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.
Muhummad Shafi. a Vs. the District Collector, Mallapuram and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-20-2012
1. The petitioner applied for licence for a .22 bore rifle made by Remington (USA) in terms of Section 3 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). Ext.P1 is the application for arms licence in the prescribed format wherein the need projected by the petitioner is self protection. The District Magistrate who is the licensing authority called for reports from the departments of Police,Forest and Revenue. Ext.P2 is the report of the District Superintendent of Police to the effect that there is no objection in granting a licence to the petitioner from the point of view of security. Ext.P3 is the report of the Divisional Forest Officer to the effect that there is no objection in granting a licence from the point of view of forest and wild life protection. The District Magistrate however by Ext.P4 order rejected the application for licence put in by the petitioner. The said order was challenged in appeal under Section 18 of the Act to the Land Revenue...
Najma Vs. Registrar General of Marriages/Deputy Director of Panchayath ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-20-2012
1. Petitioner is aggrieved by non acceptance of an application submitted before the 2nd respondent for registration of her marriage, under the provisions of Kerala Registration of Marriage (Common) Rules, 2008. According to her she married a person of Indian Origin, who subsequently acquired citizenship of United Arab Emirates (UAE). Exhibit Ext.P3 is the relevant extract of the Passport of the person who married the petitioner and Ext.P4 is the "Person of Indian Origin Card (PIO card)" held by the said person. The marriage was solemnised as per religious rites and customs and it is registered at 'Kottol Mahallu Juma Masjid'. The Secretary of the Juma Masjid had issued Ext.P2 Marriage Certificate about conduct of the marriage as per religious rites. 2. Complaint of the petitioner is that 2nd respondent has not received the application for registration submitted as per Ext.P5, stating reasons that, both the spouses should appear in person for submitting such application and that a marri...
Shahina Babu, West Mumbai Vs. the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Co ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-19-2012
1. Petitioner made an application seeking waiver of interest as provided under Section 220(2A) of the Income Tax Act (in short 'the Act'). That application was considered and by Ext.P8 order, waiver to the extent of 50% of the interest due, has been granted. It is complaining denial of waiver to the extent of as sought for, this writ petition has been filed. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner who mainly contends that although the petitioner has satisfied the three conditions laid down in Section 220(2A) of the Act, the Commissioner has acted illegally in denying full benefits. However, having gone through Ext.P8 order and the provisions contained in Section 220(2A), I am unable to find any illegality in Ext.P8. 3. Section 220(2A) of the Act reads thus. 220(2A)- Notwithstanding anything contained in sub section (2), the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner may reduce or waive the amount of interest [paid or] payable by an assessee under the said sub section if he is...
State of Kerala, Rep. by District Collector Vs. Ibrahimkutty and Anoth ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-19-2012
1. In this appeal the Government challenges the award of the reference court in a reference under Section 28-A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act. One of the grounds raised is that in the operative portion of the impugned judgment several mistakes have crept in and they are liable to be corrected. As for the above ground, we permit the appellant Government to move the reference court itself for correction of the mistakes by filing appropriate application under Sections 152 and 153 of the Code Civil Procedure. Another ground which is seriously raised in the appeal is that the court below has awarded compensation towards injurious affection in respect of unacquired property belonging to the respondent. It is urged that in a reference under Section 28-A(3) no compensation can be awarded in respect of unacquired property. Sri. C.R.Shyamkumar, Senior Government Pleader would place strong reliance on the judgment of this Court in Kamalakshi Amma v. Special Tahsildar, 2004(2) KLT 716 which was au...
K.G. Vijayakrishnan Vs. the District Collector, Thrissur and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-19-2012
AntonyDominic, J. 1. The petitioner challenges Ext. P3 surchage certificate, issued for Rs. 5,000/- to the petitioner. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that: 2. The petitioner was the Secretary of the 4th respondent Grama Panchayath during the year 2001. In the Local fund Audit Report, it was reported that without technical sanction, petitioner had disbursed mobilization advance of Rs. 5,000/- to the convener of a Beneficiary Committee. On receipt of the Audit report, Ext. P1 surcharge notice was issued to the petitioner on 29.05.2007. On receipt of the notice, petitioner filed Ext. P2 reply, contending that the expenditure objected to was incurred on 11.08.2000 and that in view of the provisions contained in section 215 of Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, the claim is barred by limitation. Overruling the objection, Ext. P3 surcharge certificate was issued. It was at that stage this writ petition was filed. In the Writ Petition the main contention raised is that the claim is barred b...
Thattuparambath Govindan Asari and Others Vs. Tharammal Sureshan and A ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-19-2012
1. This appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (since rechristened “the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923”), for short, the “Act”, comes up for consideration for admission. 2. Perusing the file, we notice the following facts: i. The memorandum of appeal was presented on 14.12.2010. It was not accompanied by a certificate by the Commissioner to the effect that the appellants have deposited with him, the amount payable under the order appealed against. ii. The Registry recorded the non-production of the certificate as one of the defects and returned the appeal for curing defects. iii. Appellants, thereafter, deposited the amount on 22.11.2011 before the commissioner; produced certificate and sought for condonation of delay in “re-presenting” the appeal. By order dated 8.12.2011, that application was granted on condition of payment of Rs. 350/- as costs to the Kerala High Court Legal Service Authority. On payme...
R. Vasudevan Pilla Vs. the State of Kerala and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-19-2012
RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. 1. In the connected Writ Appeals filed by a Physical Education Teacher and the Writ Petition filed by the Corporate Management, which employs the teacher concerned, the question raised is one and the same, i.e. whether post of physical education teacher in the high school can be retained by reckoning the periods of physical education in higher secondary section of the high school under the same corporate management. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the teacher, learned counsel for the Corporate Management and also learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. The appellant teacher was appointed in a leave vacancy in a School under the Corporate Management in 1993. Later his appointment as physical education teacher got regularised with effect from 06/06/1994. While the appellant was continuing as a physical education teacher in NSS High School, Anikkad, which also has a higher secondary section, the periods of physical education fell below 5, wh...
State of Kerala, Rep. by the District Collector, Kannur Vs. A.P. Moidu ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-19-2012
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. 1. The Government is the appellant in LAA No. 538 of 2010 and the memorandum of cross objections is filed by the claimant. The property under acquisition was in Kuthuparamba Village and the acquisition was for the purpose of up-gradation of Thalassery- Valavupara Road pursuant to Section 4(1) Notification published on 28/01/2005. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs.38,000/- per Cent. The Reference Court under the impugned award re-fixed the land value at Rs.1 lakh per Cent. Apart from that the Reference Court awarded further compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for “loss of earnings / loss of business”. The Government contends that the market value re-fixed by the Reference Court is excessive. The Government also contends that the award of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for loss of earnings and business is unauthorized. In the memorandum of cross objections filed by the claimant, it is urged that the land value ought to have been re...
Sinny Joshy Vs. Kerala Kera Karshaka Sahakarana Federation Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-19-2012
Is court fee payable on the memorandum of Cross Objection filed to an Appeal before the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition. 2. The petitioner had obtained an Award in a monetary dispute on the file of the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Marketing). The respondent preferred Ext.P-1 memorandum of Appeal under Section 82 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (the ‘Act’ for short). The petitioner filed Ext.P-2 memorandum of Cross Objection in so far as the Joint Registrar had negatived his claim. The Kerala Co-operative Tribunal has by Ext.P-3 order returned the memorandum of Cross Objection with a direction to resubmit it with the prescribed court fee. The said order returning the memorandum of Cross Objection is impugned in this writ petition. The petitioner contends that neither the Act nor the rules framed thereunder warrant the levy of court fee on the memorandum of Cross Objectio...
S. Preetha Vs. the Secretary, Kerala Public Service Commission and Ano ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-19-2012
RamachandranNair, J. 1. This Writ Appeal is filed by a candidate, who applied for selection to the post of Lecturer in Law College. Even though the appellant was allowed to undergo the selection process under interim orders and the appellant achieved the position in rank list in between rank Nos.8 and 9, the PSC has opposed appellant's selection for the reason that the appellant does not have three years bar experience, which is the requirement for eligibility for selection. Learned Single Judge held that appellant's research experience as a Ph.D student cannot be counted though her post graduate studies in Law is counted by the PSC without any objection. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel for the PSC. 3. The appellant, admittedly is a 2nd rank holder in LLB and has above 55% marks in LLM. Besides this the appellant is a UGC Junior Research Fellow. So much so, she has the required educational qualifications for being considered for...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »