Kerala Court March 2010 Judgments

Chamber of Commerce Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT421

K. Surendra Mohan, J.1. The petitioner is an Association of Traders formed with the object of protecting the interests of the industrial and trading community, within the Kunnamkulam Municipal limits. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the authority of the second respondent Board in demanding charges for the supply of labour card and receipts which are to be maintained by the employers under Rule 27 of the Headload Workers Rules. According to the petitioner, the labour card and receipts were all along being printed and supplied by the respondent Board free of cost. The contention of the petitioner is that the amounts collected by the Board in addition to the contribution paid by the employers, which is 27% of the wages paid to the employees is intended to meet the expenses of the Board which includes the expenses for printing and supplying the receipts, labour card etc. also. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the Board has no authority whatsoever to collect s...

Abdullakoya Thangal Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT497

ORDERM. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. Petitioner in Crl.M.C. No. 272/2010 is the accused in crime No. 282/2009 and petitioner in Crl.M.C. No. 273/2010 is the accused in crime No. 283/2009 of Nattukal police station registered under Section 9B(1)(b) of the Explosives Act. They are Annexure-I F.I.R. shows that petitioners were arrested based on the confession statement of Hamsa, S/o. Kunhayamu, who is the accused in crime No. 280/2009 of Nattukal police station, registered under Section 9B(1)(b) of the Explosives Act. The confession statement is to the effect that the said accused purchased explosives from the petitioner in Crl.M.C. No. 272/2003 during March 2007 and if he is taken to the place, he will show the shop and the person who sold it and the said Hamsa was taken to the shop of petitioner in Crl.M.C. No. 272/2010 on 12.12.2009 at 2 p.m. and shown the petitioner and he was arrested and case was registered under Section 9B(1)(b) of the Explosives Act. Annexure-I F.I.R. in Crl.M.C. No. ...

K.V. Sanskrit H.S. School Vs. District Educational Officer

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT353

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.W.A. No. l775/20071. The appellant was the writ petitioner. He is the Manager of K.V. Sanskrit Higher Secondary School, Muthukulam. The dispute raised in the Writ Petition was concerning the right of the 5th respondent to get employment under the dying-in-harness scheme.2. The brief facts of the case are the following:Sri.A.Ramakrishnan was a Part-time Menial working in the appellant's school since 8.6.1966. He died in harness on 4.3.1995. At the time of his death, the 5th respondent was a minor. He attained majority only on 20.5.2000. Even before attaining majority, he moved the District Educational Officer (D.E.O.), Alappuzha, by filing a representation dated 18.9.1999, praying for the said officer's help to get employment under the dying-in-harness scheme in the school of the appellant. The D.E.O replied by Ext.P1 communication dated 25.10.1999, stating that Part-time Menial is not covered by G.O.(Ms.) No. 15/97/G Edn dated 16.1.1997, governing appointment un...

Beena Kannan, Proprietrix Vs. K.J. Mathew

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT228

Antony Dominic, J.1. In this writ petition, by order dated 12/03/2010 notice was ordered to be served on the respondent by special messenger. Accordingly, notice specifying 17/03/2010 as the date of hearing, was served on him. However, when the case was taken up on 17/03/2010, there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent, and therefore, the case was adjourned to today and today also, there is no appearance on his behalf. Therefore, the writ petition was heard finally.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent filed CC No. 11/2010 before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam (hereinafter referred to as CDRF for short) complaining that the petitioner herein is collecting Rs. 500/- each as parking fees from the customers, who park their vehicles in the car parking area of her shop, Seematti Textiles, Ernakulam. It is also alleged that the amount collected is not refunded to those do not buy goods from her shop. According to the respondent, this pract...

M.D.P.S. U.P. School Vs. Paulose

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT29

ORDERP.N. Ravindran, J.1. The question referred to the Full Bench for decision is 'Whether, the Manager of a U.P. School, which is admittedly a minority educational institution, can appoint a person with TTC and SSLC as Headmaster if there is a graduate teacher in the school having five years teaching experience after acquisition of B.Ed. and also having service not less than half of the service of the senior most non-graduate teacher or, the right of the Manager is confined only to selecting another junior graduate teacher with the above qualifications.'2. This Writ Appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 946 of 2005. The appellants are respondents 3 and 4 therein, the first respondent is the writ petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 are the other respondents therein. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the Writ Petition. The brief facts of the case are as follows:3. The writ petitioner, who is a post-graduat...

Medical Officer-in-charge, Vs. Rajamma K.P. W/O. Ayyappan and T.K. Nir ...

Court: Kerala

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The respondents 1 to 4 in the Writ Petition are the appellants. The writ petitioner is the first respondent. She is a Sweeper working on daily wage basis, against a sanctioned post. She claimed the benefit of Ext.P4 Government Order dated 25.11.2005. The appellants pointed out that the said Government Order does not cover the case of the daily waged Sweepers, working against sanctioned posts. But, the learned Single Judge overruled their objection and directed to consider the claim of the first respondent, for the benefit of Ext.P4 Government Order. Feeling aggrieved by that direction, this Writ Appeal was preferred.2. When the Writ Appeal came up for admission, it was brought to our notice that the Government have, thereafter, issued G.O.(P) No. 61/2010/Fin. dated 9.2.2010, which covers the case of the persons like the first respondent herein. The relevant clauses of the said Government Order, governing the case of the first respondent read as follows:(i) Al...

Chairman, CohIn Port Trust and CochIn Dock Labour Board Vs. K.V.A. Iye ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT751

P.N. Ravindran, J.1. The issue referred to us for decision is whether an employee of the erstwhile Cochin Dock Labour Board, who had opted for voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme for Employees of Cochin Dock Labour Board can claim the benefit of weightage under Rule 48B of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules for the purpose of computing the length of qualifying service as on the date of the intended retirement. The brief facts of the case are as follows.2. The first respondent in this appeal was an employee of the Cochin Dock Labour Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board for short), a statutory body established under the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948. The Board merged with the Cochin Port Trust (hereinafter referred to as the Trust for short) in February 1998 in accordance with the provisions of the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) (Inapplicability to Major Ports) Act, 1995. The Board had on 20.3.1992, prior to its merger wi...

State of Kerala Vs. Sulini

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT117

ORDERS.S. Satheesachandran, J.1. The question posed for consideration before us is when a reference is to be made by the Sessions Judge under Rule 131 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, Kerala, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). Is the reference to be made pre or post sentence in a case of infanticide is the short question. In examining that question, correctness of some observations made in (Radhamony v. State of Kerala Crl.A. No. 496/1999) directing a reference from the Sessions Judge before imposing the sentence also arise for consideration.2. The facts giving rise to this reference can be summed up thus:The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track-I), Thiruvananthapuram, after trial of an accused, a woman for infanticide of her child, found her guilty and convicted her for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. After pronouncement of the verdict of guilty and conviction, an order of reference was made to the Government under...

Belsi Vs. Corporate Management of LatIn Catholic Schools

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT134

ORDERK. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The common question that arises for decision in these cases is whether the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Kurian Lizy v. State of Kerala : 2006 (4) KLT 264 (F.B.) is no longer good law, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Malankara Syrian Catholic College v. Jose 2007 (1) KLT 22 (SC). Therefore, they are heard and disposed of by this common judgment.W.A. No. 2936/2009:2. This Writ Appeal is treated as the main case for the purpose of referring to the facts. Though, we propose to answer only the question referred to the Full Bench, for effectively dealing with that question, a brief resume of the facts is necessary. The first respondent herein was the writ petitioner. It is a Corporate Educational Agency, managing the Latin Catholic Schools under the Diocese of Neyyattinkara. St. George L.P. School, Palode is one of the aided Schools managed by it. The Manager of the School appointed the 6th respondent N.Y. Ammini (5th respondent in ...

Kunhimohammed Vs. Ayishakutty

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT71

ORDERR. Basant, J.1. (i) Does a divorce valid under the Muslim Law ipso facto extinguish the liability of the husband under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') to pay maintenance to his wife even when it is admitted or proved that amounts due under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') have not been paid?(ii) Is unilateral pronouncement of divorce without offering any reason and without any attempt for reconciliation by the arbiters as mandated by Ayat 35 of Sura IV of the Holy Quran valid under the Muslim Law after the decision of the Supreme Court in Shamim Ara v. State of U.P. 2002 (3) KLT 537 SC?2. These two questions of crucial relevance and contextual significance arise for consideration in this RP(FC) which has been referred to a Division Bench under Section 3 of the Kerala High Court Act by a Single Judge (one of us). The learned Counsel for the contestants have been ...