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.
Finy Susan Francis Vs. Binu Philip Paul
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-06-2015
C.K. Abdul Rehim, J. 1. This original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking to quash Ext.P3 order of the Family Court, Thiruvalla, issued in IA No.874/2015 in OP (Div) No.976/2013. The case before the Family Court was instituted by the parties herein jointly, seeking divorce under Section 10 A of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. The original petition was instituted before the Family Court as early as in October 2013. The petitioner is working in Australia and the respondent is working in Kuwait. The petitioner herein is represented both before the Family Court and this court through her father, as Power of Attorney holder. Since both the parties are working abroad, they could not undergo counselling together before the Family Court on any date. It is stated that the petitioner had appeared before the counsellor of the Family court on 3 specific posting dates, on 26-06-2015, 30-06-2015 and 03- 07-2015. But the respondent could not be present for counselli...
Shaju Vs. Ravindran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-06-2015
P.N. Ravindran, J. 1. The petitioner is the tenant in R.C.P.No.168 of 2013 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Thrissur. The respondent/landlord has in R.C.P.No.168 of 2013, prayed for an order evicting the tenant under section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short. After filing a counter statement resisting the prayer for eviction, the tenant filed I.A.No.15910 of 2015 in R.C.P.No.168 of 2013 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and section 13 of the Act, praying for an order directing the landlord to remove the obstruction caused by him and to restore the access to the common toilet and the area where the electricity meter and the main switch are fixed. The tenant had, in the affidavit filed in support of the said application, averred that the landlord has, with a view to cut off or withhold the amenities enjoyed by him, erected a grill and thereby blocked the access...
Kerala Government Contractors' Federation Vs. State of Kerala, Represe ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-05-2015
1. The issue involved in these writ petitions relate to the mode of implementation of developmental and public works under the different local authorities in the State. While some of the petitioners allege that the same has to be implemented through e-tendering process, some of the petitioners would insist for the implementation of these works through beneficiary committees of the local authorities. 2. The petitioner in WPC Nos.15444/2015 and 20172/2015 is the District Committee (Pathanamthitta) of Kerala Government Contractors Federation. They allege that the Local Self Government Department is trying to cancel e-tendering which is implemented in certain Panchayats overlooking the directions in the judgment of this Court. 3. The petitioner alleges that it is a registered association having 200 members consisting of A-class, B-class and C-class contractors. They allege that as per order dated 28.9.2013, the Government took a decision to implement e-tender system in Local Self Governmen...
Anithakumari Vs. State of Kerala, represented by the Chief Secretary G ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-05-2015
K.T. Sankaran, J. 1. The District Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram passed Ext.P1 order of detention dated 13.4.2015 under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 'KAAPA'), to detain Unnikrishnan @ Thiruvallam Unni, the husband of the writ petitioner. It was alleged that the husband of the writ petitioner is a 'known rowdy' as defined in the KAAPA and with a view to prevent him from committing anti-social activities, it is necessary to make an order directing him to be detained. 2. The order of detention was executed on 19.4.2015. As per the order dated 20.6.2015, the Government confirmed the order of detention. The petitioner challenges in this Writ Petition Ext.P1 order of detention and his continued detention. 3. Ext.P1 order of detention shows that the detenu was involved in eighteen crimes registered at various police stations. In all the crimes the common offence is either under Section 379 or under Section 380. 4. In ...
Vadakkencherry Co-Operative Service Bank Ltd., Palakkad represented by ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-05-2015
1. O.P.(Crl)No.249 of 2015 is filed by the defacto complainant to have an expeditious disposal of the matter. Crl.M.C.No.5202 of 2015 is filed by the accused in C.C.No.432 of 2000 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Alathur, challenging Annexure-4 order. 2. On appearance of the accused before the court below, charges were framed against the accused on 09.08.2002. Annexure-2 shows that the charge has been read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty of the charges. The accused as well as the concerned judicial officer has affixed signatures in Annexure-2, which evidently shows that the charges were framed. 3. Later, out of 141 witnesses cited by the prosecution, PWs.1 to 35 were examined and Exts.P1 to P46 were marked. The evidence of the prosecution was closed on 05.03.2011. Thereafter, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No defence evidence was adduced. The matter was taken up for final hearing. At that juncture, the learned counsel...
Dr. M. Venugopal Vs. The District Collector and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-05-2015
1. The petitioner, impugning an order passed by the District Collector under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order (for short, the KLUO ), has approached this Court. 2. The application filed by the petitioner under Clause 6 of the KLUO to construct a residential house has been rejected by the first respondent as per Ext.P9 order. The impugned order is produced as Ext.P9. 3. The petitioner approached the District Collector under the KLUO for the reason that the land in question was in cultivation of Cardamom. It is submitted by the petitioner that the Cardamom cultivation is no longer in existence for the last more than ten years. It is submitted that only twenty cents of land is available and is not feasible to cultivate the Cardamom. 4. Apparently, the petitioner wants to construct a small leisure house in a portion of land not beyond five cents. The District Collector appears to have persuaded to believe that the petitioner seeks conversion of entire land and rejected the app...
Sooppy Vs. State of Kerala represented by SHO Meppayur represented by ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-05-2015
1. This revision petition is preferred against the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.191/2004 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Adhoc-II, Kozhikode. The revision petitioner was convicted in S.T.No.2575/2002 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Perambra for having committed an offence punishable u/s.225B IPC. The allegation was that on 6.4.2001 at 2 p.m., the process server of the Munsiff Court, Perambra (hereinafter referred to as the Court) arrested the revision petitioner, who is the judgment debtor in E.P.No.60/99 of the above Court, but he escaped from the lawful custody, thereby committed the offence. On the basis of the report of PW1, the S.H.O., Meppayur registered a crime and after investigation, laid charge before Judicial First Class Magistrate -II, Perambra. 2. During trial, prosecution examined 9 witnesses and marked Exts.P1 to P4 as documentary evidence. Accused examined DW1 in support of his defence. The learned Magistrate convicted the accused u/s.225B IPC and sentenc...
Kerala Public Service Commission, represented by its Secretary Vs. P.M ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-05-2015
P.N. Ravindran, J. 1. The common appellant in these writ appeals is the Kerala Public Service Commission, hereinafter referred to as the Commission for short. W.A.No.1461 of 2015 arises from the judgment delivered by a learned single Judge of this court on 12.3.2015 in W.P.(C)No.33110 of 2014. By that judgment, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by respondents 1 to 8 in W.A.No.1461 of 2015 and directed the Commission to include their names in Ext.P4 ranked list for appointment to the post of Blacksmith Gr.II published by it on 23.10.2014, but with the rider that such inclusion shall not affect the rank of persons already included in the list. Following the said judgment, the learned single Judge disposed of W.P.(C)Nos.4863, 8885, 8941, 8945, 8993 and 15759 of 2015 by separate judgments delivered on different dates, with the observation that the judgment in W.P.(C)No.33110 of 2014 shall govern the said cases as well. The said judgments are under challenge in the co...
V. Gopalakrishnan Vs. Visalakshi and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-05-2015
Antony Dominic, J. 1. The plaintiff in O.S.182/07 on the file of the Sub Court, Hosdurg is the appellant. He filed the suit, seeking recovery of Rs.15,000/- from the first respondent, his divorced wife. He also sought an order of injunction restraining respondents 2 and 3 from proceeding against one acre of property in R.S.225/1A of Kinanoor village of Hosdurg Taluk. By the decree and judgment impugned in this appeal, though a decree as sought against the first respondent was passed, the prayer for injunction against respondents 2 and 3 was declined. It is aggrieved by this judgment and decree, this appeal is filed. 2. We heard the counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that in March 2000, the first respondent availed of a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from second respondent. The appellant, being the then husband of the first respondent, stood surety to the loan in question and mortgaged one acre of land...
S. Sivaprasad Vs. State of Kerala represented by The Public Prosecutor ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-05-2015
1. The accused in C.C.No.3 of 2010 pending before the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram is the petitioner herein. The case was originally registered as V.C.2/2000/TVM. After investigation, the Vigilance Department has chosen to file a final report, arraigning the petitioner as the first accused. 2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he, while working as Assistant Director of Agriculture, caused to obtain undue pecuniary advantage of Rs.7,90,167/- for a particular firm. The sanction for prosecution was accorded by the Government vide order dated 13.10.2009. 3. It seems that, thereafter, proceedings were initiated by the Under Secretary, Vigilance Department, Additional Secretary to Government, Vigilance Department and the Principal Secretary, Home and Vigilance Department for withdrawal of the prosecution under Section 321 Cr.P.C. Annexure A6 recommendation was prepared and the said file was directed to be circulated to the Chief Minister...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »