.R.')- Petitioners also seek to quash Exts.P10 and P11, provisional and final seniority lists of Sub Inspectors of Police, to the extent it gives seniority to the Assistant Sub Inspectors of Police over the directly recruited Sub Inspectors of Police. A direction to the respondents to prepare a fresh seniority list of Sub Inspectors of Police and a select list of Sub Inspectors of Police for promotion to the post of Circle Inspectors of Police on that basis was also sought for.2. Petitioners are directly recruited Sub Inspectors of Police. On 20-8-1988 the first respondent made a requisition to the Kerala Public Service Commission for recruitment of S...
Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-10-2007
Reported in: III(2008)BC562
ORDERK.P. Balachandran, J.1. Heard arguments of Advocate Mr. R.T. Pradeep for the petitioner and Mr. M. Ramesh Chander for the second respondent.2. The petitioner is the same in all these cases. He is the accused in C.C. 136/ 02 and C.C. 272/03 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-V, Thiruvananthapuram; and C.C. 454/01 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-Ill, Thiruvananthapuram in relation respectively to which these Crl.M.Cs. arise. All the above calendar cases are filed by the second respondent complaining of commission by the petitioner as also accused Nos. 1 and 2 of offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The first accused is M/s. Alsa Spring Fields, a company of which the second accused is the Managing Director and the petitioner/third accused is the Project Manager at Thiruvananthapuram. The company was at the relevant time engaged in construction activities inter alia of residential apartments. The second respondent/the...
Moideen Shah Vs. Joseph Mathew
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-09-2007
Reported in: III(2008)BC32
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. The petitioner was the accused in a prosecution case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He allegedly owed amounts to a person--I shall refer to him as 'the principal' To discharge that liability to the principal, the 4 petitioner allegedly issued a cheque to the respondent herein the power of attorney holder of the principal. The attorney, in his own name, initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act as he was the payee as per the cheque. He explained the issue of the cheque in his name by contending that he was the attorney of the principal and in proof of that produced the instrument of power of attorney. That instrument is attested by a Notary Public at Calcutta. That instrument of the power of attorney and the Notarial certificate are produced before me as Annexure-II. In the course of examination, the attorney asserted that he had never gone to Calcutta to obtain the instrument of power of attorney. The petitioner contended before ...
Food Corporation of India Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-09-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)KLJ502
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the Food Corporation of India challenging the orders Em. P1, P3, P5, P6, P7 and P8. The further relief sought for is to declare that the provisions of the Kerala Labour Welfare Fund Act are not applicable to the petitioner, and therefore, the petitioner is not liable to make any contribution as demanded by the respondents.2. The Food Corporation of India is a statutory Corporation established by the Central Government under Section 3 of the Food Corporation Act 1964. The entire capital of the petitioner Corporation as provided by the Central Government and the Chairman as well as the Managing Director and Directors other than the Managing Director of Central Warehousing Corporation are all appointed by the Central Government. The contention raised is that in view of the various features under which the Food Corporation of India has come into existence, it actually belongs to the Central Government and hence is an establishment...
Kerala Judicial Officers' Association Vs. State of Kerala and Ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-08-2007
Reported in: [2007(115)FLR1111]; 2007(3)KLJ488; (2008)IILLJ2Ker
V. Giri, J.1. The Kerala Judicial Officer's Association inter alia challenge the appointment of respondents 3 to 7 as Industrial Tribunals. They also seek a declaration that the post of Presiding Officers of Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals are identical since it involves the same type of duties and responsibilities. A direction to the State of Kerala to treat the five posts of Presiding Officers of Industrial Tribunal as promotion posts for being filled up by duly qualified members of the Judicial service has also been sought for.2. The petitioner contends that it is a registered association of judicial officers working in the State of Kerala, There are five Industrial Tribunals in the Kollam, Palakkad, Kozhikode, Idukki and Alappuzha districts. The submission is that as per the practice in vogue, existing District Judges are posted as Presiding Officers of the various Labour Courts in Kerala. However, District Judges are not appointed as Presiding Officers of the five Industria...
P.V. Jinan Vs. Spl. Tahsildar and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-08-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)KLJ193
K.T. Sankaran, J.1. The appellant/writ petitioner filed Ext. P1 application dated 18-03-2003 under Section 53 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act before the Land Tribunal. (Hereinafter the appellant is referred to as the 'petitioner'). By Ext. P2 order dated 31-12-2003, the Land Tribunal rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner is not in possession of the property having an extent of 3.75 acres. The petitioner has also filed Ext. P8 application dated 19-06-2003 before the Land Tribunal. The prayer in the Writ Petition filed by the appellant herein is to issue a writ of Certiorari to quash Ext.P2 order and to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent-Special Tahsildar to decide Exts.Pl and P8 applications after taking evidence. The learned single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition.2. The case of the petitioner is that the property in question, which belonged in jenm to the predecessor in interest of the respondents 2 and 3, was taken on lease by Kochintya, the ...
Kochu Thressia Vs. Albert and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)KLJ212
ORDERHarun-Ul-Rashid, J.1. Common issues arise for consideration in all the above four Civil Revision Petitions. The parties before us are referred to herein as landlords and tenants respectively.2. These four revisions arise from Rent Control Petition Nos. 1/1995 and 2/1995 on the files of the Rent Control Court, North Parur. Two Rent Control Petitions are filed by the landlords under Section 11(2)(b), 11(3), 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). R.C.P. No. 1/1995 relates to the eviction of Room No. 784 and RCP No. 2/1995 relates to the eviction of Room Nos. 785,786 and 787.3. The 1st counter petitioner in RCP 1/1995 is the tenant and the 2nd counter petitioner is the sub-tenant. Similarly, in RCP 2/1995, 1st counter petitioner is the tenant and-counter petitioners 2 to 4 are the sub-tenants.4. The petition schedule room in RCP 1/1995 was vented out to the tenant on 7-10-1963 for a monthly rent of Rs. 13...
Lisha Babu and ors. Vs. the District Collector and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)KLJ275
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The copy of sale deed No. 5295/1994 dated 17-10-1994 of SRO, Puthencruz produced by the petitioner along with a memo dated 13-7-2007, following the order dated 3-7-2007, is taken on record and marked as Ext. XI by the Court.2. An extent of 14.976 cents belonged absolutely to the first petitioner on the strength of sale deed No. 3578/1983 of Puthencruz Sub Registry. By sale deed No. 150/1986, she transferred one half of that property to her father-in-law, later V.M. Kuriakose. The first petitioner and late V.M. Kuriakose put up structures in their independent holdings in a manner that the space in between the two structures in the two properties can be utilized for providing a common staircase to the first floor and to the terrace of the building. The said structures were treated as separate buildings and Exts. P2 and P2(a) assessment orders were issued under the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as the 'B.T. Act'. The f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »