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.
The Retired Teachers and Employees Union and Others Vs. the State of K ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-05-2012
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. In all these writ petitions the various complaints regarding the implementation of the VIIIth Pay Revision Order in the year 2004 arise for consideration and therefore they are disposed of together. The petitioners have contended that the date of effect as 1.7.2004 is illegal and arbitrary and the same should have been made effective from 1.3.2002. 2. The VIIIth Pay Revision order was implemented with effect from 1.7.2004. The five year period of the VIIth Pay Revision order came to an end on 29.2.2002. The petitioners are retirees who had continued in service from 1.3.2002 and retired from service upto 30.6.2004. Their main grievance is regarding the alleged discrimination in not implementing the pay revision with effect from 1.3.2002. Certain allied contentions are also there. 3. Heard learned Senior Counsel Shri M.K. Damodaran appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.7569/2008, Smt. V.P. Seemanthini, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitione...
Baisil Attipetty @ Basil A.G. Vs. State of Kerala, Rep. by Its Chief S ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-05-2012
1. Plaint presented by the petitioner seeking a declaration and other reliefs with respect to disputes connected with the Mullapperiyar Dam was returned by the District Court Ernakulam, before which it was filed, for presentation before the civil court having territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction over the subject matter. Returning of the plaint as indicated is sought to be assailed by fling this original petition before this Court. The Registry has raised the objection that the order sought to be assailed is appealable as it could be challenged under Order XLIII Rule 1 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, for short, the ‘Code’. Taking exception to the objection, the petitioner has sought to present his submission before the court, and, accordingly, the petition has come up for consideration. 2. Petitioner has appeared as party in person. Relying on Baisil Attipetty V. M.V. Jayarajan and Others (2010 (3) KHC 431 (DB)) petitioner contends that the petition first of all requir...
Padinhare Purayil Janaki and Another Vs. State of Kerala Represented b ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-05-2012
RAMKUMAR J 1. In this intra-court appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, the appellant who was the 5th claimant in L.A.R.No.271/1987 on the file of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Payyannur challenges the appellate judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in L.A.A.No.52/1991. 2. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent. 3. Advocate Smt. A.Parvathy Menon the learned counsel appearing for the appellant made the following submissions before us in support of the appeal:- Even though no certificate of purchase under Section 80C(2) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (the KLR Act for short) had been issued to the appellant, presumably for the reason that the kudikidappu was the subject matter of a compulsory acquisition by the State for the Naval Academy, Ezhimala, in the proceedings initiated by the ap...
Special Grade Secretary, Chirakkal Grama Panchayat P.O., Chirakkal Vs. ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jan-05-2012
SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER This appeal is filed by the opposite party in CC No. 5/09 before the CDRF, Kannur who is aggrieved by the directions contained in the order dated: 18.3.2011 wherein and whereby the opposite party is under directions to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as cost within 1 month from the date of receipt of the order failing which the opposite party is under directions to pay interest also at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of default till payment. 2. The complainant had approached the Forum stating that he had applied for a birth certificate of his daughter in May 2008 before the opposite party and that the certificate was not issued. It was also submitted that the complainant was in need of the certificate for getting Visa for his daughter and ultimately he had to approach the Honorable High Court and as per the directions of the High Court only, the certificate was issued to him. Alleging that the opposite par...
State of Kerala Vs. Moidheen Kunji
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-04-2012
1. The question involved in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case is whether the order of bail granted by the High Court in favour of the accused under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the crime stage can be cancelled by the High Court after the final report was filed and after the Sessions Court granted regular bail to the accused, on the ground that the accused violated the conditions in the order passed by the High Court. 2. As per the order dated 21.1.2010 in B.A. No.202 of 2010, bail was granted to the respondent and three others in Crime No. 213 of 2009 of Badiadka Police Station. The offences alleged against the accused were u/Sections 143, 147, 148, 341 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Bail was granted to the respondent and others at the crime stage. Later, as the order passed by this Court in a Writ Petition, investigation of the crime was handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (“the C.B.I.” for short). The C.B.I. delete...
Prasad Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor High Cour ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-04-2012
1. The petitioner is the first accused in S.T. No:155/2011 of Judicial Fist Class Magistrate Court-I, Kottayam. The offence alleged against him and the co-accused is under section 277 r/w 34 IPC. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that on 14.12.2010 at about midnight, the first accused loaded toilet waste in lorry No:KL-4-D-7796, he and the second accused took the same to a place called ‘Thonikadavu’, situated in Manganam - Kalathiparambu road and dumped the latrine waste/human excreta into the ‘thodu’ underneath the bridge and polluted the water and thus the petitioner and other accused committed offence under Section 277 r/w 34 IPC. 3. A crime was registered based on the statement given by the 2nd respondent. After conducting investigation charge sheet was laid against the petitioner and other accused for the offence as mentioned above. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the materials collected and mentioned in the final...
M/S. Harrisons Malayalam Ltd Vs. the Regional Provident Fund Commissio ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-04-2012
1. These writ petitions arise under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous provisions Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Employees Provident Funds Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme), where, in a series of cases on the question of imposition of damages under Section 14B of the Act, after remand by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), the original authorities have passed orders directly contradictory to the specific findings of the Tribunal on questions of law, which amounts to negation of the rule of law by the original adjudicating authorities. 2. Facts are simple. The petitioner, a company registered under the Companies Act, who is engaged in the business of planting tea and rubber, delayed payment of contributions under the Act because of the financial difficulties, which plagued the plantation industry in India, particularly in Kerala, a decade or so ago. Each Regional Provident Fund Commissione...
Farzeen Sulthana Vs. Government of Kerala and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-04-2012
1. Grand Kerala Shopping Festival (‘GKSF’ for short) is an annual event conducted by the Department of Tourism of the State to woo Consumers and also to benefit Traders. ‘GKSF’ is widely publicised in print and visual medias and is usually conducted during the Christmas-New Year season. There are normally three categories of prizes such as (i) Scratch-N-Win prizes (ii) Weekly Prizes and (iii) Mega Prizes. The customer who purchases articles from the member shops of ‘GKSF’ for amounts exceeding a particular monetary limit would be issued a Coupon. The bill number and the address of the customer has to be filled in the counter foil of the coupon before it is dropped in the box kept in the shop. There would be a draw of the counter foils dropped in the box and similar boxes and the lucky winner duly intimated later about the result. The prize would be released to the winner of lots on production of the Coupon; purchase bill and document evidencing proof...
Ravikrishnan N.R., Advocate Vs. the Divisional Manager, Oriental Insur ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jan-04-2012
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA: MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF Thiruvananthapuram in OP No. 163/04 filed on 12.4.2004 and ordered on 15.3.2011. The appellant is the complainant and the respondent is the opposite party in the above said OP. 2. In short, the complainant purchased a new Hero Honda Passion Plus from the Cheran Automobiles Ltd. on 9.3.04. The same was insured with the opposite party insurance company on the same day itself and necessary steps for insuring and registry the bike was taken by the automobile agency itself. The agency informed the complainant that the policy document will be issued to him through post by the opposite party within 2 to 3 days from the date of insuring the bike on 9.3.04. But till date; the policy document did not serve to the complaint. The opposite party informed the complainant that the documents were already posted. On 16th March 2004 itself. But the policy did not reach the complainant within the said time. Hence this c...
Suhara and Another Vs. Robert and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-03-2012
Thomas P. Joseph, J. 1. Defendants in O.S. No.793 of 1997 of the court of learned Munsiff, Chavakkad are the appellants before me, requesting to decide the following substantial questions of law. (a) Was the lower appellate court justified in the facts of the case in interfering with the well reasoned findings of the trial court? (b) In a suit claiming right of easement by prescription where, at the commencement the way has only a width of 3 feet, can the appellate court find the existence of a way having a width of 6 feet? (c) Was the appellate court justified in ignoring the natural and existing boundaries enclosing ‘B’ schedule way, namely, old trees, old septic tank, tank, car porch, etc? (d) Is the evidence of interested witnesses, sufficient to over ride the fact finding report and evidence of the advocate Commissioner? (e) Has not the plaintiff lost his right of easement by prescription by his act of silence, when the septic tank, car porch and tank was constructed b...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »