Kerala Court November 2010 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.
Arathi.S; Vilayilazhikathu Veedu. Vs. State of Kerala, and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-2010
1. The petitioner is the daughter of V.N.Ramachandran Nair, who died in harness on 10.5.1994 while working as HSA in VHSS, Mannady, Kottarakkara. At the time of death of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner was a minor and a student. The petitioner's sister was also aged only 3 = years. The petitioner became major on 31.5.2003 and she says that she is qualified to be appointed as HSA in a vacancy which arose in the school on 1.4.2010. 2. The Manager appointed the 6 respondent on 2.6.2008. The 6 respondent is a Rule 51A claimant. She was working in the school for the period from 8.10.2003 to 11.12.2003. The petitioner has no case that the 6 respondent should not have been appointed, she being a Rule 51A Claimant. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Manager has not appointed the petitioner recognizing her claim under Rule 51B of Chapter XIVA KER. Pointing out these aspects, the mother of the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 representation to the Director of Public Instruction...
Dr. Ajith Kumar.G. Vs. Sri. Prabhakaran.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-2010
1. This Contempt petition is filed complaining that respondents 2 and 3 have willfully disobeyed and deliberately flouted the declaration made in a judgment of this Court dated 03.06.1997 in OP No.14335 of 1995. The applicants herein were the petitioners in the abovementioned writ petition. 2. The facts deserve an exhaustive narration in order to appreciate the chaotic state of affairs. One C.Samuel Aaron gifted an extent of 300 acres of land on 05.06.1950 to a Society called 'Madras Provincial Welfare Fund Society', registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The gift is evidenced by a registered document numbered 812 of 1950. The abovementioned Mr.Aaron was the President of the abovementioned Society. While making the gift, the donor conveyed a desire that the donee should establish a Sanatorium for the treatment of Tuberculosis. In deference to the desire of the donor, the donee did establish the Sanatorium, constructed buildings; it appears, with the assistance of the pu...
S.SuseelammA. Vs. State of KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-2010
1. The issue involved in this writ petition is as to whether the retirement age of non-academic staff of the 2nd respondent Regional Cancer Center is liable to be enhanced to 60 years from 58 years in tune with the retirement age of academic staff. The very same matter was the subject matter for consideration by this Court in W.P(C).Nos. 24053/2009 and 30894/2010, in which a learned Judge of this Court passed the following judgment: "The petitioners in W.P. (C).No.24053/2009 have been working as Security Guards and the petitioners in W.P. (C). No.30894/2010 have been working as Driver (Selection Grade), Hospital Attender and Nursing Supervisor respectively, in the Regional Cancer Centre, namely, the second respondent herein. These writ petitions are concerned with the retirement age of the petitioners. Their case appears to be that Ext.P5 order produced in W.P. (C).No.30894/2010 passed by the Government enhancing the retirement age of Professors to 65 years and that of other academic s...
V.P.Joseph. Vs. State of Kerala, and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-2010
1. Petitioner submits that on the western side of his property situated in Survey No.2149/2 of Rameswaram Village, the property in Survey No.1166 of the aforesaid village is situated which is a Kayal Puramboke. It is stated that respondents 5 and 6 encroached into the said Kayal Puramboke, and started living there. The petitioner made complaints to the authority which was of no avail. 2. Finally, O.S.No.67/1999 was filed by the petitioner seeking to restrain the respondents from trespassing into the petitioner's property and to evict them from the area under their occupation. The suit was decreed by Ext.P3 judgment, granting injunction sought for by the petitioner. However, in so far as the prayer for eviction is concerned, it was held that since the petitioner had title over the property in the occupation of the property concerned, he cannot seek their eviction. It was also clarified that it is for the authorities concerned to take action in the matter. 3. Petitioner submits that desp...
K.A.Mohanan, and ors. Vs. State of KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-2010
1. Petitioners are the licensees of toddy shops in Group No.1 in Nilambur Excise Range. On 12/8/2010 Excise officials intercepted vehicle No.KL-46.8118 and KL- 10/D-5462 and found that toddy was being transported in excess of the permissible quantity. Sample of toddy was taken and sent for chemical analysis and crime and occurrence report was prepared. CR.15/2010 was registered for the offence under Section 58 of Abkari Act. Though petitioners filed Annexure-H W.P.C.25901/2010, seeking a writ of mandamus directing not to proceed with the case, before receipt of certificate of chemical analysis as provided under Rule 8(3) of Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002, subsequently writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure by Annexure-K judgment dated 14/9/2010. It is thereafter this petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash crime and occurrence report and the further proceedings...
A.R.Subair. Vs. Machingal Muhammad Hussain.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-2010
1. Under challenge in this revision filed under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed against the revision petitioner tenant on grounds of arrears of rent under Section 11(2)(b) and bona fide need for own occupation under Section 11 (3). In fact, the landlord had invoked the ground under Section 11(4) (iii) also to evict the revision petitioner. But, the rent control court negative that ground and the above order has become final. 2. On going through the impugned judgment of the rent control appellate authority, we notice that the order of eviction concurrently passed under Section 11 (2) (b) does not suffer from any infirmity at all. After all, orders of eviction passed on the ground of arrears of rent are only tentative orders which are liable to be vacated by making requisite deposits under Section 11 (2)(c). In that view of the matter, we confirm the order of eviction passed under Section 11 (2)(b...
M/S.Gloria Films. Vs. V.S.Sudhir Kumar.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-2010
1. The second defendant in a suit for recovery of money, is the appellant. 2. The plaintiff commenced production of a cinematographic film. He, thereafter, transferred his interest in favour of the first defendant for consideration to be paid by him. However, the first defendant did not pay the plaintiff the amounts due. Resultantly, the plaintiff sued the first defendant. It appears that the first defendant was also facing a situation where the plaintiff would resort to various means including by moving the video and audio recording studios to ensure that the first defendant pays the plaintiff the amounts due. This led to a negotiation under which Ext.A3 was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants, the second defendant agreeing to pay off the plaintiff. Even before the execution of Ext.A3, the second defendant had got for himself the right to exhibit the film. The court below decreed the suit against both the defendants. 3. In this appeal by the second defendant, it is p...
Balan Pillai. Vs. Gopala Pillai.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-2010
1. Ext.P5 order passed by the execution court is under challenge. Petitioner herein is the judgment debtor in E.P.No.44/02002 in O.S.No.57/1984 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Punalur. He is the petitioner in E.A.No.5/2009. Ext.P5 is the order dismissing the said E.A. 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.57/1984 filed for a decree of injunction restraining the defendant from obstructing the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Petitioner is the lst plaintiff and his wife is the 2nd plaintiff in the suit. Defendants in the suit are the brother and sister respectively of the lst plaintiff in the suit. Defendants filed written statement and counter claim. Counter claimants prayed for a decree of redemption of mortgage and also for an injunction in respect of items 1 to 4 scheduled to the written statement. The suit was dismissed and the counter claim was decreed. Ext.P1 is the judgment. The trial court passed a decree of redemption of mortgage of ...
C.V.Rajan. Vs. K.P.Achuthan.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-2010
1. This Revision petition is filed by the accused in C.C. No. 256 of 1996 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mattannur challenging the conviction and sentence passed against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The cheque amount was Rs.35,000/-. In the Trial Court, the accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 357 of Cr.P.C., The appeal filed against that conviction and sentence was dismissed. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, learned counsel for the complaint and the public prosecutor.3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner reiterated the same contention raised before the Trial Court and the appellate court. Learned counsel for the complainant supported the judgment of the court below. 4. The courts below have concurrently held that the cheque in question was drawn by the petitioner in favour of the complainant, that the complainant had...
Jos I Ambookkan. Vs. the District Collector.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-2010
1. Petitioner submits that he owns 1.35 acres of land in survey No.299/1 of Pallipuram village in Kodungallur Taluk. According to the petitioner, there are two small thodu, passing through the property. It is stated that he was an applicant for a retail petroleum outlet of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation and that the said Company issued him Ext.P1 letter of intent. In order to establish the retail outlet, he made Ext.P2 application for conversion of land. 2. On the application made by the petitioner under Act 28 of 2008, Ext.P3 report was submitted by the third respondent. Case of the petitioner is that such a report was made pursuant to the endorsement made by the RDO, Thrissur on 23-03-2010, forwarding Ext.P2 application to the Local Level Monitoring Committee. In Ext.P3 report, after enquiry, the third respondent recommended sanction for conversion of the land. 3. From Ext.P4, it is seen that, despite Ext.P3, the second respondent again called for a report from the Local Level Monit...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »