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.
N.K. Rasheed Vs. The Food Inspector
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-17-2015
C .T. Ravikumar, J. This bunch of cases viz. Criminal Revision Petitions filed by the convicts who faced prosecution and Criminal Miscellaneous Cases filed by the accused who are facing prosecution, for offences under different Sections of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, PFA Act ) read with different rules of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 (for short, PFA Rules ), relating to food adulteration were placed before us on orders of reference. All the Crl.M.Cs. except Crl.M.C.No.2755/2013 were referred as per order dated 25.9.2014 and all the other cases including Crl.M.C.No.2755/2013 were subsequently referred based on the order of reference dated 25.9.2014. Apparently, the order of reference dated 25.9.2014 was made in the wake of cleavage of opinion and divergent findings made by three learned Single Judges regarding the ratio decidendi in the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Food Inspector [2010 (4) KLT 7...
ST. Basil Industries India (P) Ltd., represented by its Director, Shan ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-17-2015
1. Under challenge in this writ petition is Ext.P6 order dated 14.03.2014 of the respondent panchayath and Ext.P7 decision of its committee formed on the basis of Ext.P6 order. 2. The petitioner is the holder of a quarrying lease granted by the Government of Kerala. It is alleged that the petitioner has got environmental clearance by the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority for running the quarry and consent from the Pollution Control Board and all the other authorities. However, the respondent panchayath declined licence solely on environmental grounds as if it has got expertise in such matters. Ext.P6 order issued by the panchayath in this regard was originally challenged in WP(C) No.8123/2014; and this Court, without going into the merits of the case, directed the petitioner to approach the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. However, by the time the appeal was presented before the tribunal, there was a delay of 12 days; and though the tribunal passed an ...
Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Thresiamma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-17-2015
The petitioner-life Insurance Corporation of India has approached this Court challenging an award passed by the Insurance Ombudsman, Cochin in a complaint filed by the first respondent. Ext.P5 is the said order. 2. The first respondent has a mentally retarded child. She took a Jeevan Aadhaar Policy on 09.03.2003. This policy is mainly meant for the benefit of handicapped dependants. The premium amount will have to be paid for ten years. She paid the entire premium amount. She approached the Insurance Company for payment of Rs.7000/- every month based on the policy conditions or to grant the surrender value of the policy. 3. As per the conditions in the policy, the benefit is payable on happening of the events stipulated in the policy. In the policy, the benefits payable are on the following conditions. Benefits payable and events on the happening of which they are payable: If the policy is in force for full Sum Assured in the event of death of the Life Assured Twenty percent of the amo...
Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau Vs. Lijo K. Jose
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-17-2015
1) Whether the powers, which can be exercised by the Sessions Court under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. and the powers which can be exercised by the High Court under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C., are the same? 2) Whether, under the guise of powers under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C., the Sessions Court, or under Section 437(5) Cr.P.C., a court of a Magistrate, can review its orders granting bail? 3) Can the grounds for inviting the intervention of Sessions Court and the High Court under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. be the same, as those available to challenge the validity of an order granting bail? 4) What are the matters to be considered for enlarging an accused on bail under Section 37(1)(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985(hereinafter referred to as the 'NDPS Act')? 2. Alleging that the application for bail in an NDPS case filed as Crl.M.P.No.1455/2015 was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Ernakulam, without giving an opportunity of being heard to the Special P...
S. Kalan, Director, Kerala State Federation of Scheduled Caste/Schedul ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-17-2015
1. The petitioners, eleven in number, have filed the writ petition assailing Exhibit P1 order of the Registrar, the second respondent, who has appointed an Administrator by exercising his powers under Section 33(1) of the Kerala Co-Operative Societies Act ('the Act' for brevity). 2. Very briefly stated, the respondent Federation got a duly elected Managing Committee comprising 23 members: 14 elected, 7 ex officio and 2 nominees of the Government. In the course of time, the Managing Director, who is also an ex-officio member of the Managing Committee, addressed a communication to the Registrar to the effect that the Managing Committee of the respondent Federation did not have sufficient quorum to transact its business in its meetings held on 16.01.2015 and 26.02.2015. Taking the Managing Director's communication as an expression of opinion on his part that there is an administrative stalemate, the Registrar through Exhibit P1 appointed an Administrator. Thus, the Managing Committee stoo...
A.P. Santhosh Vs. The State Election Commission Kerala and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-16-2015
1. This judgment might strike a discordant note in the realm of election law as far as this Court is concerned even though the peculiar facts unfolded in the case warrant the present conclusion. 2. The first respondent Returning Officer published Ext. P1 list of nominations under Rule 9 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' only). The list contained the names of the petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 to 5 who had submitted nominations in the election to Ward No. IX of the Pallickal Grama Panchayat. The nomination papers underwent a scrutiny and the Returning Officer on 15.10.2015 published Ext. P2 list of candidates found legally nominated under Rule 10 of the Rules. Only the names of the petitioner and the third respondent found a place in the list and the nominations put in by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were rejected in the scrutiny. The petitioner was surprised when he came across Ext. P3 order issued by the Returning Office...
Abraham Thomas Vs. State of Kerala and Another
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-16-2015
1. This is an application filed by the counter petitioner in proceedings No.2915/2014-B3 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thiruvalla and revision petitioner in Crl.R.P. No.4/2015 on the file of the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta challenging the impugned order of both courts below under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called as the Code). 2. It is alleged in the petition that petitioner is the counter petitioner in proceedings No.2915/14-B of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thiruvalla initiated under Section 133 of the Code on the basis of a complaint filed by the 2nd respondent alleging that the petitioner had constructed a rubble retaining wall encroaching a portion of drainage-stream that runs between the properties of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. On account of the same, during the rainy season, obstruction caused to the free flow of water causing flood in the property affecting the stability of electricity posts causing danger to the public. So he filed ...
Delson Davis P., Secretary (Under Order of Suspension) Thrissur Distri ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-13-2015
1. The petitioner, the erstwhile Secretary of the third respondent Society, now under suspension from 29.09.2014, has approached this Court ventilating his grievance, inter alia, that the sixth respondent, an alleged henchman of the fifth respondent, the President of the Society, has been appointed as the Secretary illegally, though he does not possess the necessary qualification. 2. Since there is much opposition from the respondent Society concerning the locus of the petitioner to file the present writ petition, it is essential to begin the narration of facts with the service particulars of the petitioner rather than the sixth respondent, whose appointment is in question. 3. Briefly stated, the petitioner, who had been working as the Secretary of the third respondent Society, was placed under suspension with effect from 29.09.2014 through Exhibit P2 order. In response to Exhibit P3 charge memo issued by the Management, the petitioner is said to have submitted Exhibit P4 explanation. ...
Thressiamma and Others Vs. General Manager, State Express Transport Co ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-13-2015
Ramachandra Menon, J. 1. To what extent a human being can be tapped, to extract money, referring to a tragic road traffic accident involving accidental death of an old man aged 82 years, is the point involved in this case. The loss of life and farewell to this world is of course disturbing, which cannot be compensated in terms of money. But when it is sought to be measured in terms of compensation payable, the matter necessitates wider consideration, that too when, such claim petition is filed by persons claiming themselves as dependents, are age old sons and daughters having separate families and leading their lives accordingly. 2. The accident in the instant case was occurred on 30.9.2011. The deceased was an octogenarian, having crossed the age of 82 years. It is stated that, he was standing on the side of NH-47 near Koratty, when the stage carriage owned by the 1st respondent and driven by the second respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and knocked him down. This was soug...
Babu Vs. State of Kerala Public Prosecutor
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-13-2015
V. Raja Vijayaraghavan, J. 1. This case arises from a gruesome act of filicide. Not one, but two acts, in which two minor girls, who were being taken back home from school, with all the trust and love they usually expect, ended up in the murky waters of a well, at the hands of their own father, the appellant herein. 2. The appellant was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad Hoc -I), Ernakulam, for having committed offence u/s 302 and 309 of the IPC, in S.C. No.94 of 2007. He was found guilty on both counts and was convicted and sentenced inter alia to undergo imprisonment for life. 3. The prosecution case, which hinged on circumstances, unfurled in the following manner:- (a). The appellant married PW5 - Ambika in the year 1995 and had two children in the connubial relationship; they being Anjitha aged 9 years and Anjana aged 4 years. Anjitha was studying in the 3rd standard and Anjana was in the anganvadi. The appellant, who was employed as a temporary employee with the Cochin cor...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »