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.
The Research Director, Centeral Coffee Research Institute, Chikmagalur ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-06-2015
The petitioner is the Research Director of the Coffee Research Institute, Chickmagalur, which is set up by the Coffee Board, a statutory authority constituted under the provisions of the Coffee Act, 1942 and functioning under the authority of the Central Government. The Board has set up Research Station at Chundale in Wayanad District. The additional 4th respondent was a temporary employee engaged in the said Station on compassionate ground, pursuant to the death of his father, a permanent Mazdoor in the said Station. When the petitioner stopped engaging the 4th respondent, the 3rdrespondent Union raised a dispute before the District Labour Officer, Wayanad, and on the failure of resolution of the dispute there, the matter was referred for adjudication by Ext.P3 order to the 1strespondent. The 1st respondent passed an ex parte award against the petitioner by Ext.P4 order directing the petitioner to reinstate the 4th respondent in service with full back wages from 18/11/2008 until reins...
K.M. Mohammed Vs. State of Kerala Represented by S.I. of Police
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-04-2015
1. The petitioner herein is the registered owner and the owner who is having possession of a Motor car bearing Reg.No.KL-39-C- 3864, Logan DLE 1.5 Tourist Car (Mahindra Renault). According to the petitioner his vehicle was having a valid permit to run as a tourist taxi car and the same was entrusted by him to a taxi service company. The motor car was found missing and upon complaint, it was found by the Police on investigation that the driver of the taxi company had taken away the vehicle under the registered ownership of the petitioner and that he had fraudulently attempted to transfer the said vehicle to a 3rd party, CW8 (additional respondent No.2 herein). FIR registered as Crime No. 1480/2013 of Palarivattom Police station, Ernakulam for offences under Secs.406 and 420 of the IPC as against the aforestated taxi driver concerned who is arrayed as accused in the crime. The petitioner being registered owner of the vehicle had approached the Jurisdictional Magistrate concerned by filin...
K. Moidotty Vs. Usman and Another
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-04-2015
1. The question under challenge in this case is whether the conducting of 'case and counter case' by the same Asst. Public Prosecutor amounts to an illegality, when both cases arise out of police charge sheet? This revision petition is preferred against the judgment in C.C.No.369/1998 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Malappuram by the defacto complainant. The accused was charge sheeted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate for having committed an offence punishable under Section 326 IPC. The charge against the accused is that on 19.7.1998 at about 9.45 p.m, while PW1 was proceeding to his room in the lodge at Parambilangadi, accused voluntarily caused grievous hurt to him by beating with a torch on his left leg and left hand as a result, he sustained serious injuries on his elbow and tibia, thereby committed the offence. Kottakkal Police registered a Crime and after investigation laid charge before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Malappuram. During trial, prosecution examined ...
Easwari Amma Prasannakumari Vs. Radhakrishna Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-04-2015
1. This is an application filed invoking Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( the Code for short) for correction of the property description in the schedule to the decree in the suit which was confirmed by this Court as per the decision in the second appeal. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the interlocutory application are the following: The second appeal arose from the suit O.S.No. 334 of 1988 on the file of the Munsiff s Court, Karunagapally. The petitioner in the application is the plaintiff in the suit. The suit was one for the declaration of the right of easement of the plaintiff over the plaint B schedule pathway leading to the plaint A Schedule property owned by her. According to the plaintiff, the plaint B schedule pathway is required for the beneficial enjoyment of the plaint A schedule property. The plaint B schedule was described in the plaint as a property comprised in survey No. 4863 of Thazhava village having a width of approximately 12 feet and a length...
Jithesh Vs. State of Kerala, rep. by Public Prosecutor and Another
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-04-2015
1. The short question for determination is whether the petitioner, who was not admitted as a juvenile within the meaning of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (for short the 1986 Act), when the offence was committed but had not completed 18 years of age on that date, will be governed by the Act of 2000 and be declared as a juvenile? This revision petition is preferred against the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.337/2001 of the Sessions Judge, Kozhikode. Brief facts are that the revision petitioner and three others were charge sheeted in C.C.No.563/2000 before the Judicial First class Magistrate-I, Thamarassery for having committed an offence punishable u/s.451 and 380 r/w.34 IPC. The charge against them was that on 8.7.2000, the accused 1 to 4 trespassed into the Holy Family High School building No.11/21 of Thamarassery Panchayat and broke the locks of the office room and staff room, stolen articles worth Rs.7,000/- thereby committed the offence. On the side of the prosecution, four witness...
Munavira (Minor), rep. by Her Father Next Friend Ali Akbar Vs. Relianc ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-04-2015
Ramachandra Menon, J. 1. Inadequacy of the compensation of Rs.9,80,000/- ordered to be paid with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition, till realization, in respect of the injuries sustained by the 'minor' girl of 7 years, is the subject matter of this appeal, seeking for enhancement. 2. The accident was on 24.9.2012 at about 9.45 am. when the appellant, who was aged 7 years at that point of time, was proceeding to school. She was knocked down by a tipper lorry bearing registration No.KL-57-A-9062 (owned, driven and insured by the respondents 1 to 3 before the Tribunal). Immediately, she was taken to MIMS Hospital, Kozhikode and thereafter to the Specialist Hospital at Ernakulam. After more than one month of hospitalization, the appellant was discharged and thereafter, the loss was sought to be compensated by filing the claim petition. 3. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle did not choose to contest the matter and were set exparte. The insurance company admitted t...
K. Joly George Vs. The Manager, S.K.G.M.A.U.P. School, Kumbalapally an ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-04-2015
1. The petitioner was appointed as a Lower Primary School Assistant [for brevity "LPSA"] with effect from 19.10.1990. The petitioner has passed Account Test [Lower] and Test in Kerala Education Act and Rules, conducted by the Public Service Commission, which enables him to aspire for the post of Headmaster as provided under Rule 45B of Chapter XIV-A KER. The allegation in the writ petition is that, overlooking his claim the 4th respondent, who is not test qualified, was promoted on the basis of seniority only on the ground that the 4th respondent has crossed 50 years of age. 2. The contention raised by the petitioner's counsel is that the exemption granted under sub-rule (4) of Rule 45B is only for teachers who crossed 50 years of age as on the date of introduction of that provision. This is especially so, since the word used is "have" and there is introduced another provision at Rule 45BB, which makes sub-rule (4) of Rule 45B redundant. Even going by sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 45B,...
M.R. Ajayan Vs. State of Kerala, represented by The Chief Secretary To ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-04-2015
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. This group of Writ Petitions raising common issues have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. All the Writ Petitions have been filed as Public Interest Litigations. The Writ Petitions can be divided into two groups. First group consists of Writ Petitions raising grievance of common man residing in different Corporations, Municipalities and Panchayats who is affected by the menace caused by stray dogs. Writ Petitions cite various instances where stray dogs have bitten small children, old men and even young persons, some of them subsequently died of rabies. Petitioners pray that the local authorities may remove/destroy stray dogs to save the common man from their furry. W.P(C) No.12302 of 2014, W.P(C) No.28255 of 2011, W.P(C) No.17958 of 2015, W.P(C) No.14210 of 2014, W.P(C) No.28720 of 2015, W.P(C) No.19005 of 2014, W.P(C) No.18374 of 2015, W.P(C) No.29543 of 2015 and W.P(C) No.30792 of 2011 which are included in the second group, belo...
K.R. Ajayakumar Vs. State of Kerala represented by the Secretary to Go ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-03-2015
Dama Seshadri Naidu, J. Facts: 1. The petitioner, a Peon in the service of the fourth respondent Society, has faced disciplinary proceedings and earned a dismissal through Exhibit P11 order. He has impugned Exhibit P11, inter alia, on the ground that it was passed by an incompetent authority and that the order of dismissal is non est. Scope of Adjudication: 2. Though the petitioner has raised various other issues, they may not, however, be germane for our consideration. In a judicial review, as is well-settled, the power of the management to inflict appropriate punishment on a delinquent employee can neither be cribbed nor curbed, provided the power is exercised by a proper authority. Without cavil, I may observe that the writ of certiorari can be exercised on certain well entrenched judicial parameters, such as ultra vires, disproportionality, perversity of finding, etc. In the present instance, the contention of the petitioner is that the capital punishment of removal from service wa...
Lalitha Muralidharan Vs. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Othe ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-03-2015
1. The petitioner in this writ petition runs a unit in the Madras Export Processing Zone, Tambaram, Chennai. The said unit is engaged in the manufacture of essential oils, natural extracts and products of sandalwood. As part of its business operations, the petitioner sources sandalwood from Marayoor in Kerala, where it participates in auctions conducted by the Forest Department of the State of Kerala and purchases sandalwood. The issue in the present writ petition is regarding the liability of the petitioner to pay tax under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as the 'KVAT Act', on the purchases of sandalwood. While the petitioner maintains that she is not liable to pay local tax on the sandalwood purchased by her at the auction, since the goods so purchased are taken by her directly to the unit in the Madras Export Processing Zone, it is the case of the respondents that the transaction of sale would attract tax under the KVAT Act since the sale was concluded in the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »