Kerala Court June 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.
K. Balakrishnan Vs. State of Kerala and Chief Engineer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-03-2010
Antony Dominic, J.1. Petitioner was a Lineman in the Public Works Department. It is stated that on allegations of misconducts, in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings, by Ext.P11 order dated 27/5/93, petitioner was placed under suspension. Thereafter, Ext.P1 memo of charge was issued for initiating minor penalty proceedings against the petitioner, to which, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 explanation. Meanwhile, by Ext.P12 dated 26/5/94, he was ordered to be reinstated in service. Although it is the case of the petitioner that he was admitted to duty only on 7/3/95, that issue may not be of relevance in this original petition.2. The disciplinary authority considered the explanation submitted by the petitioner and issued Ext.P3 order imposing a punishment of barring of one increment without cumulative effect in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 11(III) of Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules. Petitioner filed Ext.P6 appeal to the 1st respondent. By...
Dr. Mary Kutty Jose Vs. Director of Health
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-03-2010
Antony Dominic, J.1. Petitioner is an Ophtalmologist presently designated to Junior Medical Consultant Cadre. She was posted at Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Thodupuzha and by Ext.P1 order, she has been transferred to Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Tripunithura in the same cadre. It is this order which is under challenge.2. Although several contentions have been raised by the petitioner, learned Government Pleader attempted to sustain Ext.P1 order contending that this order was passed in pursuance to the interim order passed by this Court on 9/4/2010 in WP(C) No. 1120/10 and connected cases permitting the respondents to effect transfer and placements on a provisional basis subject to the outcome of the writ petitions challenging the constitution of the Specialty Cadre, which are pending before this Court.3. Irrespective of the merits of the contentions raised, counsel for the petitioner has referred me to Ext.P2, the certificate issued by the Superintendent of the District Hospital, Idukk...
K.K. Subrahmanyan Vs. the Tahsildar and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-03-2010
Antony Dominic, J.1. Petitioner retired as a Deputy Tahsildar on 31/5/2003. His grievance is that inspite of his retirement as early as in 2003, he has not been paid his dues towards General Provident Fund, benefits under the Group Insurance Scheme, Family Benefit Scheme and the revised pension with arrears. According to the petitioner, although he has submitted all documents necessary for processing his claims, respondents 4 and 5 have not taken up his claim with the Accountant General, and that as a result thereof, the amounts due to the petitioner still remains unpaid.2. Counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent, the Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk from whose office the petitioner retired from service. According to the Tahsildar, before joining the 1st respondent's office, petitioner had worked in more than 13 offices. It is stated that to settle his claim towards GPF, SLI and GIS, details credited to each account is essential to calculate and submit the claim amount. 1st r...
P.R. Rajesh S/O. Rajappan and Vs. Chief Manager, State Bank of India
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-03-2010
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.1. The petitioners are husband and wife. They have approached this Court mainly seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the respondent Bank to release the title deeds in respect of Item No. 2 of the property mentioned in Ext.P1 on payment of the balance amount calculated as per Ext.P1 sale notice and for other incidental reliefs.2. The petitioners had availed a loan of Rs. 60 lakhs in the year 2006 from the responent Bank creating security interest over the properties of 10.06 Ares and an extent of 8.09 Ares which are lying as a contiguous block and another property of 3.40 Ares which forms the residential premises of the petitioners. Over and above the said amount, some other liability was also there, which was due to be satisfied to the Bank and the total amount due to be cleared was Rs. 84,32,167/-. It is stated that the petitioners had also some other transactions with the ADB branch of the SBI, Alappuzha, from where, a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs was aviled...
K. Gangadharan Nair, Secretary (Retired) Vs. Mr. Raju, the Managing Di ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-03-2010
Antony Dominic, J.1. WP(C) No. 14014/09 was disposed of by judgment dated 8th of October 2009 directing 1st respondent, Kerala State Construction Corporation Limited, to disburse the DCRG due to the petitioner on or before 30/11/2009. It was further directed that the remaining portion of the retirement benefits shall be disbursed as early as possible and in accordance with the scheme of repayment submitted by the petitioner.2. In so far as DCRG is concerned, parties accept that the amount has been paid in full on 6/1/2010 and there is no surviving grievance in that respect. Petitioner states that the balance terminal benefits have not been paid as directed, and therefore, the direction in the judgment has been violated. It is on this basis this petition is filed.3. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit. According to the respondent, in accordance with the scheme framed, despite the financial constraints, they have generated sufficient funds and discharged the DCRG liability due t...
P.J. Paulose Vs. the Kottayam District Co-operative,
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-03-2010
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved of the steps taken by the respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act for realisation of the amount stated as due from him. The case of the petitioner is that, he is aged about 84 years and was a rubber tapper. Because of the physical difficulties he was unable to do any work, which made him a defaulter and in turn the Bank proceeded with further steps under the Act as above.2. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner was earlier constrained to approach this Court by filing W.P(C) No. 33522 of 2008, which led to Ext.P1 judgment, whereby the petitioner had given up all the contentions with regard to the correctness and sustainability of the steps taken under the Act and the liability was permitted to be cleared as specified therein.3. Eventhough the petitioner effected payment, as borne by Ext.P2 series receipts, the liability could not be cleared in toto, under which circumstances, the Bank proceeded with further ...
Thrissur Corporation, Represented by Its Secretary Vs. Devi R.Menon, L ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jun-03-2010
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/Thrissur Corporation in CC.132/06 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The bill issued by the appellant for a sum of Rs.95,850/- stands cancelled. The appellant is also under orders to change the water connection in the name of the complainant. 2.The appellant has sought for an opportunity to adduce evidence. It is submitted that the appellant could not cross-examine the complainant also. As the matter involved a substantial sum we find that it is only just to provide an opportunity for the appellant to contest the matter. 3. In the result, the order of the Forum is set aside on condition that the appellant/opposite party pay a sum of Rs.3000/- to the complainant towards cost or deposit of the same before the Forum which can be withdrawn by the complainant. On deposit of the amount, the Forum will permit the opposite parties to contest the matter. 4. The case stands posted before the Forum on 5.8.2010 Office is dire...
Riyas K.P. S/O. Late Alavikutty Vs. State of Kerala Represented by Its ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-02-2010
Antony Dominic, J.1. Ext.P5 order is under challenge in the writ petition.2. On expiry of the petitioner's father, Shri. Alavikkutty, who was a Police Constable, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application for employment assistance under the Compassionate Employment Scheme. Subsequently, the petitioner relinquished his claim in order to enable his sister to claim appointment under the Scheme. It is stated that his sister did not pursue the claim and thereafter on 28/07/2007 the petitioner submitted yet another application for compassionate appointment. That was considered and rejected by Ext.P5 dated 06/10/2009. Two reasons are stated therein. One is that the application dated 28/07/2007 was filed beyond the time limit specified in the order issued by the Government for applying for the benefit of Compassionate Employment Scheme. The other reason stated is that the applicant is a married son and therefore is ineligible.3. In several cases, this Court has held that married sons/daughter...
D. Rajasankaran S/O. K. Damodaran Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-02-2010
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved of the demand made by the respondent, particularly as per Ext.P10, directing the petitioner to satisfy a total liability of Rs. 7,43,237/- towards the balance amount of tax as well as interest, which according to the petitioner is not correct or sustainable.2. The case of the petitioner is that, huge amounts are liable to be repaid by the respondent by way of refund, on finalization of the assessment proceedings, particularly as revealed from Ext.P4, wherein an excess tax of Rs. 1,24,226/- was paid by the petitioner, which has been ordered to be given credit to, in respect of the assessment year 2001-'02. Ext. P5 reveals that, the liability of the petitioner in respect of the assessment year 2001-'02 is 'Nil'. In Ext. P7, it is stated that there is an excess payment of Rs. 1,10,246/-. Over and above these, reference is also made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner to Ext.P10 itself, whereby the amount due in respect of year...
P.M. Basheer Vs. Intelligence Inspector and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-02-2010
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.1. The petitioner is a dealer of granites and is doing the business on the strength of the registration obtained by him under the KVAT Act, as borne by Ext. P7. The case of the petitioner is that, in the course of his business, he purchased an 'electronic weigh bridge' from elsewhere outside the State and that was being brought in the vehicle bearing No. KA 20A 8788, when it was intercepted by the first respondent on 26.5.2010 issuing Ext.P4 notice under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act, pointing out some incriminating circumstances, doubting the evasion of tax and thus demanding security deposit to the extent as specified therein; the correctness and sustainability of which is under challenge in this Writ Petition.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, the electronic weigh bridge is very much necessary for the business/operations being pursued by the petitioner and that the same was pursued and brought for 'own use' as declared in form No. 16. I...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »