Kerala Court October 2015 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.
A.R. Sameena Vs. State of Kerala, represented by Secretary to Governme ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-12-2015
1. Myriad facts and dates arise in the above writ petitions, which essentially raise a claim for compassionate appointment under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV-A of Kerala Education Rules, 1959 [for brevity KER ]. 2. The parties, facts and documents are referred from W.P.(C).No.10813 of 2015, wherein the petitioner is the claimant under Rule 51B and additional 4th respondent, the rival claimant under Rule 51A. Rule 51B claimant has filed the above writ petition seeking to enforce Exhibits P14 and P15 orders, while the rival claimant challenges the said orders in W.P.(C). No.14797 of 2015. 3. I have heard Sri.C.P.Sudhakara Prasad, learned Senior Counsel for the Rule 51B claimant, Sri.K.K.Mohamed Ravuf for the Manager [3rd respondent] and Sri.P.M.Pareeth for the Rule 51A claimant as also the learned Government Pleader. 4. The petitioner's mother was working as a High School Assistant [for brevity HSA ], Malayalam in the aided school under the management of the 3rd respondent when she passed awa...
Pallikkal Nazeer Vs. T. Manikantan Nair and Another
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-12-2015
Shaffique, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the 1st respondent in WP(C) No.21334/2014 challenging judgment dated 23/7/2015 by which the learned Single Judge had set aside the order passed by the State Election Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission), thereby allowing the writ petition. 2. The short facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that the appellant filed O.P.No.3/2013 before the Commission against the writ petitioner/1st respondent herein (who is hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner') under Section 4 of the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') inter alia alleging that on account of the petitioner violating the whip issued by the political party and acting against the interest of the political party, he has voluntarily given up his membership in the political party which amounts to defection in terms of Section 3(1)(a) of the Act. The appellant alleged that out of 21 seats in Manikkal Pa...
Abdul Khadar Vs. State of Kerala, represented by The Public Prosecutor
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-12-2015
1. Annexure A2 order, by which the court below has dismissed CMP No.1656/2013 filed by the petitioner in C.P No.11/2006, seeking the release of his property from the attachment effected under Section 83 Cr.P.C., is under challenge. 2. The petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No.237/1992 of the Tanur Police Station. The final report was filed in the matter, for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 395, 450, 427 and 295A read with Section 149 IPC and Section 3(I)(xv) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. The final report was taken on file by the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Parappanangadi as C.P No.11/2006. As the petitioner was not available, coercive steps were taken by the court below for procuring his presence. As his presence could not be procured, steps under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C were initiated. A proclamation was issued under Section 82 Cr.P.C. Finally, an order of attachment of his property was issue...
S. Krishnan Namboothiri Vs. The Travancore Devaswom Board Office of Th ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-12-2015
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1. These writ petitions relate to the selection of Melsanthies for Sabarimala Sannidhanam and Malikappuram temples for the year 1191 M.E. 2. We have heard the different learned counsel who appear for the petitioners, the learned standing counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board, the learned Senior counsel for one of the private respondents and the learned counsel for the other respondents. 3. The selection procedure for appointments of Melsanthies of Sabarimala Sannidhanam and Malikappuram temples was an issue which went up to the Honourable Supreme Court of India, when a challenge was carried against earlier orders issued by this Court. The Honourable Supreme Court referred that issue for mediation and a mediation settlement was drawn up on consent of parties and Mr.Justice K.T.Thomas, Former Judge of the Honourable Supreme Court, who was the Mediator, sent up that report to the Apex Court. That mediation settlement agreement fundamentally related to th...
Puthiya Purayil Ramakrishnan Vs. Pullani Prabhakaran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-12-2015
1. The defendant in a suit for realisation of money is the appellant in this Second Appeal. 2. The suit property belonged to the defendant. On 7.2.2005, the defendant agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.1,25,000/- and received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by way of advance sale consideration. Ext.A1 is the agreement for sale executed between the parties on 7.2.2005. According to the plaintiff, the defendant has not conveyed the property as per the terms of Ext.A1 agreement and hence the suit for realization of the advance sale consideration charged on the suit property. Among others, the defendant contended that the suit is barred by limitation. The trial court found that since the defendant has no case that the plaintiff has improperly declined to accept delivery of the property as per the terms of the agreement for sale, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the advance sale consideration charged on the suit property, as provided for under Section 55(...
Alfred Thomas Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by its Secretary and Ot ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-12-2015
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the denial of registration of himself and other employees under Rule 26 (a) of the Kerala Head Load Workers Rules (for short, the Rules ) as per Ext.P2 order and Ext.P3 appeal. 2. The petitioner alleges that he is running a parcel service, which is a branch of A1 Travels, Coimbatore. The said speed parcel service is functioning at A1 Travels, Room No.XI/446, CSI Mini Shopping Complex, Near Muthoot Group, Bakery Junction, Kottayam District. He has applied for registration of himself as well as other employees under Rule 26(a) of the Rules, which was denied as per Ext.P2 order. Ext.P3 appeal was also rejected. According to the petitioner, in the establishment of the petitioner, daily loading and unloading is necessary and if the registration is not granted immediately, the same would lead to untold hardship, irreparable injury and misery. Hence, this writ petition. 3. In the statement filed by the 2nd respondent, it is stated as follows; The petitioner h...
Kunhikrishnan and Others Vs. The Project Officer/District Registrar, K ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-12-2015
Common Judgment: Introduction: 1. In all the three writ petitions, the petitioners, being the members of the fourth respondent Society, raise the similar, if not identical, issues regarding the election to be held for its managing committee. Accordingly, this Court has proposed to dispose of all the three writ petitions through a common judgment. For the ease of reference and convenience, the facts as pleaded and the parties as arrayed in W.P.(C)No.24002/2015 are taken as the basis. Facts: In W.P.(C) No.24002/2015: 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner is a member of the fourth respondent Society, which can admit as members those who intend to conduct business in connection with black smithy, carpentry and other related trades. The norms of admission are evident from Exhibit P2(a) extract of the bye-laws of the fourth respondent Society. 3. In the course of time, as a preparatory step to hold elections, the fourth respondent published a preliminary voters list. In response, the petitioner ...
BHEL Electrical Machines Ltd., represented by its Managing Director, S ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-12-2015
1. W.P.(C) No.32073 of 2014 is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Exts.P6 and P11 orders passed by 4th and 5th Respondents respectively to the extent it enhanced the age of retirement of the workmen of the petitioner from 58 years to 60 years by the 4th Respondent and affirmed in appeal by the 5th Respondent and for other related reliefs. The other two writ petitions are filed by workmen of the petitioner establishment in W.P.(C) No.32073 of 2014 to declare that they are entitled to continue in service till they attain the age of 60 years. I will consider W.P.(C) No.32073 of 2014 in which the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.34277 of 2014 is the additional 6th Respondent. The subject matter of these cases revolve round a question as to whether the workmen of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.32073 of 2014 are entitled to continue in service till they attain the age of 60 years. Therefore, the petitioners in the other writ petitions who are claiming the relief of continuance till 60 years of a...
P.T. Gopi Vs. State of Kerala Through Sub Inspector of Police, Kottara ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-12-2015
1. Petitioner is the 2nd accused in SC No.646/2013 of the Assistant Sessions Court, Kottarakara for the offences punishable under Sections 380 and 413 read with Section 34 IPC. 2. The prosecution case is that the 1st accused gained entry into a room of the Hospital named 'Aroma Medical Centre' at Chengamanad Muri, Melila Village at 9 a.m. on 05.05.2011 and committed theft of a bag belonged to CW1, which contained a gold chain weighing 2= sovereigns and gold ear studs weighing = sovereign and sold the said gold ornaments to the petitioner. The case against the petitioner is that he purchased the said gold ornaments with the knowledge that the same were stolen properties and thereafter, he pledged the said gold ornaments at the financial institution of CW5 and obtained an amount of Rs.35,500/- as gold loan. According to the investigating officer, the said ornaments were recovered under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. 3. The petitioner contended that the case projected by the prose...
The Kerala Film Exhibitors Federation and Another Vs. State of Kerala, ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-12-2015
1. Under challenge in these writ petitions is the constitutional validity of the Kerala Local Authorities Entertainment Tax (Amendment) Act, 2013, as per which, a new provision has been introduced for levying collection of a cess for the Kerala Cultural Activists' Welfare Fund constituted under the Kerala Cultural Activitsts' Welfare Fund Act. 2. WP(C) No.4195/2013 is filed by an association of film exhibitors. The 1st petitioner represents the Film Exhibitors Federation and the 2nd petitioner is an exhibitor of films. 3. WP(C) No.12705/2013 is filed by certain persons, who are having active interest in viewing different kinds of films exhibited at different cinemas in and around their localities. 4. WP(C) No.5465/2013 is filed by a regular viewer of films. 5. The State Legislature has enacted the Kerala Cultural Activists' Welfare Fund Act, 2010, referable to Entry 23 of the Concurrent List to the 7th schedule of the Constitution of India, containing provisions relating to the constit...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »