Kerala Court March 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.
N. Ramachandran and Others Vs. S. Madhu and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-16-2012
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. The question referred for decision of the Full Bench is the following: "Whether an employee who has secured a district-wise appointment when transferred on request to another district before completing five years will have to surrender his entire five years of service, so as to claim seniority in the transferred unit even if the transfer is after one year of his appointment? 2. W.A. No.1466/2006 is filed against the judgment in W.P.(C) No.11178/2005, W.A. No.802/2007 is filed against the order in R.P.No.731/2006 filed against the same judgment and W.P.(C) No.26361/2006 is filed, challenging the order Ext.P4 by which revised seniority list of Excise Guards for the period from 1.1.1989 to 30.6.2000 was published in implementation of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.11178/2005. 3. W.P.(C) No.11178/2005 was disposed of along with the connected writ petitions, viz. 16863/2003, 29059/2004, 11178/2005, 11242/2005, 12802/2005 and 16332/2005 by a common judgment. W.A.No....
Basil Attipetty Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-15-2012
V. Ramkumar, J. The appellant who is appearing as a party-in-person, challenges the order dated 12.12.2011 passed by the District Judge, Ernakulam, returning the plaint evidently for production before the proper Court. The impugned order merely reads “returned”. O.VII R.10(2) envisages a speaking order. The order returning the plaint under R.10 of O.VII is appelable under O.XLIII R.1(a) C.P.C. That was all the more reason why Court below ought to have passed speaking order while returning the plaint. The order which reads “returned” is a cryptic and laconic order which cannot stand the scrutiny of a court of appeal. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the appellant is permitted to re-present the plaint before the court below which shall pass a speaking order. Dated this the 15th day of March, 2012....
T.J. Abraham and Others Aleyamma Joy
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-15-2012
1. The original petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs: i) to call for the records relating to Ext.P1 and direct the court below to comply with the orders of this Court in C.R.P.No.264/2006 dated 36.2010 and set apart a pathway over the property of the respondent, and in order to implement the same, direct the measurement of the properties of the parties within such time frame as this Hon'ble Court may direct. ii. or in the alternative allow the petitioners to cross over the property through the pathway already existing and used by the property for long as is found in Ext.P2 plan. iii. to grant such other and further reliefs in the interest of justice. 2. Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.191 of 1991 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvalla. That suit is one for declaration of the plaintiffs' right of easement over the properties of the defendant. Suit was decreed ex parte on 17.06.1993. Long after the passing of the ex parte decree, and after th...
Rajamani Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-15-2012
1. The appellant was convicted for offence punishable under section 55 (a) of Abkari Act and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as fine and in default he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. He was the 1st accused. The 2nd accused was acquitted by the trial Court. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is situated thus: The appellant was the driver of the lorry bearing no. KL-5 A 8197 of which the 2nd accused was the cleaner. On 24.2.2000, at about 4.15 pm, the lorry KL-5 A 8197 was stopped by PW3, the Sub Inspector, in front of Kasba Police Station, Palakkad. The lorry was driven by the appellant. A2, the cleaner was also in the cabin of the lorry. The lorry was then examined by PW3 and PW2, the head constable and other officials. On inspection PW3, the Sub Inspector of Police and his officials could find 218 plastic cans of a capacity of 35 litres each, having been kept in the platform of the lorry and all th...
The Manager, Seetharam Upper Primary School, Palakkad District Vs. Sta ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-15-2012
1. The petitioner is the manager of an aided school by name Seetharam Upper Primary School, Kunissery P.O., Palakkad District. The 3rd respondent is a Hindi Teacher of that school. She was suspended from service on certain allegations. Subsequently Ext.P1 memo of charges was issued to the 3rd respondent by the Manager. Since the 2nd respondent - Assistant Educational Officer, Alathur to whom the manager forwarded the memo of charges and connected papers for conducting an enquiry under Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules, did not conduct enquiry pursuant thereto, the Manger approached this Court by filing O.P.No.10756/2002, in which by Ext.P1 (a) judgment dated 9.10.2003, this Court recorded the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the Assistant Educational Officer will take appropriate action to see that the enquiry is carried out in respect of the charge sheet and will also ensure that the said proceedings are completed within a period of four months from the date...
The Proprietress, Sree Venkateswara-gas Agencies, Unity Building Vs. E ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Mar-15-2012
SHRI. A. RADHA : MEMBER This appeal is directed against the order passed by the CDRF, Thrissur whereby while accepting the complaint of the respondent the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.600/- within 2 months. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the complainant was a consumer of the opposite party and was having a gas connection. The opposite parties brought the gas cylinder on 28.10.2007 which was a Sunday while the complainant and family were away from their house and gas cylinder was not delivered. The next day the complainant went to the opposite partys office and requested to deliver the gas cylinder which was refused. It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party harassed the complainant and stated that the gas will be supplied only during the next turn of supply. The act of the opposite party amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice causing mental agony. Complaint is filed for compens...
Dr. Serji, Lecturer (Selection Grade), Department of Chemistry, S.N. C ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-14-2012
1. All these writ petitions concern a common issue. The petitioners in certain writ petitions are aggrieved by the proceedings whereby the advance increments consequent on acquisition of Ph.D. have been sanctioned in the lower scale. In the other writ petitions, the claims are yet to be granted. 2. In W.P.(C) No.36882/2007 the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Chemistry by the Management on 3.6.1996. He was placed as Lecturer Senior Scale and thereafter was placed as Lecturer Selection Grade with effect from 3.6.2005. He acquired Ph.D. prior to his entry in service. Claiming the benefit under G.O.(P) No.179/99/H.Edn. dated 21.12.1999 he filed Ext.P2 representation seeking two advance increments consequent on acquisition of Ph.D. prior to 1.1.1996. He is seeking for a direction to the first respondent for sanctioning the benefit. 3. In W.P.(C) No.20397/2008, the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Commerce by the Management on 6.10.1993. He was placed as Lecturer Senior Scal...
M/S. Kallada Hotels and Resorts Mannuthy, Thrissur District Rep. by It ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-14-2012
RamachandranNair, J 1. This Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge directing the Excise Commissioner and the Government to consider appellant's application for grant of FL3 licence for three star Hotel but with a rider that the application should be considered taking note of the change of law which is nothing but a provision introduced by the Government on 9.12.2011 dis-entitling three star hotels from getting FL3 licence. 2. We have heard senior counsel Sri.C.C.Thomas appearing for the appellant and Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents. While the appellant's case is that application for FL3 licence was submitted vide Ext.P2 dated 29.7.2010 and in spite of favourable recommendations made by the Joint Excise Commissioner the Excise Commissioner has not so far granted licence. The specific case of the appellant is that only on account of a wrong report from lower authorities the application was initially rejected by the Government vide Ext.P...
Deepu Dev and Another Vs. the State of Kerala Rep by the Secretary to ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-14-2012
1. A question of legal importance arises in this writ petition as to whether a marriage solemnised between 2 persons belonging to different religions can be registered under the provisions of the Kerala Registration of Marriages (common) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Common Rules). 2. The petitioners are husband and wife, the marriage being solemnized on 16.02.2012 as per religious rites at the Infant Jesus Church, South Vazhakkulam, Aluva. The 1st petitioner belongs to Hindu religion and the 2nd petitioner is a Christian. It is stated that on the same day the petitioners have also undergone religious rites and ceremonies of a marriage under Hindu religion, at Sree Sankara Auditorium, East Kadungallur, Aluva. Exhibit P3 is the certificate of marriage issued by the Church and Exhibit P4 is the certificate issued by the authorities of the Auditorium. 3. The petitioners applied for registration under the Common Rules. The Secretary of the 2nd respondent Panchayat (the Regist...
Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation Ltd., Rep. by Its Man ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-14-2012
Chitambaresh, J. 1. Writ Appeal No. 2843/2009 is filed by the Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation Ltd. and Writ Appeal No. 2844/2009 is filed by the State. The controversy centres around the regularisation in service of respondents 1 to 3 as Assistant Managers in Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation (KTDFC for short). The KTDFC had issued Exts.P10, P11 and P12 orders regularising the service of respondents 1 to 3 on the basis of Exts.P7, P8 and P9 orders of the government. The government thereafter by Ext.P13 order cancelled Ext.P9 order of regularisation which was challenged by respondents 1 to 3 in WP(C) No. 5102/2007 on the file of this Court. The State had filed Ext.P14 counter affidavit therein where it was inter alia averred as follows: "The petitioners were appointed against sanctioned posts after a due selection process. Communal reservation including SC/ST reservation was followed in the selection procedure." This court by Ext.P15 judgment quashed Ext....
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »