Kerala Court July 2012 Judgments

A. Ratnarajan Vs. the Kerala Kerakarshakasahakarana Federation Ltd.No. ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)ILR(Ker)543; 2012(3)KLJ506; 2012(3)KLT637

K. Surendra Mohan, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P12 order of suspension passed against him by the 4th respondent. The petitioner is an employee of the 1st respondent. He is working at Kanhangad, Kasaragod district, as an Incharge of Copra Procurement. 2. Advocate P.M.Mohammed Shiraz, who appears for the 1st respondent, raises a preliminary question regarding the maintainability of the Writ Petition itself. According to the counsel, the dispute in this Writ Petition, being one between an employee and a Co-operative Society, can be determined only in accordance with the provisions of Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (`the Act' for short). The learned counsel also relies on the decision of this Court in Edava Service Co- operative Bank Ltd. v. Co-operative Arbitration Court [2008 (3) KLT 780]. 3. Advocate K.R.Ganesh, who appears for the petitioner, relies on another decision of this Court in Surabhi Employees Trade Union Congress v. K...

Mohammed Shabeer Vs. Sukumaran

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT247; 2012(3)ILR(Ker)476; 2012(3)KLJ266

A brazen violation of the statutory provisions prompts me to set aside the judgment in a suit in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India especially since no assessment of evidence is involved. I am resorting to this course fully conscious that the judgment is open to an appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC for short). 2. The suit was one for specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 09.07.2004 of about 9 cents of land for a total consideration of `15,50,000/- allegedly entered into between the plaintiff and the first defendant. There was also an alternate prayer for return of the advance amount of `5,00,000/- allegedly paid by the plaintiff to the first defendant on the date of agreement. The first defendant totally denied the execution of the agreement and also the receipt of any amount as advance pursuant thereto in the written statement filed in the suit. The specific case of the fi...

C.H. Ashokan Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

These are the bail applications filed by accused Nos.15, 16 and 3 respectively in Crime No.433/2012 of Vadakara Police Station, Kozhikode District. The offences alleged against them and other accused are under Secs.143, 147, 148 and 302 r/w 149 IPC and under Secs.120(B), 109, 118, 201 and 212 IPC and also under Secs.3 and 5 of Explosive Substance Act. 2. It is alleged that on 4.5.2012 at 10.15 PM at a place called Vallikkad, the motorcycle ridden by Mr.T.P.Chandrasekharan, the leader of a local party - Revolutionary Marxist Party (RMP) was hit by the Innova Car used by the assailants and when he fell down he was brutally murdered by the persons who reached there in the Innova Car by hacking Mr.Chandrasekharan with swords. It is further alleged that in order to create an atmosphere of terror so as to desist other persons approaching the scene, the assailants exploded bombs also and thereafter the assailants escaped from the scene. 3. The prosecution contends that T.P.Chandrasekharan was...

M. Krishnan Unni and Others Vs. the Kerala State Road Transport Corpor ...

Court: Kerala

"CR" 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the contesting respondents and the learned standing counsel for the Corporation. 2. Petitioners are conductors in the service of the first respondent Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. The procedure for appointment in the Corporation is by way of selection and advice by the Kerala Public Service Commission and under the dying in harness scheme. Almost all the employees of the Corporation are appointed usually through KPSC. Petitioners were included in the rank list published by the Commission on 18.5.1992. Since KSRTC did not make any appointment from the rank list and appointed some temporary hands, a batch of writ petitions were filed in this Court. By judgment dated 23.2.1996 in KPSC Reserve Conductors Association and others v. State (1996 (2) KLT 306) this Court allowed the writ petitions and directed that those petitioners who have been included in the select list of the PSC would be appointed and the...

Ahammed Sherief Vs. Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal

Court: Kerala

Two legal questions are involved in this writ petition; first one is, whether the application submitted by the petitioner for payment of tax at the compounded rate under Section 8 (b) of the KVAT Act could have been rejected by referring to the course stipulated under the 'proviso' to Section 8 (f) (ii) and the second one is, whether the verdict passed by the Tribunal dismissing Ext. P12 appeal, observing that the challenge against Ext. P11 order passed by the second respondent will not lie before the Tribunal and that the same has to be preferred before the Deputy Commissioner is correct or sustainable. 2. The sequence of events as narrated in the writ petition shows that, the petitioner, who is conducting the business of metal crusher unit and a registered dealer on the rolls of the second respondent, was mulcted with penalty of Rs. 9,87,682/- in respect of the assessment year 2007 - '08. Placing reliance on the penalty imposed, the assessment was sought to be completed fixing huge l...

General Manager, Thrissur District Co-operative Bank, Vs. the Kerala P ...

Court: Kerala

Ramachandran Nair, J: 1. The Public Service Commission invited applications for direct selection to the post of Deputy General Manager in 3 District Co-operative Banks at Thrissur, Malappuram and Wyanad. The 4th respondent in WA No.1036/2012 with 18 years experience from the cadre of Junior Clerk to Internal Auditor in a Class-I Primary Co-operative Bank applied for the post in all the 3 Banks. On scrutiny of his educational qualification and experience the District offices of the PSC at Malappuram and Wyanad found him qualified and therefore he was selected for interview. After interview for selection the 4th respondent was ranked No.1 in the selection for the post to the District Bank at Malappuram and in the selection for appointment to the District Bank at Wyanad he was rank No.2. However, while considering the 4th respondent's application by the District office of the PSC at Thrissur they felt that 3 years experience required for the post of Deputy General Manager was in manageria...

Senior Head, Personnel and General Administration, Vikram Sarabhai Spa ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)ILR(Ker)309; 2012(3)KLT392; 2012(3)KLJ261

ThottathilB. Radhakrishnan, J. C.R. 1. Unionof India and others challenge the decision and resultant directions issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal on the respondent's plea that his request for withdrawal of notice given by him for retirement on completion of 20 years' of qualifying service ought to have been accepted by the establishment. 2. Workingas a Scientist/Engineer SG and holding the designation - Deputy General Manager, Inertial Systems Electronics Production, ISRO - Inertial System Unit, Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, the respondent submitted on 22.07.2010, a notice of his voluntary retirement with effect from 15.11.2010. The Department of Space in the Government of India conveyed to the ISRO and VSSC, on 09.09.2110, its approval for acceptance of that notice of voluntary retirement submitted by the respondent. That was received by the Senior Head, Personnel and General Administration, VSSC, Thiruvananthapuram, on 11.11.2010. On that day, i.e. 11...

State of Kerala, Represented by Its Chief Secretary to Government, Gov ...

Court: Kerala

RamachandranNair, J. 1. Review Petition is filed by the State seeking review of our judgment in W.P.(C) No.13630/2012 dated 14.6.2012 whereunder we disposed of a public interest litigation directing the State to enforce the prohibitory orders issued banning distribution and sale of Gutkha and panmasala after expiry of the extended time granted by the Government which was upto 15.6.2012. In fact, the Advocate General himself concedes that State has no grievance against our judgment because the direction issued was only to enforce Government's Order. However, Advocate General appearing in the Review Petition submitted that petitioners in three Writ Petitions who are manufacturers/distributors of the banned items namely, Gutkha and panmasala represented before another Division Bench that fraud was committed by the petitioner in the Public Interest Litigation in collusion with the State in getting our judgment now sought to be reviewed without informing this court about the pendency of the...