Kerala Court January 2012 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.
Mammoonju @ Mohamed Kunju Vs. State of Kerala Represented by the Publi ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-12-2012
R. BASANT, J. 1. (i) Did the court below err in choosing to acceptand act upon the oral evidence of PWs.2, 8and 9? (ii) Is the appellant/accused entitled to anybenefit of doubt? (iii) Is the appellant/accused in the circumstances of the case entitled to the mitigative protection of Exception 1 and/or 4 of Section 300 I.P.C? These questions are raised for consideration before us bythe learned counsel for the appellant Mr.P.B.Ajoy in thisappeal. 2. The appellant, a person aged about 62 years on thedate of the incident is alleged to have caused the death ofhis father-in-law Shahul Hameed, a person aged about 85years by stabbing him with MO1 knife at 12.30 p.m. on14.5.2000 at the residential building occupied by both. 3. Investigation commenced with Ext.P1-FI statementlodged by PW1, a son of the deceased. Investigation was completed by PW11, the Investigating Officer, who filed thefinal report/charge sheet before the learned Magistrate.The learned Magistrate, after observingall legalformal...
A. Ramachandran Pillai Vs. D. Bharathiyamma and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-12-2012
1. The questions of law involved in this Civil Revision Petition are the following: 1) What is the procedure to be followed when the plaintiff on whose behalf her next friend instituted the suit, comes forward and says that she is not of unsound mind or a person of feeble mind and that she does not want to continue to prosecute the suit? 2) Whether it is mandatory to remove the next friend before disposing of the suit on the application of the plaintiff on whose behalf the next friend instituted the suit? 3) Whether it is mandatory that after removal of the next friend the suit should be continued by the plaintiff? 4) Whether the next friend has any right to cross examine the plaintiff who gives sworn statement before Court in an enquiry under Rule 15 of Order XXXII that she is not mentally infirm or a person of unsound mind? 5) Whether the plaintiff in such a suit can approach the Court on her own and contend that she is not a person of unsound mind or a person of feeble mind and that...
P.G. Bhanumathy, Kochi and Others Vs. Chairman, Scrutiny Committee for ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-12-2012
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. The captioned appeal is filed under Section 12(3) of the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996, for short, the “Act”, challenging a decision of the Scrutiny Committee under Section 11 of that Act. 2. The connected writ petition is filed challenging the validity of certain provisions of the Act. We may record that while the reliefs sought for in the writ petition relate to different provisions of the Act, arguments were confined to pointing out that Section 9(2) of the Act is arbitrary, in as much as, the report of the Expert Agency, an entity defined in Section 2(g) of the Act, is ordained as “conclusive proof”, taking away safeguards in adjudication. But, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader, that challenge no more survives, in view of the amendment made as per the Kerala (Scheduled Castes an...
V.N. Narayana Kuruppu Vs. Kerala State Co-operative Employees Pension ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-12-2012
A.M. Shaffique, J. 1. The petitioner retired from the service of 2nd and 3rd respondent Bank on 31/3/2002 while working as Peon on attaining superannuation. Despite the fact that his pension papers were processed, the 1st respondent by Ext.P5 returned the pension documents on the ground that as per the decision of the Pension Board, petitioner is not entitled for the pension since his appointment was on 14/08/1992 while he was aged 38 years. Hence, by Ext.P5, the contributions received were returned to the Secretary of the Bank with interest. 2. According to the petitioner, the Pension Board has no right to declare that the appointment of the petitioner is in any way bad and being an authority to maintain the pension of the State Co-operative employees it cannot undo an appointment confirmed by the appointing authority. According to the petitioner, only the appointing authority has jurisdiction to consider whether appointment of the petitioner is in accordance with law or not. Since th...
K.E. Aysha and Others Vs. Kunhipurayil Shaik Moideen
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-12-2012
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. 1. The tenants are the revision petitioners in this revision under Section 20 of Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 2 of 1965. They challenge the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority reversing the finding of the Rent Control Court that the Rent Control petition is not maintainable for the reason that the original tenancy has been split up and the petitioner is seeking only partial eviction in respect of the premises which had been originally let out. The respondent is the landlord and the revision petitioners are tenants being the successors in interest of the original tenant one Mammu. The original tenant was the husband of the first revision petitioner and the father of the other revision petitioners. According to the revision petitioners, the original landlady leased out the petition schedule building along with the adjacent building, to late Mammu as per a cooli chit dated 23/1/1970, on a monthly rent of Rs.145/-, which was later enhance...
The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Or ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-12-2012
1. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Kozhikode, who was the first respondent in ATA 167 (7) of 2007 on the file of the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, has filled this writ petition challenging Ext.P4 order passed by they said Tribunal, whereby it set aside Ext.P1 order passed by him under section 7A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,1952 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) and directed him to pass fresh orders in accordance with law. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 2. By Ext.P1 order passed on 11.1.2007 under section 7A of the Act, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Kozhikode directed the first respondent herein to pay the sum of Rs.1,85,649.40 by way of contribution under different heads for the period from 10/2002 to 11/2006. Aggrieved thereby, the first respondent herein filed Ext.P2 appeal before ...
Union of India and Another Vs. M. Soudabi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-12-2012
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan.J. 1. These writ petitions are filed by the Union of India challenging different order issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. 2. W.P.(C).Nos.13112/09, 14453/09,16308/09 and 16376/09 arise from a common order passed by a Full Bench of the Tribunal. The other writ petitions are filed challenging orders passed thereafter by the Tribunal relying on the aforesaid Full Bench decision. On consent of parties, these matters are heard collectively since the question arising for decision in all the matters are the same. 3. The respondents are Gramin Dak Sevaks, for short, GDS. The question arising for decision is the entitlement of protection to Time Related Continuity Allowance (TRCA). Two issues were referred to the Full Bench of the Tribunal for consideration. They are (i) When a Gramin Dak Sevak drawing pay in a higher TRCA is transferred from one Post Office to another within the same recruiting unit or outside the recruitment unit with o...
Rafeek and Others Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by the Public Prose ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-12-2012
R. Basant, J. 1. Did the learned Sessions Judge err in accepting and acting upon the oral evidence of PWs 4, 10 and 11? (ii) Is the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that accused 1 to 8 were members of an unlawful assembly prosecuting a common object correct? (iii) Are the appellants/accused 2 to 8 or anyone of them entitled to the benefit of doubt? These questions are raised before us by Shri P.S.Sreedharan Pillai, learned counsel for the appellants in these appeals. Accused 2, 3 and 7 have preferred a separate appeal. 2. This case has already had a chequered career. The alleged incident took place on 19.03.2000 at about 7 p.m. The incident allegedly took place at the road intersection between the National Highway and the beach road leading westwards from the National Highway at Perumpadappu hospital junction in Trichur District. Altogether there were 15 accused persons. The prosecution alleged that all the accused persons on account of political animosity had entered into a crimi...
A.L. Jinson Vs. P. Ibrahim
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jan-12-2012
SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT Delay condonation petition is dismissed. Consequently the appeal is also dismissed....
T.P. Abdulla Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-11-2012
K. Vinod Chandran, J. The assessee is in appeal before us from the order of the Tribunal reversing the order of the first appellate authority and confirming that of the assessing officer. The short question raised in the appeal is with respect to the addition of Rs.22,20,549/- made by the assessing officer, disclosed as loans by the assessee in his cash flow statement. The assessee would contend that having produced confirmation letters from the creditors, the assessee has discharged his burden and that on furnishing such primary material, it was for the assessing authority to ask for and obtain further materials to substantiate the same, if so required. 2. The assessee, a partner of a Roller Flour Mill, filed his return of income for the assessment year 2005-06, which was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act (for short “the Act”). On the case of the assessee being taken for scrutiny, notice was issued under Section 143(2) of the Act and the cash flow sta...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »