Kerala Court December 2015 Judgments
Saly Sabu and Others Vs. The Vaikom Taluk Co-Operative Agricultural an ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
Common Judgment: Facts in Brief: 1. Two petitioners in W.P.(C)No.38705/2015 are the members of the fourth respondent Bank. Four of the six petitioners in W.P.(C)No.38391/2015 were the members of the erstwhile managing committee of the Bank. Initially on 31.10.2015, the managing committee resolved to request the Election Commission to conduct the election. Later, on 21.11.2015 petitioners 1 to 4 resigned from the managing committee. 2. Since all the petitioners in both the writ petitions, being the members of the fourth respondent Bank, have assailed Exhibit P2 election notification on almost identical grounds, this Court has decided to dispose of the writ petitions through a common judgment. For the sake of convenience, I refer to the facts pleaded and the documents placed in W.P.(C)No.38705/2015. 3. In the wake of Exhibit P2 election notification issued on 20.11.2015 by the Election Commission deciding to hold elections on 03.01.2016, the petitioners have assailed the legality of the ...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Flakt (India) Private Limited Chennai represented by the Power of ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
Anil K. Narendran, J. 1. This appeal under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 is against the order dated 21.10.2015 of the learned Company Judge of this Court in Co.Appl. Nos.341 and 342 of 2015 in Co.Pet. No.54 of 2011. 2. We heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. Co.Pet. No.54 of 2011 was filed by M/s.Flakt (India) Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant company') seeking an order to wind-up M/s.24 Assured Services Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent company'), a company registered under the Companies Act having its Registered Office within the jurisdiction of this Court. The said Company Petition was dismissed for default on 23.7.2014, on account of non- appearance of the learned counsel who was representing the appellant company. 4. After dismissal of the Company Petition, the appellant company filed Co.Appl. No.341 of 2015 under Rule 9 of the Companies...
Tag this Judgment!O.A. Antony and Others Vs. Chandni Chits Pvt. Ltd (In Liquidation) Rep ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
Anil K. Narendran, J. 1. These appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 2.3.2001 of the learned Company Judge of this Court in C.C.Nos.25/1994, 15/1994, 23/1994, 27/1994, 26/1994,22/1994, 24/1994 and 2/1994 respectively in C.P.No.57/1989. Since the issues raised are common we propose to dispose of these appeals by a common judgment. 2. The appellants in these appeals are the respondents in C.C.Nos.25/1994, 15/1994, 23/1994, 27/1994, 26/1994, 22/1994, 24/1994 and 2/1994 filed in C.P.No.57/1989. By order dated 4.4.1990 in C.P.No.57/1989 of the learned Company Judge M/s.Chandini Chits Private Ltd., a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was ordered to be wound up and the Official Liquidator attached to this Court was appointed as the Liquidator of the Company. The winding up proceedings in C.P.No.57/1989 commenced on 16.10.1989, the date on which the said Company Petition was filed before this Court. The order of winding up was passed...
Tag this Judgment!S. Subin Mohammed Vs. Union of India, represented by Secretary, Minist ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
Shaffique, J. 1. All these writ petitions have been referred to this Court by a common reference order dated 6/8/2015 wherein the learned Single Judge having considered the matter in detail and answering certain issues, expressed doubt regarding the power of Central Board of Secondary Education (for short 'CBSE') to reduce the limitation period for correcting the date of birth in the mark sheet by one year, by observing that the period of five years have been specified based on a concession made before a Division Bench of this Court. 2. All these writ petitions were filed by separate writ petitioners claiming that the CBSE and the respective Principals/Headmasters of the school should be directed to correct the date of birth in the mark sheet and the registers maintained by the said authorities, as the date of birth appearing in the Register maintained by the local authority is different. 3. The short facts in WP(C) No.1362/2015 are: The petitioner was born at Abudhabi, United Arab Emi...
Tag this Judgment!Pareed Pillai Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J. 1. Does the law declared by a Full Bench of this Court in Augustine v. Ayyappankutty, 2015 (2) KLT 139 stand correct, in declaring that absence of Permit or Fitness Certificate to the transport vehicle is only a technical breach and not a fundamental breach , in so far as it stands contrary to the law declared by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company v. Challa Barathamma, 2004(3) KLT 454 [name of the case has been subsequently corrected as per the Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J/96/2004 dated 01.12.2004 as National Insurance Company v. Challa Upendra Rao, (2004) 8 SCC 517. For having not made even a reference to the decision of the Apex Court is not above verdict liable to be declared as per incuriam ? Has the Full bench considered all the relevant provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1998, as to the necessity for having a Fitness Certificate to the vehicle (in view of the public safety), the necessity to have valid Permit , necessity to have C...
Tag this Judgment!A.M. Abdul Naser Vs. Kerala State Election Commission and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
1. The petitioner who contested the election from Ward No.35 of the newly constituted Feroke Municipality questions the notification issued by the Kerala State Election Commission for a re-poll. The Electronic Voting Machine (J.34139) installed in one of the booths developed a technical snag in the midst of poll on 2.11.2015 and refused to record votes. A Control Unit error was shown in the Electronic Voting Machine and about 135 voters had by then exercised their right in the polling booth in question. The Returning Officer summoned the technician deputed by the manufacturer of the Electronic Voting Machine who after inspection opined that the same is not fit for further use. Another Electronic Voting Machine (G.58307) was supplied and the polling resumed after 45 minutes as evident by Annexures R1(A) letter, R1(B) receipt and R1 (C) report of the Returning Officer. 2. It was found during the counting of votes on 7.11.2015 that the votes recorded by the Electronic Voting Machine (J.34...
Tag this Judgment!Holy Family English Medium L.P. School and Others Vs. Employees State ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J. Dismissal of the Insurance cases filed by the appellants/educational institutions before the Employees Insurance Court under Section 75 r/w Sec. 77 of the Employees Insurance Act (for short Act ) for a declaration that their Institutions are not liable to be covered under the Act; that no contribution is liable to be paid by them under any circumstance; that Teachers are not liable to be considered as employees as defined under Section 2(9) of the Act and thus seeking to set aside the notice/proceedings issued by the authorities of the ESI Corporation, is the subject matter of challenge in all these cases preferred under Section 82 of the Act. In some of the cases, violation of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, for intruding into the minority status/rights is also projected as a ground for interference. 2. One of the main contentions raised in these appeals is as to the incompetency on the part of the authorities concerned to proceed with further st...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India, rep. by Secretary, Ministry of Defense and Others Vs. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
Ashok Bhusham, CJ. These writ appeals have been filed against the common judgment dated 15.1.2009 raising similar questions of law and fact, hence, are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Appellants were respondents in the writ petitions. Aggrieved by the judgment of learned Single Judge allowing the original petitions, these appeals were filed. Parties can be referred to as they are arrayed in the original petitions. Brief facts giving rise to these appeals are as follows: W.A No.2430/2009 3. This writ appeal arises out of O.P No.33852 of 2001 filed by the petitioner. Petitioner was enrolled in army on 31.3.1963. With effect from 31.3.197 8, he was discharged. Petitioner being in lower medical category, has appeared before the Release Medical Board and his disability was assessed as 30% for two years. Petitioner was granted disability pension w.e.f 1.4.1978. Petitioner was examined before the Re-survey Medical Board from time to time and granted continuation of disability pensio...
Tag this Judgment!Kuriachan Chacko and Others Vs. The Secretary to Government Home (C) D ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
Ashok Bhushan, CJ. 1. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 20.06.2012 in W.P(C) No.29355 of 2011 by which judgment, the Writ Petition filed by the appellants challenging the appointment of the 4th respondent as Special Public Prosecutor to conduct a criminal case in which they are accused has been dismissed. 2. In the Writ Petition counter affidavit was filed by the 5th respondent, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ernakulam. Affidavit dated 27.05.2015 by the appellants has also been filed in this appeal bringing certain documents on record. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the Writ Petition, this Writ Appeal has been filed by the petitioners. 3. Brief facts of the case as emerged from the materials on record are as follows: Petitioners are accused in Crime No.672 of 2006 which is now pending trial before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam as C.C. No.850 of 2011. Petitioners have been charged under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Prize C...
Tag this Judgment!Infant Thomas Vs. The State of Kerala, Represented By Principal Secret ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
Ramakrishnan, J. 1. W.A.No.2551/2015 was filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C). No.15636/2015, while W.A.No.2553/2015 was filed by the fourth respondent in W.P.(C).No.15444/2015, W.A.No.2581/2015 was filed by the additional respondents 5 and 6 in W.P.(C). No.15444/2015 whereas W.A.No.2697/2015 was filed by the additional respondents 4 and 5 in W.P.(C)No.18954/2015. W.A.No.2698/2015 was filed by the additional respondents 4 and 5 in W.P.(C)No.20172/2015 while W.A.No.2696/2015 was filed by the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.22070/2015. W.A.No.2708/2015 was filed by a thirty party against the order in W.P.(C).No.15444/2015 with leave petition I.A.No.1615/2015 and leave was granted and I.A.No.1635/2015 was filed to condone the delay and since he was non party to the proceedings, delay was condoned and appeal was also heard and disposed of along with the above appeals. 2. W.P.(C).Nos.15444/2015 and 20172/2015 were filed by the District Committee (Pathanamthitta) of Kerala Government Contractors' Fe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »