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.
Sathyan and Others Vs. Krishnankutty and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-27-2015
1. Defendants 1 to 10 and 12 in a suit for partition are the appellants in this Second Appeal. 2. The property sought to be partitioned belonged to one Velu. Velu died in the year 1978. According to the plaintiff, he is the son of Velu and on the death of Velu, the suit property devolved on him and Madhavan, another son of Velu, being the surviving legal representatives of Velu. Defendants 1 to 10 are the successors of Madhavan. The plaintiff claimed partition of his one half right over the suit property. The defendants contended that the plaintiff is not the son of Velu and as such, he is not entitled to any share in the suit property. Alternatively, the defendants also contended that if at all the plaintiff has any right over the suit property, the same is lost by adverse possession. The trial court rejected the case of the defendants and decreed the suit. The appellate court, on a reappraisal of the evidence, confirmed the decision of the trial court. The defendants referred to abov...
Balachandran Vs. State of Kerala, represented by the Public Prosecutor ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-27-2015
1. The revision petitioner is the sole accused in C.C. No.151 of 2011 on the files of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class - III, Kottayam. 2. The above case was charge-sheeted by the police for the offence under Section 465 I.P.C. The revision petitioner filed C.M.P. No.3610 of 2013 under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') before the court below praying for discharge. The court below dismissed the said petition. Aggrieved by the said order, this revision petition has been filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The prosecution allegation is that the revision petitioner, while working as a Police constable in Kottayam East Police Station, forged the signature of the de-facto complainant in the summons issued from the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class - 1, Kottayam in C.C. No.904 of 2008 and thereafter, forwarded the said summons to the Court on 29.09.2009. 5. On ...
The Manager, Kottathala Surendran Memorial Vocational Higher Secondary ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-27-2015
1. Petitioner has approached this Court complaining about the inaction on the part of the educational authorities in not processing his application submitted under Rule 2A(6) of Chapter 5 of the Kerala Educational Rules (for short 'KER'). Petitioner, being the Manager of a school having High School section alone, requested for starting standards 6 and 7 along with the High School section. But the authorities did not take any action on his request. 2. Initially, during the pendency of this writ petition, Ext.P2 order was passed rejecting the application of the petitioner inter alia stating that no notification in terms of Rule 2A(1) has been issued by the Government. Petitioner amended the writ petition challenging Ext.P2 as well. In the meantime, an interim order was passed by this Court on 28/05/2015 directing the educational authorities to consider the application of the petitioner in terms with Rule 2A(6) of Chapter V of KER. However, the same was again rejected on the ground that n...
Dr. Manju Joseph Vs. Dr. T. Sreeja Rani Senior Medical Officer (NC), G ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-27-2015
Shaffique, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the 6th respondent in WP(C) No.28859/15 challenging judgment dated 9/10/2015 by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent herein setting aside Ext.P5. 2. By Ext.P5, the Government had issued an order on 31/7/2015 permitting the appellant to participate in the selection for the Post Graduate Course in Ayurveda under the service quota for the academic year 2015-16. The 1st respondent herein by filing the writ petition challenged Ext.P5 inter alia contending that after issuing the prospectus, which is produced as Ext.P2, no power is available enabling the Government to issue an order in the form of Ext.P5 especially when clause (vii) of the note which forms part of Clause 3 clearly indicates that the service quota candidate should join the course to which they are selected in a particular academic year and if they do not join the course or discontinue the course, they will not be considered for selection t...
Dr. Varun and Another Vs. Omana Varghese and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-27-2015
P.N. Ravindran, J. 1. The petitioners are the tenants in R.C.P.No.8 of 2011 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Sulthan Bathery, a petition filed by late K.M. Varghese, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents herein, for an order of eviction under sections 11 (2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short. 2. The landlord had in the petition for eviction averred that the rent is in arrears ever since the date of entrustment, viz; 17.12.2002 and that he bonafide needs the petition schedule building to start a super market. The tenants entered appearance and filed a counter statement resisting the petition for eviction. Before the rent control court, the landlord examined himself as PW1 and produced and marked Exts. A1 to A3. On the side of the tenants, the first respondent before the rent control court was examined as RW1. The rent control court considered the rival contentions and held that the rent ...
Indira Bhai Vs. Madhusoodanan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-27-2015
1. The question involved in this Original Petition is whether the defendant in a suit can raise a counter claim with respect to a cause of action which arose consequent to the amendment of the plaint, after filing written statement by the defendant. 2. The petitioner filed the suit for fixation of boundary against the respondent and eight others. Defendants 1, 2 and 4 to 9 filed the written statement dated 23.9.2009. According to the defendants, the suit is barred by res judicata in view of the decision in a previous litigation between the parties. An issue was raised on the question of res judicata. The defendants wanted that issue to be tried as a preliminary issue. The trial court held that to decide that issue evidence may be required and, therefore, it was not proper to decide the question of bar of res judicata as a preliminary issue. 3. The petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No.6398 of 2010 for amendment of the plaint to correct the extent of the plaint schedule property and to add ...
Veerabhadram Chief Manager, UCO Bank and Another Vs. State of Kerala r ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-26-2015
1. Alleging offences punishable under Sections 420, 409, 465, 468, 471 and 120B read with Section 34 IPC against the petitioners and two other persons, three private complaints were filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kollam. Those three complaints were referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and consequently, Crime Nos.1212/2015, 1211/2015 and 1195/2015 of the Kollam East Police Station were registered for the said offences. The 1st petitioner herein is the Chief Manager of UCO Bank, Kollam Branch and the 2nd petitioner is the Assistant General Manager, UCO Bank, Pondicherry. 2. It is a fact that proceedings under the SARFAESI Act was initiated at the instance of the Bank against the 2nd respondent in these matters for recovery of amounts due to the Bank from the said persons towards loan transactions. In the private complaint, it is alleged that the petitioners along with the other accused hatched a criminal conspiracy, forged and fabricated false document...
M. Rajendran Vs. The Mattancherry Mahajanik Co-Operative Urban Bank Lt ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-26-2015
1. A member of a Society, incidentally its former employee, questions in this Writ Petition the mode of recruitment sought to be adopted by the Society after amending its Feeder Category sub- Rules. This amendment, too, is called in question. On the other hand, the Society has a countervailing question as regards the petitioner's standing in filing the writ petition. 2. The petitioner, who was earlier an employee of the first respondent Bank, is now its member holding shares. He has filed the writ petition questioning the amendment effected to Ext.P2(a) Feeder Category Rules providing for direct recruitment, apart from appointment by promotion, as a source of recruitment to the post of General Manager. He has further assailed Ext.P1 notification issued by the third respondent pursuant to Ext.P2 (a) amended Feeder Category Rules, seeking to fill up the post of General Manager through direct recruitment. 3. In the above factual backdrop, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitt...
P. Jaffer Vs. Usman and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-26-2015
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 07.09.2015 in W.P(C) No.24250 of 2015 by which judgment the learned Single Judge has set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority renewing the stage carriage permit of the appellant as well as the order permitting replacement of the vehicle. Parties shall be referred to as described in the Writ Petition. 2. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noted for deciding the Writ Appeal are: The 2nd respondent (appellant in this appeal) was granted a regular stage carriage permit on the route Manalaya Harijan Colony-Pattambi in respect of vehicle No.KL-53/3221 valid up to 15.04.2014. The 2nd respondent made an application for issuance of clearance certificate for the purpose of transferring his vehicle without surrendering the permit. The 2nd respondent filed W.P(C) No.23071 of 2013 seeking a direction to permit him to effect transfer without surrendering the permit. The learned Single Judge disposed...
S. Muhammed Ismail Vs. Peruvemba Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. and An ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-26-2015
1. About this case, the less said the better. It singularly illustrates to what extent a suitor can go to wrench an order from one forum or another, at any cost whatever be the consequences. As I propose to dispose of the writ petition, or rather dismiss it, on the principal ground of the petitioner s deplorable conduct, especially as regards the manner in which he abused the process of court, I need not advert to the merits of the matter. 2. The petitioner pledged his gold ornaments and borrowed (in fact, through different loans) Rs.30,00,000/- from the first respondent Bank. After initial payments, when the petitioner had committed default, the first respondent initiated recovery proceedings, as part of which it issued Ext.P11 series of notices proposing to auction the gold ornaments on 27.06.2015. Under those circumstances, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking the following reliefs: 1. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order restraining the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »