Kerala Court June 2009 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.
Philip Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-26-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)KLJ715
R. Basant, J.1. Has there been proper application of mind by the detaining authority? When a detaining authority is not apprised of and is unaware of the fact that bail subject to conditions has been granted recently to a detenu and proceeds on the grossly erroneous premise that the Detenu is absconding, are those circumstances sufficient to invalidate the order of preventive detention? These questions arise for determination before us.2. The petitioner is the father of a detenu under Section 3 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act 2007 (hereinafter referred to as KAAPA). There were three cases registered against him. Though the incidents in those three cases occurred on 28/9/2005,16/12/2006 and 31/8/2008 and final reports had not been filed,, it was alleged that he was a known rowdy and his detention was necessary under Section 3 of the KAAPA. Proceedings commenced with Ext.PS report dated 10/9/2008 submitted by the Circle Inspector of Police to the Superintendent of P...
Rev. Fr Paulose Vs. Shajahan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-26-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Ker189
ORDERS.S. Satheesachandran, J.1. The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:i) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction calling for the records leading to Ext. P8 and to quash the same.ii) To issue an appropriate direction to the Court below to allow E.A. Nos. 111/2007 and 147/2007 as prayed for by the petitioner, to restore the execution petition E.P. No. 63/2007 to file, and to proceed in accordance with law.2. Petitioner is the decree holder in O.S. No. 69/93 on the file of the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha. Suit was one for perpetual prohibitory injunction against four defendants, who are the respondents 1 to 4 in the present petition, restraining them from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the schedule properties and from constructing any shed in such properties. A decree in favour of the plaintiff was granted restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff in respect of the schedule prope...
i.F.B. Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-26-2009
Reported in: (2010)28VST64(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The question raised in the connected revisions filed by the petitioner for the assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 is whether the Tribunal was justified in not considering the petitioner's claim for deduction of discount in the determination of taxable turnover. We have heard counsel appearing for the petitioner and Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.2. On going through the order of the Tribunal we notice that the Tribunal did not consider the claim because according to the Tribunal the assessing officer allowed the claim while determining the taxable turnover. However, the Tribunal has specifically stated that the amount claimed is scheme discount, allowability of which is not considered by the Tribunal at all. The Government Pleader produced copies of returns filed by the petitioner which does not disclose any trade discount claimed as exempt by the petitioner. According to him scheme discount is not entitled to any deduction under Rule 9(a)...
Sreekumar Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-25-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ3862; 2009(2)KLJ692
K.T. Sankaran, J.1. The petitioner, who is the first accused in Crime No, 144 of 2009 of Baiaramapuram Police Station, has filed this application seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The offences alleged against the petitioner and the other accused persons are under Sections 341, 324, 326 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The prosecution case is that on 24.3.2009 at about 7.30 PM, while the de facto complainant was returning from the ration shop, the accused persons attacked him with a chopper and iron rod. The de facto complainant sustained injuries. He was admitted in the hospital The treatment certificate shows that the de facto complainant sustained open fracture on the right patella and other injuries. The de facto complainant was subjected to a surgery. He was discharged from the hospital on 3.4.2009.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code would not be attracted, eve...
The Executive Director, It @ School Project and ors. Vs. Saranya P.S.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-25-2009
Reported in: 2009(16)KLJ853
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The point that arises for decision in this case is whether this Court can order to scrap the existing scheme of Computer Education in schools, for the reason that, according to its perspective, the present scheme will not deliver the goods and order to frame a better scheme; and also to direct creation of sufficient teaching posts to implement the new scheme.2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The respondents in the writ petition are the appellants. The writ petition was filed by the respondent herein, who was a student studying in the 8th standard of G.V. Higher Secondary School, Desamangalam, Thrissur, seeking a direction to the appellants not to make Information Technology a compulsory subject for the examinations in the High Schools for the year 2008 or thereafter. She also prayed that a direction may be issued to the appellants to make the said subject optional in the High School. There was a further prayer to direct the appellants to creat...
Aarifa Beevi Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-25-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ4512
R. Basant, J.1. When does the clock start ticking under Section 3(3) of the Kerala Antisocial Activities (Preventidn) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 'KAAPA') on the date of the order of detention or the date of detention ?(ii) How is the expression 'forthwith' in Section 3(3) to be understood and reckoned ?(iii) Is the detenu entitled to a copy of the report of the Advisory Board under Section 10(3) of the KAAPA?(iv) Can the absence of any previous conviction justify the claim to exclude a person from the sweep of the expression 'known goonda' in Section 2(o) of the KAAPA ?These questions are raised in this writ petition.2. In this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner, the mother of a detenu under the KAAPA, prays that her son the detenu may be directed to be produced before the Court and set at liberty after setting aside Ext. P4 order of detention issued under Section 3(2) of the KAAPA.3. The petitioner's son was allegedly involved in 7 crimes refe...
Kerafibertex International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kerafibertex Employees Associ ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-25-2009
Reported in: (2010)ILLJ384Ker
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, which is engaged in a business which is export oriented. Company's business premises is situated at the KINFRA Park and the 1st respondent has leased the premises to the petitioner. The land where the petitioner's unit is situated has an extent of 8.5 acres, out of which, land has been leased to the petitioner for a period of 99 years by the 1st respondent, which is a Government of Kerala Undertaking. Besides the petitioner's unit, there are five other units as well in the KINFRA Park. The responsibility to ensure security for the lessees has been undertaken by the 1st respondent themselves. The entire area is surrounded by compound walls. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of additional respondents 2 to 4 in putting up flag masts and hoisting flags in front of the petitioner's establishment. According to them, such activities would deter prospective customers of the petitioner away from approach...
Sheela R. Vs. the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-24-2009
Reported in: 2009(16)KLJ870
C.K. Abdul Rehim, J.1. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext. P4 order of the 4th respondent Tribunal, by which an appeal filed by the petitioner against Ext.P3 order of the Ist respondent Corporation is dismissed. The complaint of the petitioner is that construction made by the 3rd respondent on the neighbouring property is in deviation from the approved plan, based on which building permit was issued. There is no sufficient space left on the southern side of the 3rd respondents building as required under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules (hereinafter referred as Building Rules for short). The specific allegation is that the sunshade on the southern side of the 3rd respondent is constructed in such a manner that rain water will splash into the petitioner's building causing inconvenience to him. On the basis of Ext. P1 complaint in this regard, the Ist respondent initiated action as contemplated under Section 406 of the Kerala Municipality Act 1994 (hereinafter referred as t...
Postmaster General and ors. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-24-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)KLJ425
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.1. Whether the vehicles owned, possessed and used by the Postal Department are liable to pay the tax leviable under Section 3 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles (Taxation) Act 1976, is the moot point in both these Writ Petitions.2. For the purpose of proper adjudication, sequence of events or the factual controversy is not a matter to be looked into, as the contention is mainly based on the legal prepositions referring to Article 285 of the Constitution of India, whereby it has been specifically provided that the property of the Union shall, save in so far as the Parliament may by law otherwise provide, be exempt from all taxes imposed by a State or by any authority within a State.3. Placing reliance on the constitutional mandate, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, since there is total exemption from all taxes', the vehicles belonging to the Postal Department, being a property of the Union, are not liable to suffer any tax liability imposed by the ...
E.S.i. Corporation Vs. K.B. Pushpa
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-2009
Reported in: 2009(16)KLJ827
K.M. Joseph, J.1. This is an Appeal filed by the ESI Corporation under Section 82(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Reference to brief facts leading to the Appeal is as under.The respondent met with an accident on 6.12.2002 while working in the factory causing injury to her left foot. She was paid temporary disablement benefit from 7.12.2002 to 5.3.2003 and from 7,3.2003 to 18.6.2003. On 19.6.2003, the Medical Referee who examined her, opined termination of temporary disablement benefit with effect from 19.6.2003. Accordingly, temporary disablement benefit was not paid thereafter. But, she was paid sickness benefit from 21.6.03 to 30,6.03 and from 1.7.04 to 31.12.04. On 16.7.2004 the Medical Board assessed 2 per cent permanent partial disability. The respondent challenged the above decision by filing I.C.A. No. 5/04. She prayed for declaration of 50 per cent permanent disability. It is this Appeal which came to be disposed of by the impugned...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »