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.
S. Gangadharan Vs. Group Commandant Cisg Group and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-10-2012
1. The petitioner, when he was working as a Constable at the Cochin Shipyard Wing under the command of the first respondent sustained injuries while on duty. On 7.2.2010, when the petitioner was put on duty at the gate of shipyard, he fell on the ground and sustained multiple fracture of his leg. The petitioner had to be under prolonged treatment for the injuries and had to undergo surgery also. The petitioner sought for the sanction of Special Disability Leave instead of medical leave. However, by Ext.P8, his request has been rejected. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P8. 2. Advocate P Sanjay who appears for the respondents has filed a statement. According to the counsel, the petitioner had sustained a fall to his own negligence. While he was on duty at the gate of the shipyard, his duty was to constantly patrol and to frisk the persons who enter through the gate. Though he was expected to discharge his duties, diligently, due to his own negligence he fell o...
M.C. Thomas Vs. State of Kerala Represented by Public Prosecutor and O ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-10-2012
Common Order 1. Petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.3222/2011 is the 1st accused in C.C.99/2011, a complaint filed by the 5th respondent therein alleging offences under Section 418, 420 and 506(2) read with Section 34 I.P.C. Crl.M.C.No.3880/2011 was filed by the 2nd accused. Both of them seek to invoke jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the complaint with a plea that even by the averments in the complaint the offences alleged are not made out. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant would submit that there are sufficient averments in the complaint to send the accused for trial. 2. Having heard either side, I find that it is needless for this Court to go deep into the dispute invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. because the petitioners have got the remedy available under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Crl.M.C.No.3222 and 3880/2011 2 Procedure. Going by Section 245(2) Cr.P.C, I find that even on the first day...
K.R. Ramakrishnan S/O. Kurumbankandath Ravunny Vs. Smt Regha and Anoth ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-10-2012
The appellant herein is the complainant in C.M.P.No.717 of 2009 of the court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur. By the impugned order dated 10.3.2011, the learned Judge of the Special court has found that the appellant/complainant is liable to be prosecuted for the offence under Section 211 of IPC and thus ordered to file a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate court-Thrissur for prosecuting the appellant for the offence under Section 211 of IPC. It is the above order which is under challenge in this appeal. 2. Heard the counsel for the appellant. I have also perused the order impugned in this appeal. 3. As I indicated earlier, the order challenged in this appeal is an order issued under Section 340 of Cr.P.C., by which the learned Judge of the Special court has found that the appellant herein is liable to be prosecuted for the offence under Section 211 of IPC and also observed that the complaint will be filed before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate...
The Commissioner of Income Tax, CochIn Vs. M/S. Bimbis South Star, Ern ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-10-2012
Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. The two sets of appeals pertain to two assessees, one by name M/s.Bimbis South Star and the other by name M/s.Khyber Foods, both assessed based on search conducted under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act. Even though there is only one assessment, the two appeals happened to be filed in the case of two assessees only because both the Revenue as well as the assessee were in appeal before the Tribunal. We have heard Senior counsel Sri.P.K.R.Menon appearing for the Revenue and Senior counsel Sri.T.M.Sreedharan appearing for the respondent. 2. The only question raised is whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessments were invalid for the reason that search warrant issued in Form 45 was invalid. The contention of Senior counsel for the Revenue is that assessee never had a case on the validity of assessments except at the Tribunal stage when the assessee raised additional grounds in second appeals contending that warrants issued in the name of grou...
Mathai Varkey Muthirenthy Vs. Bar Council of India, Represented by Its ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-09-2012
1. Has the Bar Council of India the power to nominate a member to the election tribunal appointed by the Bar Council of Kerala under Rule 34(5) of the Bar Council of Kerala Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’ only for short) is the short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner is a returned candidate to the Bar Council of Kerala whose election has been challenged by the additional fifth respondent in an election petition before the election petition before the election Tribunal. The election tribunal comprises of the three advocates whose names are on the State Roll and who are having not less than ten years standing as per Rule 34(4) of the Rules. One of the members of the election tribunal on being appointed as the Advocate General of the State became an ex-officio member of the Bar Council of Kerala and hence submitted his resignation. Another person had necessarily to be nominated to the election tribunal to facili...
Sebastian @ Yesudas, Thrissur Vs. State of Kerala, Rep. by the Public ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-09-2012
1. The revision numbered as above was taken on file on a petition sent for jail by a convict namely, Sebastian @ Yesudas, who is undergoing sentence imposed in various cases for different terms. He has sent the petition requesting for setting aside his conviction or in the alternative to allow him to undergo concurrently the sentences imposed, in four cases, C.C.Nos.541/1998, 802/1998, 874/1998 and 875/1998 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam. In all the aforesaid cases, after separate trial, he has been convicted of similar offences, as under Sections 457, 380 and 461 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. In C.C.No.874 of 1998, on his conviction the magistrate has sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for two years each under Sections 457 and 380 of the IPC and six months under Section 461 of the IPC. Set off was allowed to him from 12.8.2002 till the date of the judgment, 26.11.2002. Sentences were directed to be undergone consecutively. His appeal Crl.A.No.90...
C.P. Mohanan and Others Vs. Dr. P.V. George, Obstetrician and Gynecolo ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jan-09-2012
SHRI. M.V VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER Complaint filed under section 17(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 2. The case of the complainants is as follows:- Complainants are the legal heirs and legal representatives of deceased O.K.Vasanthakumari who was a patient of the opposite parties. 1st complainant is the husband, complainants 2 and 3 are the minor children and 4th complainant is the mother of the deceased Vasanthakumari. The patient, Vasanthakumai was aged 29 years and was a teacher in Kuttiyattoor UP School. She died on 25.7.1997 at 1.45.am due to the negligent and carelessness of the opposite parties in treating her in connection with her 2nd delivery. The opposite parties failed to provide reasonable care in treating the patient, Vasanthakumari. There was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and only due to the negligence and carelessness and deficiency in service of the opposite parties, the patient Vasanthakumari died on 25.7.1997 at 1.45.am wh...
P.K. Sinha, Chairman and Managing Director, Picks Medical System Ltd. ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jan-07-2012
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC 76/10 in the file of CDRF, Kasaragod. The appellants are under orders to replace the medical equipment with compensation of Rs.2 lakh and cost of Rs.5000/- with interest at 9%. The appellants were ex-parte before the Forum. In the circumstances and in view of the fact, the order cannot be treated as a considered one The same is set aside on condition that the appellants/opposite parties pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- towards costs to the complainant or deposit the same before the Forum which can be withdrawn by the complainant. On payment of cost, the Forum will permit the opposite party to contest the matter and dispose of the matter on merits. The case stands posted before the Forum below on 23.2.2012. Office will forward a copy of this order to the Forum below....
Pramod Kumar V.P. Vs. the District Officer and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-06-2012
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. These three writ petitions concern interpretation of Rule 15(a) of Part II Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (K.S. and S.S.R) as amended with effect from 02/02/2006. The petitioners in W.P.(C).Nos.1125/2007 and 2243/2007 have been advised and appointed after 2/2/2006 which is sought to be cancelled by the Public Service Commission (shortly the ‘P.S.C.’) in the light of the amendment which is effective from 02/02/2006. The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.11329/2011 seeks appointment in the light of inclusion of his name in the ranked list published for NCA (No Candidate Available) vacancies. Since common questions have been raised, these writ petitions are disposed of together. 2. The facts of these cases are as follows: The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.1125/2007 submitted an application pursuant to the notification issued by the P.S.C. for appointment as High School Assistant (English) in Government High Schools in various Districts. He applied ...
Janaki Vs. Chandran and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-06-2012
1. The petitioner and respondents 1 to 3 are the children of one Pattu. The fourth respondent is the wife of the third defendant. Pattu died in 2002. Claiming a 1/4th share in the property owned and possessed by Pattu, the petitioner filed O.S.No.312 of 2009 on the file of the court of the Munsiff of Chittur. 2. The plaintiff valued the plaint schedule property at Rs.2,80,000/- and her share at Rs.70,000/-. Fixed court fee was paid under Section 37(2) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Court Fees Act). 3. Defendants 3 and 4 contested the suit. They contended that the valuation and court fee are incorrect. An issue was framed regarding the valuation and court fee. The court below held that the plaintiff is liable to pay court fee under Section 37(1) of the Court Fees Act. The order passed by the court below is under challenge in this Writ Petition filed by the plaintiff. 4. In the plaint, it was alleged that the plaintiff and defendants 1 to...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »