Kerala Court October 2015 Judgments
V.P. Satheedevi and Others Vs. State of Kerala represented by The Chie ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-29-2015
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. Heard Sri.K.Ramakumar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants. 2. These two appeals have been filed against the common judgment dated 29.7.2015 rendered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) Nos.16224 of 2012 and 20865 of 2011 and connected cases. It shall be sufficient to refer to the facts and pleadings in W.P.(C) No.16224 of 2012 for deciding both the writ appeals. The parties shall be referred to as described in the writ petition. 3. The petitioners' lands were acquired by initiating proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Notification under Sec.4 was issued on 5.2.2011, Ext.P7. The declaration under Sec.6 was issued on 13.10.2011. The petitioners, challenging the land acquisition proceedings, had filed the writ petition, seeking for the following reliefs :- (i) To call for the records leading upto Exts.P7 and P9 and quash the same by the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction (ii) To iss...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Indus Towers Limited, rep. by Boniface James Authorised Signatory ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-29-2015
1. Since the issue involved in all these writ petitions is the same, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the reference to facts and exhibits is from WP(C) No.19506 of 2011. 2. The petitioner, is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, and a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "KVAT Act" and "CST Act"). The petitioner is registered with the Department of Telecom for providing passive infrastructure services to various telecommunication operators in India on a shared basis. As a part of its activity, the petitioner installs the necessary infrastructure to facilitate telecommunication operation. For providing the passive infrastructure services, the petitioner enters into a Master Services Agreement with the sharing operators, wherein the inter se roles and responsibilities of each party are clearly defined. In orde...
Tag this Judgment!Noushad Vs. State of Kerala, Through The Station House Officer and Oth ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-29-2015
K. Abraham Mathew, J. 1. On the information given by the petitioner that the second respondent along with the some others, armed with deadly weapons, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, abducted, wrongfully confined and assaulted him, the police registered a case against the second respondent and others for the offences under Sections 109, 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 342, 364A, read with 149 of IPC. The application for bail filed by the second respondent under Section 439 (1) of Cr.P.C was allowed by this court by Annexure-1 order. Accordingly, he was released on bail. 2. Now, the petitioner has filed this application to cancel the bail on two grounds. First, the order for bail was obtained suppressing some material facts; Secondly, after he was released on bail, the second respondent threatened the petitioner. 3. Heard. 4. The request to cancel the bail on the ground that it was obtained by suppressing material facts is not pressed. 5. By Annexure-1 order this court has empowere...
Tag this Judgment!K.N. Sobhana Nair Vs. Shaji S.G. Nair Accounts Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-29-2015
Anil K. Narendran, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this O.P.(FC) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, mainly seeking an order to set aside Ext.P12 common order dated 13.08.2015 of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram in I.A.Nos.1750, 1756, 1844 and 1845 of 2015 in O.P.(GandW)No.1097 of 2015. 2. The petitioner filed O.P.(GandW)No.1097 of 2015 [Ext.P1] before the Family Court, under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 seeking for an order to appoint her as guardian of the minor children, viz. Sreya L.S.Nair and Avinash L.S.Nair; to grant her legal custody of the minor children; injunct the respondent from taking away the minor children from her custody, without prior permission of the Court, as long as she keeps the minor children under her custody; and to direct the respondent to transfer due share of the minor children in all the properties, both movable and immovable, left behind by late Lekshmi. Along with the s...
Tag this Judgment!The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Lissy and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-29-2015
Ramachandra Menon, J. 1. These matters were actually heard and the judgment was dictated in the Open Court on 15.10.2015. But subsequently it was noted that there was some mistake in the calculation and hence the items were listed again before the Court and heard both the sides accordingly. These appeals arise from the verdict passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala in O.P.(MV) No. 1007 of 2008 on 08.03.2002. MACA No. 1794 of 2012 has been preferred at the instance of the Insurance Company, whereas the other appeal has been preferred at the instance of the claimants. 2. The challenge raised by the Insurance Company is that there was absolutely no liability for the Insurance Company, as the accident involved in these appeals was a self invited one; in the course of driving of the lorry by the deceased himself, which does not come within the purview of policy coverage. The grievance in the other appeal preferred by the claimants is with reference to the inadequacy of the compensa...
Tag this Judgment!Beena Bency Vs. Niranam Grama Panchayat and Another
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-29-2015
1. The petitioner is running a hollow bricks unit within the Niranam Grama Panchayat in Building No.4/105B in Pathanamthitta District. The petitioner alleges that the unit was started after obtaining consent from the neighbours and all requisite licenses from the Panchayat. The Kerala State Pollution Control Board, the Inspector of Factories and Boilers and the Industries Department have also issued the necessary consent and other letters enabling the petitioner to run the unit; it is alleged. 2. According to the petitioner, when the license granted by the first respondent Panchayat expired due to some unfounded objections levelled by somebody, the first respondent Panchayat refused to renew the license. The Secretary declined the license by order dated 4.3.2014. Since the order has been issued by the Panchayat as the Panchayat alone has powers to grant or decline a license, the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions was moved which stayed the order for a short while. The Panc...
Tag this Judgment!President, K. Chenthamara, Chittoor Block Panchayat and Others Vs. Ker ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-29-2015
1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P9 common order dated 30.6.2015 of the Kerala State Election Commission, the 1st respondent herein, in O.P.Nos.96 of 2013 to 100 of 2013. They have also sought for a declaration that obedience of the whip issued by the competent authority under the Constitution of the party, rather than the autocratic and monarchic order issued by the President of the party, can never be interpreted as being disloyal to the party to attract the disqualification under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The petitioners herein are members of Socialist Janatha (Democratic) party (hereinafter referred to as 'SJ(D) party'). The 2nd respondent herein is the President of SJ(D) party. The 2nd respondent filed O.P.Nos.96 of 2013 to 100 of 2013 before the Kerala State Election Commission (hereinafter refer...
Tag this Judgment!The Chairman, Coir Board and Others Vs. Dr. Das Anitha Ravindranath Se ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-29-2015
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. This Writ Appeal has been filed by the respondents to Writ Petition No.5298 of 2014 against the judgment dated 02.02.2015 by which judgment the learned Single Judge directed the appellants to consider appointment of the Writ Petitioner in accordance with law. Parties shall be referred to as described in the Writ Petition. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the Writ Petition as emerged from the pleadings of the parties are: Writ Petitioner was appointed as Scientific Assistant on 12.12.1982 in the Coir Board. She was initially promoted on adhoc basis as Scientific Officer in the year 1994. Subsequently, petitioner was selected for the post of Senior Scientific Officer under direct recruitment with effect from 06.12.2007. Secretary of the Coir Board issued a Notification inviting application for appointment on the post of Director (RDandTE). Petitioner who fulfilled the qualification for the post submitted application. The Coir Board published a rank list in which petit...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India, represented by its Chief Manager Vs. Ramakrishnan ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-28-2015
1. The question of law involved in these Revisions is whether a suit filed before the Civil Court for realisation of money by SBI Home Finance Ltd., a Company registered under the Companies Act and which is not a bank or financial institution within the purview of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, would cease to be maintainable before the Civil Court when the assets and liabilities of the plaintiff Company were transferred after the institution of the suit by registered assignment deed to the State Bank of India, which is a bank coming within the purview of the said Act? Or, whether it is necessary for the civil court to return the plaint holding that it has no jurisdiction to try the suit? 2. All these Revisions arise out of similar orders passed by the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam rejecting the applications filed by the State Bank of India to return the plaint in five different suits. Since the questions involved in all the cases ar...
Tag this Judgment!M.K. Anilkumar and Others Vs. Aiswarya Rice Mill, Represented by its M ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-28-2015
A.M. Shaffique, J. The petitioners in the writ petition are the appellants in the writ appeal. The subject matter involved in both the cases are with reference to the functioning of a rice mill by a concern by name Aishwarya Modern Rice Mill. Hence the writ petition and writ appeal are heard and decided together. 2. W.P.C.No.14575 of 2014 is filed by the petitioners seeking for a direction to the Grama Panchayat not to issue or renew the licence in favour of the 6th respondent to run the rice mill and to issue stop memo against them. 6th respondent is the Managing Partner of the Aishwarya rice mill. 3. W.A.No.1692 of 2015 arises from the judgment in W.P.C.No.15583 of 2015. The said writ petition was filed by Aishwarya Rice Mill seeking to challenge Ext.P10 by which they were asked to operate the rice mill only between 8 a.m to 6 p.m. 4. First, we shall deal with the averments in W.P.C.No.14575/2014. The petitioners in the said case alleges that the unit originally started as a small un...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »