Kerala Court February 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.
Sudhakaran Nair Vs. the Geologist, Department of Mining and Geology, D ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-02-2012
Antony Dominic, J. 1. Petitioner is the owner of 50 cents of land situated in Re.Survey. No. 68/5 of Atholi Village in Koilandy Taluk. Alleging that he extracted minor mineral (laterite stone) without a quarrying permit under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules. He was issued Ext. P1 order requiring him to remit Rs. 74,182. In this order it is stated that the petitioner removed 210.60 Cubic Meters of laterite stone, and therefore it is liable to pay Rs. 8,424/- toward royalty, Rs. 60, 758/- towards price and Rs. 5000/- towards fine. This order was issued by the first respondent, and since amount was not paid, revenue recovery action was initiated against the petitioner. It was there upon the writ petition was filed with the following prayers: (i) declare that the Rule 58 (2) of the Minor Kerala Mineral Concession Rules is repugnant to section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (Central Act) to the extent it seeks to recover the minor mineral or pr...
M/S. Kancor Ingredients Limited Vs. the Regional Director (Kerala) and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-02-2012
Can the issue of exemption from the operation of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (the ‘Act’ for short) be raked up in a dispute under Section 75 thereof? This is the interesting question that arises for consideration in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner is a Public Limited Company operating an Oleoresin factory which had earlier enjoyed exemption from the provisions of the Act. Ext.P3 is the order passed by the State Government granting exemption from the operation of the Act for the period from 1.1.1998 to 31.12.1998. Such exemption was granted to the permanent employees of the factory under Section 87 of the Act which is extracted hereunder:- “”87. Exemption of a factory or establishment or class of factories or establishments. - The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notification, exempt any factory or establishment or class of factories or esta...
M/S. Laxmi Cranes and Trailers (P) Ltd. Vs. Joint Regional Transport O ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-02-2012
RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. 1. The issue raised in the Writ Appeal and in the Writ Petitions is one and the same, and therefore, at the request of the learned counsel for the appellant, we posted the WP(C)s also along with the Writ Appeal. We heard learned counsel for appellant/petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents and proceed to dispose of the cases by this common judgment. The documents referred to are those produced in WP(C) No.11179/2011. 2. The appellant/petitioner is engaged mainly in transport of transformers of abnormal size manufactured by a Kerala Government Company by name, TELK, located at Angamaly around 40 KMs away from Cochin Port. The appellant/petitioner had a tractor-trailor-combination with Registration No.KL-07R 3753 with a certified gross vehicle weight of 63 tonnes. However, when the prime mover namely the tractor became old, the appellant / petitioner purchased a modern Tata prime mover of almost the same size as the old one with two wheels in t...
State of Kerala, Represented by Its Special Secretary and Another Vs. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-02-2012
ManjulaChellur, AG. CJ. 1. Heart the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned Counsel representing party respondents. 2. It is not in dispute that the respondent herein was appointed as a Notary Public as per Ext.P1 dated 03.03.2006. However, he could not get certificate of practice as indicated in Section 9 of the Notaries Act, 1952 on account of some controversy with regard to number of Notaries who could have been enrolled in the State of Kerala. However, the complaint against the respondent was that before he could be given certificate of practice, he had displayed a board declaring himself as Notary in bold letters, therefore it contravened Section 9 of the Act. Therefore, his application came to be rejected. It is not in dispute that prior to this writ petition, he had approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.29421 of 2006, wherein the learned Judge gave the following directions: “4. In WPC.29421/06, the petitioner has a case that he was appointed as Notary but certific...
K. Kunhiraman Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary to Governm ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-02-2012
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. This writ petition is filed against an interim order passed by the Government during the course of a revision. The fundamental contention is that writ petitioner and others, who are entitled to be heard, were not heard before issuing that order. Under such circumstances, all that is required is for the petitioner to move the authority which issued the impugned Ext.P9 and show cause why that order may have to be varied. Hence it is ordered that if such request is made, the competent authority in the Government will take up the same and decide on that at the earliest, particularly when it is pointed out that it is the Tahsildar who has been appointed as the chairman for the next three years by the MDB. As of now, the Tahsildar who has been appointed as the Chairman for the next three years by the MDB shall continue to officiate, to run the day-to-day business, other than any election. It is further directed that the Commissioner, MDB shall take up Ext.P...
Sereefa, Kottuvally Village and Others Vs. Moideen
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-02-2012
1. Challenge in the Original Petition is against the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, North Paravur in I.A No.278/2009, in the appeal numbered as A.S No.62/2008 pending before him against the decree and judgment passed by the learned Munsiff, North Paravur in O.S No.208/2003, a suit for realisation of money. 2. The aforesaid application, I.A No.278/2009, was filed by the respondent in the appeal, who was the plaintiff before the court below. Suit for money was filed on the basis of an agreement executed by the defendants, who are the appellants in the above appeal. A contention was taken by the defendants that the document produced on which the suit claim was based is not an agreement, but, a bond. At the time of tendering of that document in evidence, the learned Munsiff marked that document in evidence subject to the objection canvassed by the defendants. Suit was disposed of by passing Ext.P5 judgment decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff but with a dir...
M/S. Kerala State Electricity Board and Another Vs. P. Radhakrishnan, ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Feb-02-2012
SHRI S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER This appeal is filed by the opposite parties who are aggrieved by the directions contained in the order dated: 30.11.2010 of CDRF, Ernakulam in CC No. 569/09 wherein and whereby they are directed to cancel Exts A1 to A3 bills and also to adjust the amount remitted by the complainant in the future bills. The Forum has also made the order in IA 504/2009 absolute. 2. The complainant had approached the Forum stating that he was conducting an X-ray technician training institute for earning his livelihood for self employment and that he had taken the electricity connection under the LT VI A category and that on 30.7.2009, he was served with a bill for Rs.17,915/- stating to be the difference in charges since the connection was to be charged under tariff LT VII A. It was submitted by him that he remitted a sum of Rs.9,177/- towards the bill and that on a future occasion he was given another bill for Rs.26,763/- stating that on the inspection conducted by th...
P.T. Hamza Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-01-2012
P.S. Gopinathan, J. 1. In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the respondent in M.C.No.323/2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the 1st Class, Parappanangadi, a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeks an order to quash all further proceedings in the above petition. The plea is that the above petition is not in the Form-II as contemplated under Rule 6. The 2nd ground urged is that the above petition was filed suppressing the lodging of complaint alleging offence under Section 498A IPC. 2. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, who is the petitioner before the trial court, would submit that though the application is not in the prescribed form, necessary particulars are there in the complaint to proceed with and that Rule 6 is not mandatory but directory. It was also submitted that there is no suppression of any material facts. 3. As regards the first ground urged, I find that th...
Sudheer, Ernakulam Vs. State of Kerala, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-01-2012
1. The following question of law is involved in this Bail Application: In a case involving an offence under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, can bail be refused on the ground that the accused is involved in other cases for the offence under Section 22(a) of the Act and for offences under the Indian Penal Code?2. The Petitioner is the accused in Sessions Case No.319 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc II), Ernakulam. The offence alleged against the accused is under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'NDPS Act'). The Petitioner is in judicial custody since 11-3-2011. He seeks bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.3. The prosecution case is the following: On 11-3-2011, at about 5 P.M., the Sub Inspector of Police, Ernakulam Town North Police Station found the petitioner/accused standing near a bike and two or three persons standing ne...
Lal, S/O Rema Krishnan Vs. Manappuram General Finance and Leasing Ltd. ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Feb-01-2012
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the 1st complainant in CC.470/08 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The complaint is returned on the ground that the Forum has no territorial jurisdiction, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. 2010, CTJ 2 (SC). We find that there is no patent illegality in the order of the Forum. There is no scope for admitting the appeal. The appeal is dismissed in-limine....
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›