Kerala Court July 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.
Cheranallur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala, Repres ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-06-2012
1. The petitioner, a co-operative society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P2 order passed by the Co-operative Arbitration Court constituted under section 70A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short), over ruling the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner society to the maintainability of an Arbitration Case instituted by the fifth respondent and Ext.P1 order passed by the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal on appeal filed by the petitioner society, upholding Ext.P2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 2. The fifth respondent herein, who entered service as Junior Clerk in the petitioner society on 18.10.1979, was appointed Secretary of the petitioner society with effect from 21.10.1995. He was placed under suspension on 12.6.2007 pending disciplinary action. Months later, a memo of charges dated 23.2.2008 was served on him. On 1.11.2008, the fifth r...
Dr. Boney Baiju Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-06-2012
All these writ petitions are concerning a common issue and therefore they have been heard together. 2. The whole issue that is raised in these writ petitions is, whether the petitioners are entitled to get a direction to the respondents to re-evaluate the answer sheets in the common Entrance Examination held on 19.2.2012 for admission to Post Graduate courses in Medicine and Dental Surgery. The State and the party respondents have raised objections to the maintainability of the writ petitions on various grounds. 3. The writ petitions, viz. W.P.(C) Nos.10816/2012, 10968/2012 and 14614/2012 are in respect of petitioners who are seeking admission to the Post Graduate Degree Courses in Medicine, whereas the petitioners in W.P. (C) Nos.11315/2012, 11757/2012 and 12062/2012 are seeking admission to Post Graduate courses in various branches under the Dental Surgery. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners Shri N.J. Mathews, Shri Jacob P.Alex, Shri R.T. Pradeep, Shri P.R. Sreejith and Shr...
K.K. Asharaf, Kunnuvayal Kuzhiyil and Others Vs. Eramala Grama Panchay ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-06-2012
1. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the Panchayath. 2. Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P7. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioners made an application for a building permit to the first respondent Panchayath. That application was initially rejected by Ext.P4 order stating that the land comprised in survey Nos.56/4 and 7 in Eramala Village mentioned in the application was a Nanja land. Petitioner challenged that order before this Court in W.P.(c) No.26665/2011. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment, clarifying that even if in the records, the property is described as a paddy field, the Secretary should be guided by the ground realities. On that basis, the order was quashed and the matter was ordered to be reconsidered. 3. Accordingly, a committee including the Secretary, Village Officer, Agricultural Officer and the Assistant Engineer, LSGD inspected the site. Thereafter, Ext.P7 order was pas...
Dr.P.K.Gopinathan Menon Vs. N.K. Dayanandan and Others
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jul-06-2012
SHRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR,JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellant was the second opposite party in OP.984/03 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The first respondent in this appeal was the complainant. The second respondent is the Managing Director of the Hospital in which the appellant worked as a Doctor. The third respondent is the Insurance Company with which the hospital had professional indemnity coverage. The complainant approached the Forum alleging medical negligence on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2. His case was that he was working at Saudi Arabia from 1988 onwards. During May 2003, he came on leave. He had booked his return ticket to 17.7.03. Meanwhile he felt pain on the right side of his abdomen. He consulted Dr.M.L.Dhathan, Consultant Surgeon, Thrissur on 11.6.03. As per his advice the complainant underwent ultra sound scan which showed the presence of calculus in the right upper ureter. The complainant consulted the second opposite party for further treatment. He explained all the ...
V.V. Vasanthi Vs. State of Kerala and Another
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-05-2012
1. Petitioner is the 1st accused (A1) in C.C.No.43 of 2002 on the file of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur. She is being prosecuted with another for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 {for short “the Act”} in the above case. At the stage when the trial of the case was almost completed, with prosecution and defence evidence over and the case posted for arguments, the Additional Legal Adviser moved Annexure A-5 petition for permission to withdraw the case under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short, the ‘Code’. That application was dismissed by the learned Special Judge vide Annexure A-6 order. Challenge in the petition invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code is against Annexure A-6 order. 2. Petitioner (A1) was working as a Health Inspector, and the other accused (A2) as a Junior Health Inspector in Co...
M/S. Kalika Hotel and Bar Amballur Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-05-2012
K. Vinod Chandran, J 1. The assessee, a Bar hotel, in revision, challenges the assessments for the year 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. 2. In the years 2008-09(ST Rev.60/2012), best judgment assessment was made based on a penalty proceeding compounded by the assessee. The challenge is on the ground of the assessing authority not having independently considered the issue while making estimation of gross profit. In the two subsequent years, the assessee applied and was granted facility to pay tax at compounded rates as per Section 7 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The challenge in the said revisions are against the determination of the tax payable under the compounding scheme on the basis of the best judgment assessment made for the year 2008-09. Since the issues are connected and related, we heard the matter together. 3. The first issue to be considered is with respect to the best judgment assessment made for the year 2008-09. The assessee having filed its returns and the books...
Oyatti Pavithran Vs. P.K. Rajendra Kumar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-05-2012
Pius C. Kuriakose ,J. The tenant is the revision petitioner. He challenges in this revision under Section 20 the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed against him by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965. 2. The need projected by Sri.P.K.Rajendra Kumar, the landlord, was that he is a deaf and dumb person and hence he intends to conduct business in stationery articles as well as STD Booth in the petition schedule building after evicting the tenant. The bona fides of the need was disputed by the tenant. The tenant further contended that he is entitled for the protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11 of the Rent Control Act. 3. The Rent Control Court conducted enquiry in which oral evidence was given on behalf of the landlord/petitioner by his sister Smt.P.K.Maheshwari as PW1 to which the tenant adduced evidence as RW1. The documentary evidence consisted of Exts. A1 to A6 on the side of the l...
Sheeba James Vs. T.C. George
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-05-2012
Petitioner who was the respondent in OP No.2/11 on the file of the 2nd respondent has filed this writ petition seeking to quash Ext.P4 order dated 5/5/2012 passed by the 2nd respondent. 2. Case of the petitioner is that she had requested the Congress President to field her as a candidate of Indian National Congress in Ward No.II of Kadamakudy Grama Panchayat. However, she was denied the seat and therefore she submitted nomination as an independent candidate. The nomination was accepted and she contested the election as an independent candidate with gas cylinder as her symbol and won with a majority of 125 votes. Thereafter, she contested the election to the post of President of the Panchayat with the support of LDF coalition and defeating the rival candidate fielded by the UDF coalition, she was elected as the President of the Panchayat. 3. The 1st respondent, the elected member from Ward No.V of the Panchayat, who is also the parliamentary party leader of UDF coalition filed OP No.2/1...
The New India Assurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Represente ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-05-2012
K. Vinod Chandran, J 1. The insurer is in appeal raising substantial questions of law regarding; (1) whether the incident in question amounts to an accident arising out of and in the course of employment, as stipulated in Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923? (2) is the insurer liable to indemnify the insured on a claim under the WC Act, by virtue of a policy issued under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, especially so on an accident which did not arise directly out of the use of the motor vehicle? (3) fixation of monthly income at Rs.3,600/-, and (4) the legality of granting interest from the date of accident. The accident in the case led to the death of the driver of a goods vehicle by drowning. 2. The wife, daughter and parents of the deceased workman applied for compensation. The deceased was the driver of a lorry owned by the insured. The lorry having a national permit was carrying sugar from Mysore to Tirur. Thereafter, it came to Oorganttiri in Malappu...
Vadakkekad Service Co-operative Bank Limited Vs. the Joint Registrar o ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-05-2012
The petitioner is a Co-operative Bank registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. By a resolution adopted by the general body of the Society, the Society decided to increase its share value by amending its bye-laws. The amendments were registered by the Joint Registrar. Thereafter the petitioner published notices in the notice boards of the Society, Panchayat and Village Office and two vernacular dailies, directing the members to remit the difference in the share value on account of the resolution to increase the share value. Nobody has raised any complaint in respect of the same. But the Joint Registrar has now issued Ext.P5 order directing that the amendment of the bye law will come in to force only after the petitioner complies with the procedure prescribed in Section 11(2) of the Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P3. The contention of the petitioner is that Section 11(2) is not applicable to enhancement of share valu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »