Kerala Court November 2009 Judgments

V. Nirmaladevi Vs. State of Kerala Rep. by Secretary and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT16

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The Writ Petitioner is the appellant. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether an aided school teacher will lose seniority, if he avails leave without allowance under Rule 56 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules read with Appendix XII-C of the Kerala Service Rules.2. The brief facts, necessary for the disposal of the case, are the following:The appellant and the sixth respondent were Upper Primary School Assistants (for short, 'U.P.S.A.') working in the fifth respondent's school. They have continuous qualifying service in the post of U.P.S.A. from 20.8.1990 and 1.6.1988 respectively. The sixth respondent availed leave without allowance to join her spouse, as per Ext.P1 Government Order dated 10.6.1993, which is an order granting leave under Appendix XII-C of the Kerala Service Rules (for short, 'K.S.R').The leave was granted as per Ext.P1, subject to the condition that 'the leave period will not count for any servi...

K.M. Janardhanan Kutty Kartha and M. Neelakanda Kartha S/O. Narayana V ...

Court: Kerala

Balakrishnan Nair, J.W.A. No. 22/2008:1. The appellants were Selection Grade Lecturers in Chemistry and Physics respectively, working in the S.N. College, Cherthala. They retired from service on 31.3.2000 and 30.6.1999 respectively. The scales of pay of the teachers of Government and Private Colleges were revised by Ext. P1 Government Order dated 4.7.2000 with effect from 1.1.1996. As on 1.1.1996, the appellants were drawing the Basic Pay of Rs. 4,950/- in the pre-revised scale. On revision, their pay was fixed at the stage of Rs. 15,360/-, in the scale of pay applicable to Selection Grade Lecturers. According to the appellants, some of their juniors were drawing higher pay than them, pursuant to the implementation of Ext. P1 order. Therefore, they claim that they are entitled to get the benefit of Note 4 under the formula for fixation of pay in the revised scale contained in Ext. P1. Note 4 reads as follows:Note 4. - Where in the fixation of pay under clause II above, pay of a teacher...

Pankajakshi Amma Vs. Gourikutty Amma and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2010Ker55

Thomas P. Joseph, J.1. Is it necessary that the use of a pathway to transform into a right of easement by prescription under Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act (for short, 'the Act') the dominant owner has to prove that such user was with notice to the servient owner? This is one of the questions urged by the appellant as a substantial question of law.2. Respondent No. 1 owns item No. 1 of the plaint schedule as per settlement deed No. 1368 of 1967, item No. 2 property is situated on the north of item No. 1 and belong to the appellant. Item No. 3 property belongs to respondent No. 2 and is situated on the east of item No. 2. Item No. 4 is the disputed pathway. According to respondent No. 1, that pathway starts from the water supply road on the east, passes through item Nos. 2 and 3 and reaches item No. 1. Along item No. 3 belonging to respondent No. 3, that pathway has a width of eight feet. Along item No. 2 belonging to the appellant, its width is three feet. Respondent No. 1 clai...

State of Kerala Vs. Seven Star Hotel

Court: Kerala

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. These Sales Tax Revision cases are filed by the State against majority decision of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal allowing the appeals filed by the respondent-assessee against sales tax assessments completed under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') for the years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. The respondent- assessee was engaged in running a bar hotel where Indian Made Foreign Liquor, beer, wine etc. are sold in retail. Wholesale distribution of liquor in the State is the monopoly business of the Kerala State Beverages Corporation which is a company under the control of the Government of Kerala. During 2000-2001, the respondent's hotel was searched by the Sales Tax Department and they detected excess stock of liquor over the accounted quantity valued at Rs. 8,519/-. When the Income Tax Department carried out search in the premises of the respondent under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act on 21.6.2001, they found that the quantity an...

K.G. Antony, Represented by K.G. Stanley, Power of Attorney Holder Vs. ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant herein was the complainant and the respondents were the opposite parties in OP 977/1998 on the file of the CDRF, Ernakulam. The complaint therein was filed for getting refund of the excess amount of Rs. 9,188/- which was collected from the complainant by the opposite parties 1 and 2 and also for compensation of Rs. 3,000/- with costs. The complainant has also claimed interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the aforesaid amount of Rs. 9,188/-. The opposite parties 1 to 4 entered appearance and filed written versions in the said OP 977/98. The 5th respondent remained absent. The opposite parties 1 and 2 filed joint written version denying the alleged deficiency in service on their part. They contended that the complainant booked seats of flight No. 9W 443 and paid only lesser charges and also the opposite parties 1 and 2 collected the balance amount of Rs. 9,188/-. Thus, the opposite parties 1 and 2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint...

Vinodkumar Vs. Faizal

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT35

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner is a voter in Ward No. 14 of Koduvally Grama Panchayat. A petition filed by him before the Kerala State Election Commission seeking an order that the first respondent is disqualified stands allowed as per Ext.P1 order. Today, vide separate judgment, that order has been confirmed. Petitioner seeks a direction to the Commission that in view of Ext.Pl, the Commission ought to have further declared that the first respondent is disqualified and is not qualified to be chosen in the Panchayat at any level in view of Sections 29(f) and 34(1)(n) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.2. Section 29(f) of the Act provides that a person shall not be qualified for chosen to fill a seat in a Panchayat at any level unless he has not been disqualified under any other provision of the Act. The said provision gets automatically attracted when a member is disqualified in terms of Section 35(1) of the Act. The incurring of the disqualification under Section ...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Sunny

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT267

C.T. Ravikumar, J.1. The appellants herein were the respondents and the respondent herein was the petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 35634 of 2007. The respondent/petitioner was a Constable in the Border Security Force. Hejoined the service as such on 16.8.1990 and subsequently, he was deputed to the Computer Wing for the Border Fencing and Flood Fighting Project of the Indo-Pak Border. He had worked there during the period from 1998 to 2004. Thereafter, he was posted to 60 Battalions and while working there he lost vision of his left eye and his right eye vision gradually started diminishing. Diagnosis revealed affliction of Retinal Vascultis on both eyes and Vitreous Hemorrhage on the left eye. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Medical Board. The Medical Board initially placed him in low medical category due to his diminishing eye sight and thereafter under the medical category S1H1A1P3(T-24)E3(T-24) with effect from 26.5.2006. On 22.2.2007, as per Ext.P1 he was adjudged medic...

Ali Jishan @ Jishan Chawhan Vs. State of Kerala and Manoj Kumar

Court: Kerala

P. Bhavadasan, J.1. Two persons, the appellants in these criminal appeals, were sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 394, 302, 201 and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They were found guilty of the offences alleged against them. They were therefore convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life for the offences punishable under Sections 120B and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They were also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offences punishable under Sections 120B and 394 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years for the offences punishable under Section 120B and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC.2. P.W.1 and P.W.37 are the paternal uncles of Pintu aged 19 years, who was the unfortunate victim in this case. The deceased, P.W. 42, his brother, P.W.1, paternal uncle of the deceased and P.W.6 together o...

K. Suresh Kumar, Ias (Kl-89) Vs. State of Kerala,

Court: Kerala

Kurian Joseph, J.1. Discipline decides the destiny of life and destination in service. Discipline is the core and cornerstone of service. However, discipline as understood in common parlance is different from the discipline as defined in the service rules though the latter has the trappings of the former. As far as the government servant is concerned, disciplinary action can be initiated only in case the officer concerned is liable to be proceeded against for his indisciplined conduct. Suspension from service is a prelude to the disciplinary action. But suspension is not a precondition or unavoidable accompaniment for a disciplinary action. It is required, nay warranted, only if as part of the action and in overall public interest the officer is to be temporarily kept out of service for a free and fair enquiry. No doubt, suspension is not a punishment, unless of course prescribed as such in the relevant Rules. But merely because suspension is not a punishment, the employer cannot take ...

Narayanan Vs. Manoharan

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT63

ORDERS.S. Satheesachandran, J.1. The revision is directed against the order dated 20.8.2003 in E.P. No. 151 of 2002 in O.S. No. 146 of 1997 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Thalassery. Petitioner is the plaintiff/decree holder in a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale. Suit was decided allowing the petitioner/plaintiff to pay the balance sale consideration to the judgment debtor within one month from the date of the decree with direction to the judgment debtor to execute the sale deed on such deposit. In default of the judgment debtor to execute the sale deed on deposit of the balance sale consideration, petitioner/plaintiff was allowed to get the sale deed executed through court. Cost was also awarded in the suit to the petitioner/plaintiff. Without depositing the balance sale consideration and moving for getting the sale executed by the judgment debtor, the petitioner/plaintiff applied for execution of the cost alone awarded under the decree by filing the ab...