Kerala Court November 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.
A.S. Sarojam, Assistant Salesman (Retd.), Kerala State Civil Supplies ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-2015
The petitioner is concerned with disbursal of retirement benefit, which has been interdicted on the basis of a purported proceeding initiated after the retirement of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner, who was a Helper in the 1st respondent-Corporation working at the Maveli Store, Manjapra, was suspended by Exhibit P1 order. Exhibit P1 order dated 24.07.2000 was on account of detection of certain irregularities, which resulted in false Bank statements being forwarded to the respondent and the remittance having not been made in the Bank by the petitioner, who, though a Helper, was put in charge as the Shop Manager of the Maveli Store. In fact, two Helpers, one the petitioner and the other M.P.Abdul Shukkur, who held charge of the Store in different periods, were suspended under Exhibit P1. 3. Exhibit P1 order of suspension was issued, pending detailed enquiry to be conducted. Nothing transpired thereafter and the petitioner was taken back in service on the basis of a representation, as i...
V.A. Valsala and Others Vs. State of Kerala, represented by District C ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-2015
1. The legal representatives of the plaintiff in a suit for possession are the appellants in this second appeal. 2. The suit property which lies on the side of a public road belonged to the father of the fourth defendant. According to the plaintiff, she was put in possession of the suit property by its owner on an oral lease arrangement. The fourth defendant was the owner of the property on the west of the suit property. On 3.6.1993, the plaintiff was evicted from the suit property by the Public Works Department of the State on the premise that the same is a road puramboke. According to the plaintiff, she was evicted from the suit property at the instance of the fourth defendant. It is also her case that immediately after the eviction, the fourth defendant had enclosed the suit property with his property on its west. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the suit property is not a road puramboke and that the third defendant had no authority to evict her. It is also alleged by the plainti...
Biju and Others Vs. State of Kerala, represented by Public Prosecutor, ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-2015
1. Petitioners are charge sheeted for offences under Sections 4(1)(A) and 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation of Development) Act, 1957. The present prosecution is through Annexure-2 final report filed by the Additional Sub Inspector of Police, Mulanthuruthy Police Station. 2. As per Section 22 of the said Act, no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under that Act or any Rules made thereunder, except on the complaint in writing made by a person authorised in that behalf by the Central Government or the State Government. As per Annexure-3 notification dated 05.06.2015, a police officer is not a person authorised to prefer the complaint in writing within the meaning of Section 22 of the Act. The present final report was filed on 05.06.2015. Therefore, when the notification commenced on 05.06.2015, the present compliant is also hit by the said notification. As on the date of filing of the Final Report, the Additional Sub Inspector of Police was not authorised to fil...
Union of India, represented by The Secretary, Ministry Of Home Affairs ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-24-2015
Shaffique, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the respondent in W.P.(C) No.5993/2012 challenging judgment dated 25/11/2014 by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the appellant to effect payment of Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension (hereinafter referred as the Pension) from the date of receipt of the application. 2. The short facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that the application of the petitioner's husband for SSS Pension was submitted on 25/6/1998. Her husband died on 13/11/1998. She claimed that her late husband had undergone detention in the prison during freedom struggle, viz., Punnapra Vayalar Struggle as a convict. The jail certificate was received only on 3/2/2007. Though the State Government recommended the application, the Central Government rejected the same. The petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.15403/2010. By judgment dated 26/11/2010, this Court after setting aside the order passed by the Central Government di...
Sunil Scaria Vs. The State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecu ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-24-2015
1. This is an application filed by the petitioner who is the 2nd accused in ST No.6439/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II,(Mobile) Kottayam challenging the legality of portion of direction issued by the Magistrate under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code). 2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner was arrayed as 2nd accused in ST 6439/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II (Mobile) Kottayam is the owner of the stage carriage vehicle with registration KL 05 X 8078 having permit to ply on the route Kangazha Hospital-Kottayam. On 13.11.2014, at about 12.50 pm,when the mobile court was conducting sitting at Karukachal, the vehicle was inspected by the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector of Motor Vehicles Department Kottayam and it was found that it was driven by the 1st accused and 3rd accused was working as conductor and first and third accused were not having requisite licen...
K.G. Santhosh Vs. Nandakumar B. Menon and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-23-2015
1. This is an application filed by the accused in C.C.No.16/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Ernakulam, to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.16/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Ernakulam, which was taken cognizance by the magistrate on the basis of a private complaint filed by the complainant/ first respondent herein, alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. The case of the complainant in the complaint was that there was an amount of Rs.28,00,000/- due and in discharge of that liability, the accused had issued a cheque for Rs.28,00,000/- with date 01.11.2013. Even in the complaint, he had admitted that before the date mentioned in the cheque an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- was paid and in spite of that the complainant presented the cheque and got it dishonoured and sent ...
Parkson Estate and Industries and Another Vs. M/s. Trinity Trading rep ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-23-2015
1. This application is filed by the petitioner who is the accused in CC No.1760/2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-V, Ernakulam challenging the order passed by the Magistrate in CMP No.427/2014 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioners were arrayed as accused in CC No.1760/2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-V, Ernakulam alleging commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant and first accused are partnership firms and second accused is the Managing Partner of the 1st accused firm and the complainant and first accused firm were involved in business transactions in connection with Tea trade. In view of the business relationship, second accused approached the complainant for a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- and the complainant arranged a loan accepting the promise of the accused to repay the amount...
M. Shereena Vs. The State of Kerala represented by its Secretary To Go ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-23-2015
1. The petitioner, a part-time Sanskrit Teacher, claims full-time service from the date of her appointment. The petitioner was appointed on 19.6.2009 as per Ext.P2, to a vacancy which arose in 2007, on the retirement of a full-time Sanskrit teacher. 2. The petitioner's contentions are two fold: one, that the vacancy arising, in which the incumbent was full-time, should be continued as a full-time post; and two, that even otherwise by Group 'C' diversion the petitioner is entitled to be conferred the full-time benefits in the post to which she was appointed. 3. The contention with respect to the appointment to a full-time post, for reason of the earlier incumbent having been full-time, is based on G.O.(MS) No.371/2000/G.Edn. dated 13.11.2000, specifically paragraph 4, which clarifies that the posts created by virtue of Group 'C' diversion cannot be treated as protected and such full-time posts cannot be converted into part-time posts. However, the said contention is answered in Ext.P8 o...
Santhakumaran Vs. Vivekanandan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-23-2015
1. These second appeals arise from A.S.Nos.97 and 98 of 2010 on the file of the District Court, Palakkad. A.S.No.97 of 2010 was an appeal preferred against the decision in O.S.No.261 of 2008 and A.S.No.98 of 2010 was an appeal preferred against the decision in O.S.No.410 of 2008. The aforesaid suits on the file of the Munsiff court, Chittur were tried together, treating O.S.No.410 of 2008 as the lead case. As such, I am referring to the parties in this judgment as they appear in O.S.No.410 of 2008. 2. O.S.No.410 of 2008 was a suit for mandatory injunction. The plaintiff is the brother of the defendant. The plaint schedule property is part of a larger extent of property held by the parents of the parties, viz., Dharmandi and akshayani. As per Ext.A4, they assigned the property situated on the north of the plaint schedule property and the rice mill therein to the defendant. While transferring the said property, the plaint schedule property was retained for access to the said property as ...
K. Nimisha Vs. State of Kerala, represented by Chief Secretary To Gove ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-23-2015
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. This Public Interest Litigation has been filed by the petitioner, a social worker raising concern regarding non-participation of large number of government employees in Independence day and Republic day celebrations. The petitioner submits that the State Government having not issued any Circular making participation in above national events compulsory for government servants, they are treating these national holidays as any other holiday. The petitioner in the writ petition prays for the following prayers: i) direct the 1st respondent to issue a circular/order compelling the Government servants and staff of public sector units, colleges, Universities and Local Self Government Institutions under the control of the State Government to participate in the National Holiday ceremony in the respective offices and mark attendance in the attendance register on the days of National holidays - August 15 (Independence Day) and January 26 (Republic Day); ii) direct the 1st re...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »