Kerala Court July 2012 Judgments

K.A. Firshad Vs. State of Kerala, Rep. by Chief Secretary and Others

Court: Kerala

K.M. Joseph, J. 1. Petitioner has approached this Court complaining of harassment by police. 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: The petitioner is a practitioner in Electropathy/Electro Homoeopathy which is a system of medicine and classified as an Alternative Medicine. Petitioner relies on series of judgments, which according to him, covers the issue. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and also the learned counsel for the 4th respondent. We take note of Ext.P6 judgment and dispose of the Writ Petition (Civil) as follows: The State or its agents shall not interfere in the practice of electropathy/electro homoeopathy by the petitioner. But, the petitioner shall not use designations like 'Doctor' etc. He shall not practice Modern Medicine, Homoeopathy or any of the Indian systems of Medicine. He shall not act in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Abkari Act or Drugs and Cosmetics Act or other relevant Acts or Rules....

Manju A. Nair Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by Its Public Prosecuto ...

Court: Kerala

Sasidharan Nambiar, J. 1. A learned Single Judge, while considering the question whether a mother could proceed against her daughter under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, taking note of the two decisions of this court in Ramadevi v. State of Kerala (2008(4) K.L.T. 105) and Vijayalekshmi Amma v. Bindu (2010(1) KLT 79), felt that though it was held therein that respondent in a complaint filed under the Act could also be a female person, in view of the proviso to Section 2(q) of the Act, the scope of the proviso is limited to a complaint filed either by the aggrieved wife or a female living in a relationship in the nature of marriage and that aspect was not considered in both the decisions. Hence the following question was referred to a larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement on “whether the ‘proviso’ in the definition of “Respondent” under Section 2(q) of Protection of Women form Domestic Violence Act (hereinafte...

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/S. Kerala State Industrial Develo ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT497

1. This appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for short, the ‘IT Act’, is marked defective for the reason that only Rs.500/- is paid as court fee and that court fee is leviable on the memorandum of appeal under Article 3(iii)(C)(c) of Schedule II of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959, for short, the ‘CF Act’, since the total income of the assessee in the case to which the appeal relates, as computed by the assessing officer, exceeds Rs.2 lakhs. 2. Heard learned senior counsel for the appellant and learned Government Pleader on the issue of court fee. 3. Senior Advocate Sri.P.K.R.Menon, on behalf of the appellant, argued that the total income of the assessee is computed under Section 115JB of IT Act, a special provision for payment of tax by certain companies; treated as a Code by itself; and therefore it has to be treated as one not falling within sub-clauses (a), (b) or (c) of Article 3(i...

K.G. Raveendran Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

SasidharanNambiar, J. Appellant, the first accused in S.C.69/2004 on the file of Additional Sessions Court-I, Kalpetta filed this appeal challenging his conviction and sentence for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code. He was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 and rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 201. Second accused was acquitted. The prosecution case is that on the night of 26/1/2003 at 11.30 p.m appellant in furtherance of common intention with second accused, with whom he is having illicit relationship, strangulated Susheela, his wife and thereafter set fire on her body after placing on the stock of firewood and thereby committed the offences. PW1, Subramanian, brother of the accused lodged Ext.P1 FI statement on 27/1/2003 at 8....

Sreekumar and Others Vs. State of Kerala, Rep by the Public Prosecutor ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT425; 2012(3)ILR(Ker)609; 2012(3)KLJ406

1. Petitioners are the accused in a case pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thiruvananthapuram. They are being prosecuted in the case for the offence punishable under Section 332 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Petitioners are employees in the Accountant's General Office, Thiruvananthapuram. When an agitation by some employees was going on in that office, it is alleged, the petitioners restrained a peon, the de facto complainant, voluntarily caused hurt to him and prevented him from discharging his duties as a public servant. The crime registered over such occurrence led to indictment of the accused for the offence stated, and the case now awaits trial. The Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of the case moved an application under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short, 'the Code', for withdrawal of the case. Annexure I is the copy of that petition. Request made for withdrawal was later not pressed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor,...

Gary Naresh Rajan, Chennai Vs. Radha Rajan, Thiruvananthapuram

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT397; 2012(3)ILR(Ker)623; 2012(3)KLJ404

1.  Ext.P4 order passed by the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram that it has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure {for short "the Code"}, which has been disputed by the petitioner/respondent in that proceeding, is challenged in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The case in hand reflects a sad state of affairs, a fight between a mother and son. Petitioner in the MC is the mother, who claimed maintenance against her son, who is stated to be settled in Chennai. He has raised a preliminary objection questioning the territorial jurisdiction of the court contending that the claim for maintenance, if at all entertainable by the mother, would lie only at Chennai, where he resides, and not before the Family Court, at Thiruvananthapuram. That challenge, pursuant to the directions issued in Ext.P1 order by this court in a previous petition was considered as a preliminary question by the cour...

Dr. Aswini Naveen Vs. Member Secretary

Court: Kerala

K.M. Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: "i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate, writ, order or direction directing the 3rd respondent to admit the petitioner in the Course of Master of Science (General Surgery). ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 1st respondent to direct the 3rd respondent to give admission to the petitioner forthwith. iii. Issue a declaration declaring that the admission of the 7th respondent is illegal and void. iv. Issue a declaration declaring that the petitioner is the right candidate for admission on the basis of the rank list as well as the allotment by the Kerala Private Medical College Management Association since the petitioner is entitled for the admission as on 31st May, 2012. v. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P7 within the time frame fixed by this Court." 2. Br...

V. Rajagopalan Vs. University of Calicut Represented by Its Registrar ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT468; 2012(3)KLJ347

RamachandranNair, J. This Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge declaring that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of Ext.P3 notification issued by the State Government increasing and uniformly fixing the retirement age of all Government servants and also teaching and non teaching staff of aided educational institutions including private colleges from 55 to 56 years. Appellant while working as a Selection Grade Lecturer in one of the private colleges affiliated to the Calicut University was selected for appointment as Dean of Students Welfare of the University in the year 2002. After five years' service in that post the University appointed Appellant as Controller of Examinations on 31.7.2007. Admittedly the appellant was entitled to all the service benefits ever since he joined the service as a Lecturer in the college and on retirement he will be getting pensionary benefits with continuity of service with effect from the date he joined service ...

P.M. Sumesh Vs. State of Kerala, Rep. by Public Prosecutor and Another

Court: Kerala

S.S. Satheesachandran, J. 1. Annexure VII report filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Peramangalam Police Station imputing offences under Section 4(1A) read with Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, for short, the 'Act', and Rule 58 of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1967, for short, the 'Rules' against the petitioner, is challenged in this petition invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short, the 'Code'. 2. Annexure II FIR was registered against the petitioner for the offences referred to above under the Act and Rules, pursuant to an inspection conducted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Peramangalam Police Station on 27.04.2011 in a property owned by him, wherein he had stored about 100 loads of river sand, allegedly, in violation of the aforesaid Act and Rules. That crime registered, after inspection, has led to the filing of Annexure VII report indicting him of the offences...

K. Prabhavathy Vs. the Director General of Police and Others

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLJ856; 2012(3)ILR(Ker)922

K.T. Sankaran, J. 1. The question which arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is whether the report submitted by the mediator is liable to be declared illegal and void and whether the report can be removed from the file by destruction. 2. Though the Writ petition is filed for the issue of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce Anitha and Akshay (the daughter and grandson of the petitioner) before Court, that question does not survive for consideration since the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is at present satisfied that her daughter Anitha and grandson Akshay are safe and their whereabouts are known to the petitioner. 3. In an earlier round of litigation where Anitha's husband and his parents filed O.P.(F.C.) No.2219 of 2011, a mediation settlement was arrived at between the parties and a compromise petition was filed before Court. As per the terms of settlement, the parties agreed as to what should be done to ensure the welfare an...