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.
M.T. Sandeep and Others Vs. The Kerala State Election Commission and O ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-12-2015
Shaffique, J. 1. The petitioners in W.P.(C)No.4944/2015 has come up in appeal challenging judgment dated 10/07/2015 by which the learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition. The writ petition was filed challenging Ext.P29, an order passed by the Kerala State Election Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commission') inter alia holding that appellants, having moved a no confidence motion against the President of the Panchayat, who was a member of their political party and having voted in favour of the said motion with support of LDF, have become disqualified to continue as members of the Panchayat and from contesting election to any local authority for a period of six years from the date of order in terms with Section 4(3) of the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act. 2. The averments in the case would disclose that separate applications were filed as O.P.Nos.14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of 2012 by one Sri.P.V.Pathrose, the 2nd respondent herein, inter...
Cochin Gymkhana Club Vs. State of Kerala Represented by Secretary, Tax ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-09-2015
Common Judgment: 1. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.22387/2012 is a Club having an FL-4A licence for the purpose of serving liquor to its members. The said licence, evidently, was issued in the name of the Secretary of the Club. In the course of time, owing to the subsequent elections, a new set of office bearers, including the Secretary, assumed charge. 2. Under those changed circumstances, when the petitioner Club applied for a change of the Secretary's name in FL-4A licence, the Excise Commissioner allowed the application through Exhibit P2 order. However, he directed the petitioner Club to pay Rupees Two lakhs as fee in terms of Rule 19(4) of the Foreign Liquor Rules ('the Rules' for brevity). Assailing that portion of Exhibit P2 whereby the Excise Commissioner has demanded the fee treating it to be a transfer of licence, the petitioner has filed the writ petition. 3. Similar is the case in W.P.(C)No.21357/2013, in which another Club raised an identical grievance. In the light of the f...
George Joseph Vs. The Commissioner of Excise and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-09-2015
Common Judgment: 1. A partnership firm, having a hotel, was given Ext.P5 provisional FL-11 licence to have a Beer and Wine Parlour. One of the partners, whose claim to be the Managing Partner is contested, filed W.P. (C) No.19121 of 2015 assailing Ext.P5 provisional licence. He obtained an order of status quo. The Commissioner of Excise, pending the said writ petition, in compliance with the direction of this Court in a writ appeal arising out of another writ petition, heard the rival claimants and recalled Ext.P5 provisional licence through Ext.P8. 2. Impugning Ext.P8 order of the Excise Commissioner, the partnership firm, represented by another Managing Partner, filed W.P. (C) No.30282 of 2015 arraying the petitioner in W.P. (C) No.19121 of 2014 as the 4th respondent. Since both the writ petitions raise the same issue involving the same parties on either side, this Court disposes of both the writ petitions through a common judgement. For the narrative purpose, the facts and the docum...
K.A. Radha Vs. The Kasaragod District Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Kasarago ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-09-2015
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has ventilated her grievance that the first respondent Bank has sought to recover with retrospective effect after more than six years the amounts paid to her initially on her attaining the grade promotion in the rank of Steno-Typist. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner joined the first respondent Bank on 29.04.1989 as a Steno-cum-Typist, and later, on 20.01.1991, had her services regularized with effect from 13.05.1990. Soon thereafter, on 20.11.1991, the petitioner was transferred and posted in the main branch of the first respondent Bank as a Clerk-Cashier. 3. When two of her juniors, namely Mr.C.Thamban and Mr.K.V.Venu, were given grade promotion in 1991, the petitioner complained to the first respondent Bank about the disparity. When nothing had been heard, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Government staking her claim on the strength of Exhibits P1 and P2 Government Orders. 4. In the wake of the directions said to have been given by t...
Abdul Rahiman Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-09-2015
1. Initially a crime was registered against the petitioner through Exhibit-P1 First Information Report on 28.05.2004. The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) conducted a detailed investigation in the matter and filed Exhibit-P2 Final Report before the court below on 07.09.2007. 2. Through Exhibit-P2, the Superintendent of Police, VACB, Special Cell, Kozhikode has reported that all further actions in the case were dropped, and the court below was requested to accept Exhibit-P2 Final Report to that effect. Precisely, the case was referred by the VACB. 3. The court below has resorted to a strange procedure, which is not warranted by Law, through Exhibit-P3, which reads as follows: "Produced the file. The percentage of DA with reference to income is 17.6%. He has retired from service on 31.05.2006. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that this is a fit case to take cognizance U/s.13(2) R/W Sec.13(1)(e) of the PC Act. Since he had retired no sanction is requ...
K.S. Shamon Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by the Secretary and Othe ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-09-2015
1. The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P4 order of assessment that finalises an assessment in relation to the petitioner under the KVAT Act, for the period from 01.08.2015 to 03.09.2015, on best judgment basis. The main contention of the petitioner in the writ petition is that Ext.P4 order was passed without affording the petitioner an effective opportunity of showing cause against the proposal to complete the assessment on best judgment basis. 2. I have heard Sri. Rajesh Narayan Iyer, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri. Liju V. Stephen, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. This writ petition presents yet another instance where an assessee has come knocking on the doors of this court, challenging an assessment order passed under a taxing statute. Such instances have become frequent in recent times and, it is not always that this court, while exercising its discretionary powers under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, can t...
Jameela Deputh General Manager The Thrissur District Co-Operative Bank ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-09-2015
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. These two Writ Appeals have been filed against the common judgment dated 17.08.2015 by which the Writ Petition filed by the 1st respondent herein has been allowed. W.A. No.2016 of 2015 has been filed by the 1st respondent to the Writ Petition No.24461 of 2014, i.e., Thrissur District Cooperative Bank Ltd and W.A. No.2014 of 2015 has been filed by the additional 5th respondent in the Writ Petition. Parties shall be referred to as described in the Writ Petition. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the Writ Petition are: The 1st respondent, Thrissur District Co-operative Bank (for short, the Bank ) is the Central Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (for short, the 1969 Act ). There are three sanctioned posts of Dy.General Manager in the Bank. One vacancy in the post of Dy.General Manager was notified by the Bank to the Kerala Public Service Commission (for short, the Commission ) vide letter dated 20.12.2003 for direct recruitment. After r...
P.F. Joseph @ Joseph Francis Vs. State of Kerala, rep. by Public Prose ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-08-2015
1. Ext.P2 order, by which the court below has found the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and has imposed a sentence of fine of 22 lakhs, is under challenge. 2. According to the petitioner, the learned Magistrate has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions contained under Section 265B(4) Cr.P.C. as the court has failed to examine the petitioner in camera in the absence of the complainant. 3. On going through Ext.P2 order, it does not say as to whether the petitioner was examined by the court below in camera, in the absence of the complainant in the case. It is a mandatory procedure contemplated under law that in case of plea bargaining the accused shall be examined by the court below in camera, in the absence of the complainant or the defacto complainant. The said provision is incorporated for the absolute satisfaction of the court that in case of plea bargaining there was no compulsion or insistence from the part of...
State Bank of India rep. by its Chief Manager Vs. Jancy Jose and Other ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-08-2015
1. Petitioner is the plaintiff. The suit was for realisation of money borrowed by the 1st defendant and the repayment of which was guaranteed by one Jose. On the death of the latter his legal representatives were impleaded as additional defendants 2 to 4, who are respondents 1 to 3 in this O.P. The 1st defendant failed to appear in the suit and he was set ex parte. Respondents 1 to 3 filed a written statement raising a contention, inter alia, that the suit was barred so far as they are concerned. The suit was posted for trial. Respondents 1 to 3 filed I.A.No.2331 of 2015 to frame an issue with regard to the question of limitation, whereupon the learned Sub Judge framed an issue and heard it as a preliminary issue. By the impugned 'order' the learned Sub Judge found the issue against the plaintiff and accordingly, she exonerated respondents 1 to 3 from the liability, the correctness of which is questioned in this O.P. 2. Heard. 3. The question of maintainability of the revision petition...
Mathew Kutty Mathew and Others Vs. Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Soc ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-08-2015
1. The petitioners, being the members of the third respondent Co-operative Society, have filed this writ petition questioning Exhibit P1 notice issued by the Administrator of the third respondent Society proposing to have a general body meeting on 12.07.2014. In the writ petition, this Court on 11.07.2014 issued an interim direction that any amendments proposed to be adopted by the general body in its meeting to be held on 12.07.2014 shall not be registered without prior orders of the Court. 2. It appears that the general body meeting was held as planned. Among other things, it is said to have voted with overwhelming majority adopting the proposed amendment. 3. In the above factual background, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Exhibit P1 notice calling for the general body meeting issued by the Administrator contained a condition that admission to the general body meeting is restricted to the persons producing a copy of Exhibit P1 notice. According to him, the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »