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.
Kuthubudheen and Another Vs. Union Territory of Lakshadweep, represent ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-14-2015
1. The petitioners being the members of the third respondent Society offered themselves as the candidates to be elected as members of the managing committee in the ensuing election, which could have taken place on 23.08.2015 had this Court not intervened and issued an interim stay in the present writ petition. 2. As can be seen, when the petitioners and the contesting respondents 6 to 11 offered themselves to be the candidates, the fourth respondent, the Returning Officer, having collected all the nominations notified them through Exhibit P4. However, before the said official could scrutinize them, he took seriously ill, having suffered a cardiac arrest. 3. In the absence of the fourth respondent, the Assistant Returning Officer, the fifth respondent, resumed the work and scrutinized the nomination papers of the petitioners, as well as respondents 6 to 11. Eventually, he published Exhibit P7 final list. In the interregnum, the first petitioner submitted Exhibit P5 objection to the fift...
Sandeep Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by the Public Prosecutor and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-14-2015
1. In Crime No.612 of 2015 of the Udayamperur Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Section 4(1)(A) read with Section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) and Rule 58 of Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967, the accused has approached the court below for getting the vehicle seized in the case, released under Section 451 Cr.P.C., through C.M.P.No.825 of 2015. 2. The court below, through Annexure-1 order dated 20.08.2015, dismissed C.M.P.No.825 of 2015 by entering a finding that the vehicle was seized by the District Collector as per the said Act, and thereby directing the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority for getting the vehicle released. 3. As per Section 21(4) of the Act, such a vehicle involved in the offence shall be liable to be seized by an officer or authority specially empowered in that behalf. As per Section 21(4A) of the Act, such a vehicle shall be liable to be...
V.Y. Sreelatha Vs. The State of Kerala represented by The Secretary To ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-14-2015
1. The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.20737/2015 is aggrieved with the manner in which the appointments are made to the Higher Secondary School Teacher (HSST) posts in the respondent school, specifically the ratio employed of 1:3 between; 'by transfer appointments' and direct recruitments. The controversy has arisen by reason of the method of appointment to the post of HSST which is as provided in Rule 4 of the Chapter XXXII of Kerala Educational Rules ('KER' for short): Sl.No.CategoryMethod of Appointment2Higher Secondary School Teacher(1) By transfer from Junior Lecturer in the subject concerned under the management/Higher Secondary School Teacher (Junior)(2) In the absence of qualified hands under clause (1) above, the vacancies shall be apportioned in the ratio 1:3 between appointment by transfer and direct appointment as detailed below:(i) (a) By transfer from High School Assistants, who possess the requisite qualifications, under the Educational agency.(b) In the absence of qualified p...
K. Pasupalan Nair Vs. State of Kerala, represented by its Secretary, L ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-14-2015
1. The petitioner is aggrieved with the reversion effected by Exhibit P2, which he claims to be not permissible by reason of the exemption available under Rule 13B of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 [for brevity KSandSSR ]. The petitioner s first appointment in the Kerala Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund Board [for brevity the Board ] was as a Peon on 20.10.1973 and then was promoted as a Lower Division Clerk [for brevity LDC ] as per order dated 26.06.2000. By Exhibit P1, the petitioner having crossed 50 years, was promoted as an Upper Division Clerk [for brevity UDC ], granting exemption allegedly under Rule 13B. Immediately thereafter, on a complaint raised by certain employees, the petitioner s promotion was cancelled and he was reverted back to the post of LDC. The petitioner was before this Court for consideration of his representation, as is evidenced by Exhibit P3, which was declined by the Board as per Exhibit P4, which is challenged herein. 2. The petitioner ...
Keby P. Thomas Vs. State of Kerala, rep. by Public Prosecutor
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-13-2015
1. Condition No.1 imposed by the court below in Annexure-II common order passed in C.M.P.Nos.2710 of 2013, 2711 of 2013 and 12712 of 2013 in CBCID Cr.No.445/CR/EOW-III/2011 is under challenge. 2. The Branch Managers of a company named PACL Ltd. are the petitioners herein. The allegation against the petitioners is that they have amassed a total amount of 872 Crores from the public by offering an unworkable scheme of purchasing lands and developing lands for them. By making such an attractive offer, they have allegedly cheated and defrauded various members of the public. 3. It is also alleged that they have purchased some properties and allotted some plots out of it, to some of the customers, and repeatedly they allotted the very same plots to various other customers on different occasions. These are serious matters which are to be unearthed, if it is true. 4. The investigating officer by invoking the provisions under Section 102 Cr.P.C. read with Section 149 Cr.P.C. have taken steps for...
Moidutty Master Vs. Rajeev and Another
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-13-2015
1. The complainant in a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is the appellant herein. He filed the present complaint along with two other complaints against the accused alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, after issuing a statutory notice. Pursuant to the complaint, the accused appeared and after several postings the matter was posted to 09.12.2009. On that day, the complainant was not present, though the counsel was present. On the ground that the complainant was not present for adducing oral evidence in spite of direction and that no petition to condone his absence was filed, the complaint was dismissed and the accused was acquitted under Section 256 Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the above order, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. In spite of notice served on the 1st respondent accused, he has not appeared and there is no representation also. Heard the learned counsel for the complainant and examined...
K.R. Arya and Others Vs. The Assistant General Manager, Reserve Bank o ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-13-2015
Ashok Bhushan, CJ. 1. These writ petitions were being heard by the learned Single Judge, who, by a common order dated 30.7.2015 directed the writ petitions to be placed before the Honourable Chief Justice, so as to obtain orders as to whether the above cases could be posted before a Division Bench. Thus, these writ petitions came to be placed before this Bench for hearing. 2. All the writ petitions consist of similar issues of facts and law and hence, all have been heard together. W.P.(C) No.17271 of 2015 is being treated as the leading writ petition and the references and pleadings in the aforesaid writ petition shall be sufficient to decide all the writ petitions. Facts :- W.P.(C) No.17271 of 2015 The petitioners, who are three in number passed their Higher Secondary Examination in March 2014. They applied for B.Sc Nursing in Rev. Noorunnissa College of Nursing, Andersonpet, Karnataka State. The College conducted a selection test, on the basis of which, all the petitioners were given...
K.K.R. Food Products, represented by it's Authorized Signatory Eldho P ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-13-2015
1. This writ petition is filed by a company engaged in manufacture and distribution of spices powder and other food products. They challenge Ext.P1 order passed by the Commissioner of Food Safety, Kerala prohibiting manufacture, storage, sale and distribution of Nirapara Brand of chilly, turmeric, and coriander powder, manufactured by the petitioner. 2. The impugned order is produced as Ext.P1. It is seen from the impugned order that the Food Safety Officers in the State took random samples of Nirapara brand spices powder from different parts of the State on different dates. The report of the Food Analyst would indicate that the products referred as above contain added starch. 3. It is stated in Ext.P1 that 30 cases of the same nature have been reported in various parts of the State containing extraneous starch in the products. It is noted that in spite of the notices issued under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (for short, the FSS Act ) the petitioner was continuing manufactur...
Shiju M. Thankachan Vs. The State of Kerala, represented by the Public ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-13-2015
1. Accused in C.C.35/2001 on the file of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode, is the appellant herein. The appellant was charge-sheeted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Kasaragod in VC-8/2000 of VACB, Kasaragod under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter called the P.C. Act). 2. The case of the prosecution in nut shell was that, while the accused was working as Lineman Grade-I, Kerala State Electricity Board, Electrical Section, Kasaragod District, being a public servant abused his official position, demanded and accepted illegal gratification of 1000/- for himself from Sri.Shyamkumar, son of Raghavan, cousin of CW1, in September 2000, at the shop of the complainant for changing the faulty electrical meter of his shop and after some days the accused again demanded another sum of Rs. 1,000/- for himself from CW1 at the office of the accused and reiterated the said dem...
Aided Higher Secondary Teachers Association (AHSTA) and Others Vs. Sta ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-13-2015
1. The petitioners herein are recognized associations of aided higher secondary school teachers, government employees with gazetted rank, government non gazette officers and teachers of aided educational institutions, who are working as well as superannuated at the age of 56 years on different dates. 2. They are aggrieved by Ext.P8 decision of the State Government dated 30.04.2013 excluding those appointed before 01.04.2013 in service from the purview of enhancement of age of superannuation to 60 years though the State Government, by Ext.P10 decision dated 04.01.2014, have decided to enhance the age of retirement to 60 years in respect of the members of the certain services. According to the petitioners, the denial of the aforesaid benefit to the petitioners in other services appointed before 01.04.2013 is discriminatory, unreasonable and arbitrary; and therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. According to them, the fixation of retirement age as 56 for those, wh...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »