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.
State of Kerala represented by The Secretary To Government Industries ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-14-2015
Shaffique, J. 1. State of Kerala, the 1st respondent in WP(C) No.8140/2012, has filed WA No.386/2015, challenging judgment dated 21/8/2014 by which while disposing of the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent herein, direction has been issued to the appellant to consider the case of the 1st respondent for grant of ex-gratia pension taking into account his long and continuous service under the 2nd respondent, Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'). 2. The short facts involved in the writ petition are; The 1st respondent herein, who is herein after referred as the petitioner, was engaged as a Carpenter in the Balussery Gramodaya Khadi Sangh w.e.f. 1/1/1976. In 1983, the Gramodaya Khadi Sangh was taken over by the Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board which was constituted under the Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Act, 1957. During such take over, the petitioner who was working as daily wage employee was also absorbed as an employee ...
M. Nanikutty Vs. T.C. Mukunda and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-14-2015
Ramachandra Menon, J. These appeals/revision arise from a common order dated 20.03.2003 passed by the Subordinate Judges Court, Thalassery in I.A.Nos.1503, 1504, 1505 and 1506 of 1999 preferred in O.P.No.72/1992. The issue relates to the affairs of a partnership firm and the course and proceedings pursued with regard to the determination of rights and liberties. 2. It is stated that the firm was originally constituted with two partners. Huge financial assistance was availed by the firm from the Kerala Financial Corporation and also the State Bank of India, creating mortgage of the property having an extent of 18 cents. Pursuant to the coercive steps taken by the financial institutions, steps were taken to see that private sale was arranged in some or other manner to save the property and further assets. It was in the course of the said proceedings, that the partnership was sought to be widened by inducting two more partners and a Deed was executed accordingly. As per the agreement exec...
A.P. Raghavan Vs. State of Kerala represented by its Principal Secreta ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-14-2015
Shaffique,J 1. W.A.No.2073 of 2015 and W.A.No.1915 of 2015 are filed against the common judgment dated 05/08/2015 in W.P.C.No.15718 of 2015 and W.P.C.No.14916 of 2015 respectively. W.A.Nos.1946 of 2015 and W.A.No.1870 of 2015 are filed against the common judgment dated 05/08/2015 in W.P.C.No.15137 of 2015 and W.P.C.No.15521 of 2015 respectively and W.A.No.1948 of 2015 is filed against the judgment dated 05/08/2015 in W.P.C.No.15669 of 2015. The appeals are filed by the writ petitioners, as their writ petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 2. Since the contentions urged on behalf of the appellants are somewhat common, these appeals are decided together. 3. W.P.C.No.15718 of 2015 is filed to quash Ext.P9 to P11 which are notifications dated 30/04/2015, by which the Governor as well as the Government declared Panoor Grama Panchayath, Peringalam Grama Panchayath and Kariyadu Grama Panchayth together as a smaller urban area for constitution of Panoor Municipality. The main co...
V.P. Rajappan Vs. State of Kerala, Represented By The Public Prosecuto ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-14-2015
K. Ramakrishnan, J. 1. The second accused in S.C. No.190/2005 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc)-I, Kottayam is the appellant herein. The appellant along with his son were charge sheeted by the Excise Circle Inspector, Kottayam in Crime No.2/2002 of Ettumanoor excise range under sections 55(g) and 64 A of the Abkari Act. 2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell was that on 11.3.2002 at about 8.20 a.m the second accused being the owner of the house and first accused being his son were found to be in possession of 40 litres of wash, a material used for manufacturing arrack, and it was kept there with the connivance of the second accused, owner of the house and thereby they have committed the offences punishable under sections 55(g) and 64 A of the Abkari Act. 3. After investigation, final report was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ettumannor where it was taken on file as C.P.No.13/2005. After complying with the formalities, the case was committ...
Supran Vs. State of Kerala, represented by The Secretary to Government ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-14-2015
Sunil Thomas, J. 1. A short legal question arises in the appeal as to whether the plaintiff who suffered the dismissal of the suit for recovery of money is bound to pay court fee on the future interest claimed on the principal amount, in the light of explanation III to Section 52 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Court Fees Act ). 2. The plaintiff laid a suit for recovery of money and damages allegedly based on a work done for the forest department. The suit was valued at Rs.43,58,153/- with 6% future interest till the date of recovery, under Section 22 of the Court Fees Act. The court fee remitted was Rs.3,67,056/-. The defendants resisted the suit and after trial, suit was dismissed. An appeal was levied for the plaint claim valued at the same amount mentioned before the court below. Court fee payable thereon was quantified at Rs.3,67,056/- which was same as that quantified before the court below. The court fee on the future intere...
Aravind @ Vaidyar and Others Vs. State of Kerala represented by the Pu ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-14-2015
1. The revisional power conferred under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the High Court is a special jurisdiction to correct the miscarriage of justice arising from the erroneous orders, which may arise from the misconception of law, irregularity of procedure or order and misreading of evidence. This revisional power is discretionary one and one cannot claim it as a vested right, when there is vested right in an appeal. The appellant has a statutory right in an appeal to demand adjudication upon a question of law or question of fact or of both. While exercising revisional jurisdiction, the petitioner has no such right, but he has the right to bring the case to the notice of the court and it is for the court to interfere in exceptional cases when it feels that substantial injustice has been done. 2. The revision petitioners were charge sheeted in C.C.485 of 2002 of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Mananthavady for having committed offence punishable under Sect...
M.M. Jeevan and Another Vs. State of Kerala Chief Secretary, to Govern ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-14-2015
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. This Writ Appeal has been filed by the Writ Petitioners against the judgment dated 29.07.2015 by which judgment, the Writ Petition filed by the petitioners challenging the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 1894 Act ) has been dismissed. Parties shall be referred to as described in the Writ Petition. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the Writ Petition are: Petitioners, who are husband and wife, are owners of 7 cents and 1.16 Ares of lands in Perumbavyikkad Village, Kottayam District. In the property a factory building and a workshop was existing. Notification under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act dated 05.02.2011 was issued proposing to acquire land of the petitioners for public purpose, namely, for construction of the Vattamoodu bridge. Section 17(4) of the 1894 Act was invoked dispensing the enquiry under Section 5A. Declaration under Section 6 was issued which was published in the Official Gazette on 13.10.2011. Petitione...
K.S. Sivaprasad and Another Vs. The Assistant Registrar, Office of The ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-14-2015
Background: 1. In R.P. No. 856 of 2015, the petitioners are the guarantors, and the 4th respondent is the principal borrower; whereas the 3rd respondent is the creditor Bank. 2. In R. P. No. 857 of 2015, the petitioner is the guarantor, and the respondents 4 and 5 are the principal borrowers; whereas the first respondent is the creditor Bank. In both the cases, the principal borrowers, having been subjected to disciplinary proceedings, were made to retire compulsorily. 3. Since both the review petitions raise the same questions of law and fact, this Court has decided to dispose of them together through a common order. For ease of reference and convenience, I take into consideration the facts in R.P. No. 856 of 2015. Facts: 4. Briefly stated, the petitioners are guarantors for the loan obtained by the 4th respondent from the first respondent Bank. When, on the default committed by the 4th respondent, the first respondent Bank initiated recovery proceedings according to the petitioners e...
Puthukkodi Aboobacker and Others Vs. The Sub Inspector of Police and A ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-14-2015
1. Through W.P.(C) No.19775/2015, the petitioners have sought for getting Ext.P6 complaint quashed. Through W.P.(C) No.26480/2015, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the 2nd respondent to file a complaint against respondents 3 to 5 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Tirur under Section 52A of the Wakf Act, 1995 for misappropriating, alienating and transferring the properties of Moonakkal Jama-ath Palli Committee Wakf. The 2nd respondent in W.P.(C) No.26480/2015 is the Chief Executive Officer of the Kerala State Wakf Board. Respondents 3 to 5 are the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.19775/2015. 2. Alleging an offence committed by the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.19775/2015, the Kerala State Wakf Board, represented by its Authorised Officer, has filed Ext.P6 complaint in W.P.(C) No.19775/2015 before the Station House Officer, Valanchery Police Station. 3. Much discussion is not required to conclude that the course adopted by the Kerala State Wakf Board to file Ext.P6 com...
Thomas George and Another Vs. District Collector, Kottayam and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-14-2015
1. One Mr.Mathew Thomas, the petitioners' vendor, owned an Ambassador Car, which on 04.10.1996 was seized by the authorities from another person, one Mr.Joseph Thomas. The seizure was on the allegation that the vehicle was used for committing an abkari offence. 2. As part of the prosecution, when the authorities seized the vehicle, the owner of the vehicle, Mr.Mathew Thomas, filed an application for interim custody of the vehicle. In fact, on 22.11.1996 the Joint Commissioner of Excise ordered interim custody of the vehicle on the condition of the petitioner executing a personal bond as well as depositing an amount of Rs. 30,000/-. Mr.Mathew Thomas, on fulfilling both the conditions, obtained interim custody of the vehicle. Later, on 10.11.2000, in terms of Section 67B of the Abkari Act, the authorities confiscated the vehicle and directed Mr.Mathew Thomas to surrender it; he has, however, failed to surrender the vehicle. 3. In the wake of the failure of Mr.Mathew Thomas to comply with...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »