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.
Kerala State Electricity Board, represented by its Secretary and Other ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-21-2015
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. This writ appeal has been filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board against judgment dated 10th July 2014, by which judgment the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent/writ petitioner has been allowed holding that petitioner was eligible for grade promotion on completion of 10 years of service and was entitled for fixation in the scale of pay of Chief Engineer w.e.f. 16/3/2008. Order for revising his pensionary benefits were also issued. Parties shall be referred to as described in the writ petition. 2. The brief facts necessary for deciding the writ appeal are; The writ petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Board's service on 25/11/1981. Petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer on 31st May, 1990, to the post of Executive Engineer on 2/5/1996 and to the post of Deputy Chief Engineer (Civil) on 16/3/1998. The petitioner retired on superannuation while holding the post of Deputy Engineer (Civil) on 31st July, ...
S.K. Jain, Secretary and Others Vs. Sudarsan Chits (India) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-21-2015
Abdul Rehim, J. 1. These Company Appeals are instituted against orders passed by the Single Bench in unnumbered Company Applications, filed by the common appellant, in C.P.No.9 of 1981. The Registry had noted certain defects in both the Company Applications, which the counsel appearing for the applicant had disputed. Hence the Company Applications were posted before the Bench. After consideration of the matter, the learned Single Judge had upheld certain defects noted by the Registry. It is aggrieved by the said order, these appeals are filed. 2. The defects noted in the Company Applications from which Appeal No.18 of 2014 arises, are as follows; (i) Affidavit/statement by the appellant not produced. (ii) No index. (iii) Document produced to be marked as Annexure. (iv) Provisions of law seen incomplete. (v) Age and husband s name not seen in the affidavit. 3. The applicant had cured the Defect No.(iv). On the question of sustainability of defect Nos.(i), (ii), (iii) and (v), the matter...
Commissioner of Customs, Kochi Vs. M/s. E. Oriental Timbers
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-21-2015
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Heard Sri. John Varrghese, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Excise and Customs and Sri. Anil D. Nair, learned counsel for the respondent in Cus. Appeal No.5 of 2015. 2. These appeals are filed by the Commissioner of Customs invoking Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 as it stood prior to its omission by the National Tax Tribunal Act, 2005 (49 of 2005), with effect from 28.12.2005. 3. Sub-section (1) of Section 130 of the Customs Act reads as follows:- 130. Appeal to High Court - (1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal on or after the 1st day of July, 2003 (not being an order relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment), if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. The said provision is in pari materia with S...
E. Gopinatha Kurup rep. by Power of Attorney Holder, P. Balagangadhara ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-21-2015
1. Second respondent in Crl.Appeal Nos.133/2006, 127/2006, 129/2006 and 131/2006 on the file of the Sessions Court, Thrissur, is the appellant in all these appeals. All these cases were arising out of four private complaints filed by the appellant against the 2nd respondent alleging commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter called the 'Act'). 2. The common case of the complainant in all these cases was that, the complainant is the proprietor of M/s.Sastha Motors Guruvayoor and he was the authorized distributor of petroleum products of M/s.British Petroleum. The accused was appointed as talkist by the complainant for the area of Guruvayoor and Punnapra to distribute Tata B.P. Lube products as per agreement dated 17.08.1998. Accused used to purchase lube products from the complainant on credit basis. As per the accounts, there was an amount of Rs.3,45,277.81 was due from the accused to the complainant and in discharge of those liabilities he h...
E. Saseendran Vs. Perambra Merchants Welfare Co-Operative Society, rep ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-20-2015
1. The first respondent is a newly formed Society having been registered on 07.07.2014, and the petitioner its erstwhile President. His grievance in the writ petition is that the respondents are not taking steps to conduct the elections expeditiously. 2. The facts in brief are that after the establishment of the Society, its promoting members, 32 in number, constituted a committee to manage the affairs of the Society before it could go for the elections. Accordingly, on 01.10.2014, the Promoting Committee passed a resolution to take certain administrative steps concerning the Society. Indisputably, on that day eleven out of thirteen members participated and signed the resolution. 3. On 11.10.2014, the Managing Committee once again met and resolved to enroll twenty eight new members; thereafter, the committee once again met on 22.10.2014 and resolved to request the Election Commission, the fourth respondent, to hold elections to the Managing Committee. In fact, the resolutions passed on...
T.K. Prakasan Vs. The State of Kerala, Represented by its Secretary, D ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-20-2015
1. The issue truly lies in a narrow compass, but two seasoned advocates on either side have ensured a see-saw battle, defending their respective versions to the tilt. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner is a member of the Managing Committee of the 4th respondent Milk Producers Co-operative Society. The Society s bye-laws contain a provision regarding the qualification of a member to exercise his franchise and also contest the election. The condition is to the effect that the member should have supplied a specified quantity of milk in one year. The reckoning of that period is the bone of contention. 3. Initially, acting on the third respondent's Ext.P1 complaint dated 19.09.2014, the second respondent issued Ext.P3 show cause notice to the petitioner seeking his explanation why he should not be disqualified from being an active member of the Society because he did not supply sufficient milk in one year. Having received the show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 27....
Ayyappan Kunjumon Vs. State of Kerala, Public Prosecutor
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-20-2015
Jyothindranath, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the accused in S.C.No.134/2008 on the file of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta. The appeal is preferred against the judgment, conviction and sentence dated 7.8.2010 made in the above S.C.No.134/2008. The conviction is under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The facts of the case is as follows:- The deceased is the nephew of the appellant herein. It is the case of the prosecution that there was some property dispute in between the deceased Mukundan and the appellant herein. On 29.8.2007 at about 8.30 p.m, the deceased Mukundan went to the house of PW2. The house of the appellant is adjacent to the same. It is the case that when the appellant saw the deceased he started to utter abusive words and hearing the same Mukundan entered into the courtyard ...
Union of India, represented by The Secretary To Government, Ministry o ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-20-2015
Shaffique, J. 1. These appeals are filed by the petitioners as well as the respondents in the writ petitions, which were decided by a common judgment. The issue involved in the appeals relates to the date on which pension is payable to the writ petitioners, under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme (hereinafter referred as 'Pension Scheme'). 2. W.A.Nos. 1328, 1411, 1427 and 1466 of 2014 are filed by Union of India, the respondent in the writ petitions and W.A.Nos. 398, 401, 400 and 423 of 2015 are filed by the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos. 29090/2011, 25159/2011, 24791/2011 and 24790/2011 challenging judgment dated 10.6.2014 by which the learned Single Judge while partly allowing the writ petitions directed the appellants to effect payment of pension from a date three years preceding the date of judgment in each of these cases. 3. The short facts involved in the writ petitions would disclose that the application of the petitioners for pension under the Pension Scheme was not pro...
State of Kerala, represented by The Secretary to Forest and Wildlife D ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-20-2015
Vinod Chandran, J. 1. The State is in appeal against the judgment in a writ petition in which the petitioner, who was running a unit manufacturing mineral water, was permitted to carry on such activity even without an environmental clearance. It was found that the petitioner, for carrying on the activity concerned, did not require an environmental clearance and the order of the District Collector [Exhibit P18] was set aside. It was also held that the remedy of the impleaded respondents, whose grievance was in respect to indiscriminate extraction of water, was independent of the issues decided in the writ petition and was left the remedy to move appropriate authorities to redress their grievances. 2. The parties are referred to as is their status in the writ petition. 3. The petitioner, a Private Limited Company [Exhibit P1], having SSI Registration [Exhibit P2], obtained Exhibit P3 Green Channel Clearance of the District Industries Centre, Palakkad for establishment of a factory carryi...
Union of India, rep by The Secretary To Government, Ministry of Home A ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-20-2015
Shaffique, J. 1. Writ appeal is filed by the 1st respondent in WP(C) No.20792/2013 challenging judgment dated 1.9.2014 by which the learned Single Judge while partly allowing the writ petition directed the appellant to effect payment of arrears of the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension (hereinafter referred as Pension) under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme (hereinafter referred as the Scheme) from 28/7/1998 to 7/6/2010. 2. The short facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that the application of the petitioner for pension was initially rejected by the Central Government on the ground that there was no primary evidence to establish that her late husband had become eligible for pension under the Scheme. She claimed that her late husband had undergone detention in the prison during freedom struggle, viz., Punnapra Vayalar Struggle and was accused in Case No.PE6/1122 ME, which was renumbered as SC No.8/1123 ME. Claim was that he had suffered detention from 11/3/1122 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »