Kerala Court December 2010 Judgments

Ambattu Joy Mathew. Vs. A.M.Gopalan, and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker143

1. In this Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who was the accused in C.C. No. 101 of 2006 on the file of the J.F.C.M. II, Nadapuram, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The cheque amount was ` 34,000/-. The fine/compensation ordered by the lower appellate court is ` 31,912/- 2. I heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner re-iterated the contentions in support of the Revision. 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 validly complied with clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act, and that the Revision Petitioner/accused failed to make the payment wit...

Branch Manager. Vs. State of KeralA.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker729

1. Sri. Rajan P.Kaliyath, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not desirous of prosecuting the writ petition any further. In the light of the aforesaid submission, this writ petition is dismissed as not pressed....

The Corporate Manager. Vs. the State of KeralA.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker729

1. The petitioner is a corporate manager of several schools. Pending disciplinary proceedings, he suspended two teachers. The AEO refused permission to continue the suspension. A litigation ensued in which the petitioner lost. In the meantime, disciplinary proceedings were finalised and the AEO refused permission to impose the punishment proposed by the petitioner. Against the same the petitioner has filed Ext. P10 before the 1st respondent. In the mean time, it has been directed to recover the subsistence allowance paid to the teachers from the petitioner. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: "(i) Call for the records relating to Exts.P5, P6 and P8 and quash the originals of the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders upon Ext. P10 after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner ...

The Manager, A.U.P.School. Vs. the State of KeralA.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker729

1. The 2nd petitioner was appointed by the 1st petitioner as a full time Sanskrit teacher on 2.6.2008 in a retirement vacancy in an aided school. The 5th respondent, A.E.O refused to approve the said appointment. Appeal filed by the 1st petitioner-manager against the order of the 5th respondent was rejected by the Director of Public Instruction by Ext. P1 order. While so, for the academic year 2007- 2008, the AEO abolished the existing full time post of Sanskrit teacher by Ext. P3 order. Appeal filed by the 1st petitioner against Ext. P3 order was rejected by the Deputy Director of Education by Ext. P4 order and by the D.P.I by Ext. P5 order. Against the same, the 1st petitioner has filed Exts.P6 and P7 revision petitions. The petitioners seek disposal of Exts.P6 and P7 expeditiously. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P.P6 and P7, after affording an opportun...

The Manager. Vs. the State of KeralA.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker729

1. The petitioner is a manager of an aided U.P. School in Valappad Educations Sub District. The Government has recently announced a decision to upgrade the schools in the educational district. According to the petitioner, the petitioner's school satisfies all the conditions for upgradation of the school as a high school. Seeking the same, the petitioner has filed Exts.P1 and P7 before the 1st respondent. The petitioner seeks a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the same while considering the upgradation of the schools in the educational district. 2. Having the learned Government Pleader also, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Exts. P1 and P7 also, while considering the question of upgradation of schools in the educational district....

Annie P.Paul. Vs. the Dy.Director of Education.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker467

1. Whether relinquishment of the eligible promotion to the post of Head Mistress of the L.P. School stated as made by the petitioner and the rejection of the same by the 4th respondent/Manager of the School as per Ext. P10 order dated 17.08.2010 is correct or not, is the question involved in this Writ Petition. 2. The petitioner was working as 'UPSA' in the school run by the 4th respondent, at a place Kumbanad in Pathanamthitta district. On completion of 50 years of age, she became eligible to be promoted as Head Mistress, but the petitioner submitted Ext P11 letter dated 06.11.2002 relinquishing her claim in this regard and sought to continue as 'UPSA'. Notwithstanding this, the 4th respondent issued Ext. P2 letter to the petitioner and others similarly situated, asking willingness for promotion to the post as Head Mistress of the primary school. Pursuant to this, Ext. P3 statement of relinquishment was submitted by the petitioner on 09.02.2010. However, without any regard to the same...

Joy. Vs. the Sub Inspector of Police.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker143

1. Petitioner who is the accused in C.C. No. 1335 of 2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Irinjalakuda, seeks anticipatory bail. 2. Consequent on the non-appearance of the petitioner in C.C. No. 1335 of 2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Irinjalakuda, and the case against the petitioner has been transferred to the Long Pending Case Register as L.P.R. No.115 of 2008. Admittedly, non-bailable warrants of arrest are pending against the petitioner. Anticipatory bail cannot be granted to nullify the process issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. There is no reason why the petitioner should not surrender before the Magistrate and seek regular bail. Accordingly, if the petitioner surrenders before the Magistrate and files an application for regular bail within two weeks from today, the same shall be considered and disposed of preferably on the same day on which it is filed notwithstanding the pendency of non-bailable warrants of arrest against the petit...

Manager, H.L.P.S.Malesamangalam. Vs. State of KeralA.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker729

1. The petitioner is the manager of an aided school. He sought approval of appointment of the 5th respondent, which was rejected on the ground that there is a ban imposed by the Government against new appointments. The petitioner's appeal etc., were also rejected on the same ground. The petitioner now submits that by Ext. P8 order dated 12.1.2010, the Government has already lifted the ban and also directed reconsideration of the cases already pending, notwithstanding the fact that appeals/revisions are pending. The petitioner therefore submits that it is only appropriate that the 4th respondent reconsiders the matter of approval of the appointment of the 5th respondent in the light of Ext. P8. 2. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the claim can be reconsidered, provided the petitioner is prepared to furnish a bond undertaking to appoint a protected teacher. 3. Having heard both sides, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 4th respondent to r...

Sibi Philip Vs. Sumangala and Another

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN: MEMBER No representation for the appellant. Appellant called absent. Appeal dismissed for non prosecution....

Sunil P.George. Vs. Controller of Examinations.

Court: Kerala

1. Petitioner has completed B.Tech Electronics and Communication Engineering. When the result of the 5th Semester supplementary examination was declared, he had failed in one paper. He applied for revaluation and approached this Court complaining of delay and seeking orders to expedite the revaluation. 2. I heard the Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent University. 3. Having regard to the above, I dispose of the writ petition directing the University to complete the revaluation sought for by the petitioner within 8 weeks of production of a copy of the judgment, provided the application for revaluation has been received and is otherwise in order. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the 1st respondent for compliance....