Kerala Court February 2012 Judgments
Thuravoor Grama Panchayath Vs. Peter Jerry
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-13-2012
The scope and application of Rules 22 and 33 of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "the Code") with other incidental questions arises for a decision in the Second Appeal and First Appeals. 2. Respondents 1 to 3, claiming to be the owners in possession of plaint A and B schedules sued the appellant for a decree for mandatory injunction and recovery of damages. They claimed title and possession of plaint A and B schedules as per Exts.A1 to A3. On the eastern side of plaint A and B schedules there is a road. It is said that without the consent of respondents, appellant trespassed into the eastern portion of plaint A and B schedules and widened the road annexing a portion of plaint A and B schedules. It is further alleged that for the said purpose trees standing in that portion of plaint A and B schedules were cut and removed causing loss of Rs.8,600/- to the respondents. Appellant resisted the suit denying the claim of respondents regarding title and possession and conte...
Tag this Judgment!Sushma Bharadwaj, Chandigarh Vs. Addl.Chief Secretary to Government, T ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-13-2012
Ravikumar, J. 1. This writ petition carries the challenge against an order of preventive detention passed against the petitioner's husband Rajesh Bharadwaj, hereinafter referred to as `the proposed detenu', under section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short `PITNDPS Act'). The facts, in succinct, relevant for the purpose of deciding the issues involved are as hereunder:- 2. The proposed detenu is the 6th accused in S.C.No.40 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court (Special Court, NDPS Act cases), Vatakara. The proposed detenu along with the other co-accused are indicted under sections 8(1) and 8(c) read with sections 21(c), 27A, 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short `NDPS Act'). The prosecution case against the proposed detenu is that in his bank account, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.4,00,000/- were deposited on 31.1.2008 and 3.3.2008 respect...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Abdul Razak and Another
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-13-2012
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. This appeal by an insurer is against an award passed under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (since re-christened "the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923"). No such appeal shall lie unless a substantial question of law is involved in it, in view of the first proviso to Section 30(1) of that Act. 2. Before the Commissioner, the insurer denied liability to indemnify the insured on the plea that the incident did not arise in the course of employment. It also disputed the lump sum payment claimed by the applicant and his plea as to the monthly wages. 3. Appreciating the evidence, the Commissioner held that the applicant was driving the lorry of his employer and when it reached near a check post, a group of men manhandled him. FIR, accident-cum- would certificate, reference card to the Medical College Hospital, body mahazar, certificate issued by the Sub Inspector of Police etc. were taken on record. The accident was, thus, found as one that falls within...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary to Home Affairs, Central Secreta ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-13-2012
Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. 1. When the Writ Appeals were taken up for consideration, all the writ petitions were clubbed together, as similar question of controversy is involved in the issuance of valid 'Non Availability of Records Certificate' (for short 'NARC') while considering application for pension under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme (for short SSSP Scheme), 1980, issued by different authorities other than State Government. W.A. Nos. 227, 338 of 2011 and W.A. No. 382 of 2010: 2. The above three appeals are filed by the Union of India aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge directing sanction of pension to writ petitioner concerned. W.A. No. 338 of 2011: 3. This appeal pertains to Punnapra-Vayalar movement. The applicant/petitioner claims to be a freedom fighter having undergone suffering of imprisonment between 11.10.1122(M.E.) and 13.02.1123 (May 1947 to December 1947). The document produced by the applicant is an endorsement from the Chief Judicial ...
Tag this Judgment!Kannur District Co-operative Bank Ltd, Kannur and Others Vs. P. Padman ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-13-2012
Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. The ten Writ Petitions and the one Writ Appeal filed against an interim order of the learned Single Judge reveal the plight of a sinking co-operative society by name Thalassery Taluk Rubber and Agricultural Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd. which has suffered an estimated loss of around Rs. 8 crores in the course of 25 years of it's operation leading to loss of deposits to hundreds of poor depositors and at least two co-operative banks. When the society failed to repay the deposit amounts, many depositors filed arbitration claims under Section 69 of the Co-operative ocieties Act which led to awards in their favour. Since the Society has become bankrupt the award could not be honoured which lead to litigation in this Court. 2. The learned Single Judge passed interim orders directing the Joint Registrar to grant permission to the Society to sell some property and settle the decree amount. However, the District Co- operative Bank, Kannur filed Writ Appeal agains...
Tag this Judgment!The Asst.Ex.Engineer, Electrical Major Section and Another Vs. M.P. Ah ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Feb-13-2012
SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR, MEMBER The order dated 30.3.06 of CDRF, Wayanad in OP.50/02 is being challenged in this appeal by the opposite parties who are under directions to cancel Ext.A1 bill dated 25.3.02 and to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- and cost of Rs.1,000/-. The appellant have sought for setting aside the impugned order. 2. The brief facts of the case as recapitulated from the complaint are as follows That the complainant had obtained an electricity connection from the opposite parties on 31.1.92 and that the factory started only in November 1992 and further that the complainant was remitting the minimum charges demanded by the opposite parties without fault. It was also submitted that the complainant had been undergoing treatment in the Appollo Hospital for his heart ailment and a bill for Rs.28173/- was issued to him on 15.5.99 and on the complaint given by the complainant the bill was reduced to Rs.13035/- and in order to avoid disputes with the opposite parties he paid ...
Tag this Judgment!Kunhali and Others Vs. the Forest Range Officer and Another
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-10-2012
Accused nos. 1, 3 and 5, who were convicted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thamarassery, for offences punishable under sections 27(1)(e)(iii) and (iv) of Kerala Forest Act, are the revision petitioners. The learned Magistrate sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each for the offence under section 27(1)(e)(iii). They were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay Rs.2,000/- each as fine for the offence under section 27(1)(e)(iv) of Kerala Forest Act. The conviction was confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, but the substantive sentence was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. The revision petitioners contend that the Courts below failed to note that the prosecution has failed to prove that any tree was cut or removed from any reserved forest or vested forest, since no notification was produced by t...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) CochIn Vs. P.D. Abrahm Alias ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-10-2012
RamachandranNair, J. 1. The above two appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee arise from the block assessment and penalty orders issued against the assessee for the block period 1988-89 to 1997-98 (relevant for the period from 01/04/1987 to 24/07/1997) under Sections 158BC and 158BFA(2) respectively of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short). These proceedings were completely based on search made in the residential and business premises of the assessee on 24/07/1997 under Section 132 of the Act. 2. We have heard Shri.P.K.R.Menon, learned Senior Standing Counsel, appearing for the Revenue, and Shri.Dale P.Kurian, learned counsel appearing for the assessee. We have also gone through the argument notes filed by assessee's counsel and the several decisions cited by him. The facts leading to the block assessments made under Chapter XIV B are briefly stated hereunder. 3. The assessee is a leading producer and distributor of m...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam Vs. A.M. Fazil, AlappuzhA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-10-2012
Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. The respondent-assessee is engaged in film production and direction. Several of the films produced or directed by the respondent- assessee were distributed through Sri.P.D.Abraham alias Sri.Appachan, Swargachitra Films. The Income Tax Department conducted search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter called "the Act") in the residence and business premises of Sri.Appachan as well as the respondent-assessee and another film producer by name Sri.A.H.Khais who is the brother of the respondent-assessee from 24.7.1997 to 29.7.1997. During search, incriminating documents and accounts were seized from all the assessees which led to block assessment under Section 158BC of the Act in the name of three assessees namely, Sri.P.D.Abraham alias Appachan, respondent-assessee and also his brother Sri.A.H.Khais for the block period 1988-89 to 1997-98. We have heard the appeals relating to all the three assessees together and are disposing of the same by separate ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Jayan Vs. the State of Kerala, Rep.by Secretary to Government of Ke ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-10-2012
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1. An employee of the Guruvayoor Devaswom was nominated by the Hindus among the Council of Ministers as a Member of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee constituted under Section 3 of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1978, hereinafter referred to as the "Act". 2.These writ petitions filed challenging the aforesaid nomination are, one by an organization claiming to be espousing the cause of the devotees and the other two by individuals professing to be devotees. 3.The complaint against the individual concerned is that while serving the Devaswom as an employee, his conduct was subject of disciplinary proceedings on two occasions, both, according to the writ petitioners, being on allegations of moral turpitude. A plea, as of law, argued in one of the writ petitions is that the provision in Section 4(1)(d) of the Act enabling nomination can be only of a representative of the employees and not one among the employees, that is to say, there must be a process ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »