Kerala Court April 2012 Judgments
Dr. M. Karthikeyan Vs. the Director of Collegiate Education, Thiruvana ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-13-2012
BabuMathew P. Joseph, J. 1. The petitioner was appointed Lecturer in Malayalam in Sree Kerala Varma College, Thrissur under the Cochin Devaswom Board on 31.10.1966. He was the Head of the Department of Malayalam in that College from 10.3.1981 to 31.10.1994. He was relieved from that College on the afternoon of 31.10.1994 for taking up employment as a Professor in Sree Sankaracharya Sanskrit University, Kalady. He rejoined duty in Sree Kerala Varma College on the forenoon of 31.3.1997 and retired from that College on that day. Ext.P1 service certificate issued from that College shows the service details of the petitioner. 2. The pension papers of the petitioner could be submitted only on 22.4.2002 owing to the delay occurred in connection with a seniority dispute. As per Ext.P2 order dated 29.7.2003, the Accountant General sanctioned Rs.2,55,630/- as Death-Cum- Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) and Rs.7743/- as pension to the petitioner. The Accountant General has forwarded the order sanctioni...
Tag this Judgment!Jumaila Vs. Abdul Gafoor and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-13-2012
SurendraMohan, J. 1. The travails of a discarded wife to secure the custody of her two male children from her husband who has forcibly taken them away and across the borders of our country to Jeddah in Saudi Arabia form the subject matter of this writ petition. The Family Court, Malappuram, has decided that the wife should have the custody of her children. Warrants of arrest have been issued by competent criminal courts against the first respondent. His passport has been impounded but, the efforts to deport him to our country have failed, at least for the moment, for the reason that he enjoys the patronage of an obliging employer at Saudi Arabia. 2. The petitioner, Jumaila is the mother of Mohammed Salman aged 12 years and Murad aged 4 = years. She has filed this writ petition seeking the issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus directing respondents 2 to 4 to produce her minor children from the illegal custody of the first respondent. The first respondent, Mr. Abdul Gafoor is the father of th...
Tag this Judgment!Joby George Vs. Thomas Varghese
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-13-2012
"CR" Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1. This appeal is against the dismissal of an application to set aside the election of the respondent as a member of a block panchayat. 2. Though different grounds were pleaded by the appellant before the court below, the only issue pressed for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the sentencing of the respondent in a criminal case (of which Exts.A2 and A3 are the judgments of the trial court and the appellate court) amounts to disqualification under section 34(1)(b)(i) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, hereinafter referred to as the "Act". Pithily, the question is whether the conviction and sentence was for an offence involving moral turpitude. 3. The verdict of the trial court was interfered with partly, in appeal and as of now, the respondent stands convicted and sentenced under Sections 143, 147 and 323 IPC. 4. As noticed by the court below and as is evident from Exts.A2 and A3 judgments of the criminal courts, the allegations relat...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala, Represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of K ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-13-2012
BASANT, J. (i) Do Session Judges have the power to impose the harsher variety of life sentence which is recognised by Swamy Shraddananda (2) Versus State of Karnataka[2008 (13) SCC 767] as an option available in law for the courts to avoid the harshest, irreversible and incorrect able sentence of death? Is that sentencing option available only to the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution? Is that sentencing option available only to constitutional courts - the High Courts and the Supreme Court? ii) Consequently is it necessary for the Session Judges to consider whether that alternative option [the harshest sentence of life authorised by Swamy Shraddananda (2)(supra)] is also unquestionably foreclosed in the facts and circumstances of a given case before choosing to impose the sentence of death? (iii) Is it necessary for this Court to declare the law authentically and insist that before the sentence of death is imposed by any Sessions Court, such consideration must invariab...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna @ Chandrakanth Vs. State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-13-2012
R. Basant, J. i) In a criminal case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, is the prosecution bound to prove the circumstances beyond doubt? ii) Is it sufficient that the circumstances are proved by the prosecution on the test of balance of probabilities as in a civil case? iii) Is the burden on the prosecution in a criminal case to prove guilt beyond doubt confined only to proof of inferential facts and not to primary or basic facts? iv) Can the insistence on proof beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal case be justified by the definition of the expression "proved" in Section 3 of the Evidence Act? Is such insistence alien to such definition and justified (or imported into Indian Criminal Law) only by binding precedents of superior courts? v) Does not the definition of the expression "proved" in Section 3 of the Evidence Act (the Act hereinafter) apply to all facts - facts in issue and relevant facts, whether sought to be proved by direct evidence or circumstantial evidence? vi) ...
Tag this Judgment!V.D. Yesudasan and Others Vs. State of Kerala and Another
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-13-2012
K.T. Sankaran, J. 1. The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.14058 of 2009 are working as Overseer Grade I in the Engineering Wing of Local Self Government Department (hereinafter referred to as LSGD), while the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.4414 of 2008 are working as Assistant Engineers in the LSGD. 2. After the amendment of the Constitution of India by the 73rd amendment, the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 was enacted. Before the 1994 Panchayat Raj Act, the Engineering staff of the Panchayats were governed by the Kerala Panchayat Common Service Rules, 1977. They had limited chances of promotion. Stagnation occurred in the entry cadre post for several years. In the year 1998, the Pay Revision Committee took note of the lack of promotion avenues to the Engineering staff of the Panchayat Department and made some suggestions. After the Constitution 73rd Amendment, the functional responsibility of the Engineering staff of Panchayats and Municipalities in the State were substantially enhanced. Under th...
Tag this Judgment!T.K. Soman Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by the Deputy Superintende ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-12-2012
N.K. Balakrishnan, J. 1. The former is the petition filed by the 5th accused and the latter is the petition filed by the 8th accused in Crime No.1/12 of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Kasaragod Unit. Both these petitions are filed to quash Annexure-A1, the FIR and the investigation initiated pursuant to the registration of FIR No.1/12 against the petitioners and other accused persons alleging commission of offences under Secs.420, 201 and 120-B of IPC and Sec.13(1)(d) r/w Sec.13(2) of PC Act, 1988. The petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.668/2012, (hereinafter referred to as petitioner) was a serving military personnel. In 1976, he applied for getting assignment of land as there was preference for serving military personnel. Pursuant to the said application he was assigned 3 Acres of land in Survey No.681/CD/Part of Enmakaje Village in Kasaragod Taluk as per the proceedings in L.A.No.15/1976. It was stated that the order of assignment was passed in his favour on 20.4.1977. Subsequently on ...
Tag this Judgment!Chairperson, Kanhangad Municipality, Kanhangad and Others Vs. State of ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-12-2012
ORDER 1. In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners, seek an order to quash Annexure-1order in CMP 6196 of 2011 whereby the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Hosdurg, took cognizance for offences under Sections 268, 269, 270 and 278 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners who are the Chairperson, Secretary, Health Supervisor and Standing Committee Chairman for Health of Kanhangad Municipality. The second respondent is the complainant. After taking cognizance the case was numbered as CC 1121 of 2011. 2. The plea of the petitioners is that to prosecute the petitioners for any offence alleged to have been committed by them while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty, sanction under Section 548 of the Kerala Municipality Act and under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are to be obtained before launching prosecution and since no sanction was obtained, Annexure-1 order taking cognizance is not leg...
Tag this Judgment!K. Sudhakaran, M.L.A. Vs. V.S. Achuthanandan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-12-2012
1. The complainant in a private complaint is the appellant as he is aggrieved by the order dated 3.2.2009 in C.C.No.1192 of 2004 of the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam by which the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused under Section 256(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Cr.P.C.'), who faced prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the I.P.C.') 2. The case of the appellant is that at the time of filing the complaint which is dated 17.1.2004, he was the Minister for Forest and Sports, Government of Kerala and the President of Kannur District Congress Committee and the accused was the then Leader of Opposition. According to the appellant/complainant, the accused solely with the object of tarnishing the image of the complainant and for selfish political purposes, convened a press conference on 7th July, 2003 at Thiruvananthapuram and according to the complainant, in the presence of press rep...
Tag this Judgment!V. Boban Lal and Others Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Represented ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-12-2012
Common Judgment: P.S. Gopinathan, J: 1. The order dated 23.2.2010 in O.A.No.16 of 2009 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam is assailed in these petitions. O.P.(CAT)No.335 of 2010 is filed by the respondents in the above O.A. The respondent is the applicant before the Tribunal. He was working as Junior Telecome Officer (JTO) under the petitioners. As per the special rules, 75% of the post as Sub Divisional Engineers (SDE) are to be filled up by promotion from JTOs on the basis of seniority and fitness. Remaining 25% is to be filled up on the basis of the departmental competitive examination. Though the special rules came into force with effect from 22.7.1996 no departmental competitive examination was conducted till 2002 for the so-called administrative reasons. As per proceedings dated 28.12.2001, a copy of which was produced as Annexure-AI before the Tribunal, more than 6000 Junior Telecoms Officers (JTOs) were promoted and posted. Thereafter, a departmental ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »