Kerala Court December 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.
State of Kerala Rep. by the Secretary to Government Higher Education D ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-22-2015
Asha, J. 1. Respondents 1 to 3 in the Writ Petition, the authorities under the Collegiate Education Department of the State, have filed this appeal, aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge directing payment of salary to the writ petitioners, who were appointed by the 7th respondent-SN Trust as Assistant Professors in the Colleges within the jurisdiction of the 4th respondent-University of Kerala. Parties are referred to herein as described in the writ petition. 2. The writ petitioners were appointed as Assistant Professors in Political Science, as per Exts.P1 and P2 orders dated 1.10.2012, in the Sree Narayana College, Chembazhanthy and Sree Narayana College, Punalur respectively, which are under the management of the 7th respondent S.N Trust. The appointments of the writ petitioners were made from a rank list in which the 1st petitioner was ranked 5th and the 2nd petitioner was ranked 12th. As per Ext.P6 order dated 31.10.2013 of the University of Kerala, the 1st petitio...
Jacob Mathew Vs. The Excise Commissioner, Commissionerate of Excise, T ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-22-2015
1. The petitioner, a proprietor, obtained an FL-3 licence for his two-star classified restaurant; later, in the light of the changed Government policy, he got an FL-11 licence. 2. In 2011 the petitioner was said to have applied though not pleaded in the writ petition but is evident from the counter affidavit for the change of licencee's name. It was rejected as impermissible. Subsequently, in the light of the amendment effected to Rule 19 of the Foreign Liquor Rules in 2009, the petitioner once again submitted Exhibit P2 application to have the proprietary concern converted into a partnership firm comprising the Proprietor, as one of the partners, and two others. The petitioner, along with the application, has submitted Exhibit P1 draft partnership deed for approval and sanction by the Commissioner of Excise. 3. Initially, the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, having processed the application, forwarded it for further action to the Commissioner of Excise, who, however, through Exhibit P4 ...
P. Santharam, Advocate Vs. K. Raveendran and Another
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-22-2015
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. This appeal is by the claimant challenging the quantum of compensation awarded to him by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. 2. The claimant, a practising advocate, who deposed that he was then earning around Rs.6,000/- per month, was injured as a result of a motor accident when a tempo trax driven by the first respondent knocked down the motorcycle on which the claimant was riding through a public road on 8.9.2001. The claimant testified as P.W.1 and tendered documentary evidence as Exts.A1 to A22. Ext.X1 certificate of disability issued by the Medical Board, Medical College Hospital, evidenced that the claimant's permanent disability is 27%. No contra evidence was tendered by either among the respondents. The Tribunal held that the first respondent was negligent. It did not find any contributory negligence on the claimant. The claimant was awarded a total amount of Rs.3,70,416/- as compensation with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the pet...
M.K. Vijayakumaran Pillai Ex.Managing Director M/S. Business Benefits ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-21-2015
Anil K. Narendran, J. 1. The appellant is the 9th respondent in Company Application No.245 of 2015 in Report No.7 in C.P.Nos.9, 14 and 15 of 2011 before the learned Company Judge of this Court, an application filed by the 1st respondent herein, seeking an order to release land having an extent of 22.38 cents, comprised in Re. Survey No.106, Block No.175 of Kollam East Village, and the building situated therein, in his favour. The learned Company Judge, after hearing both sides, disposed of Company Application No.245 of 2015 by order dated 18.11.2015, with the following directions; (a) The property which is the subject matter of this petition will stand attached by this Court, subject to decision to be taken by the Debt Recovery Tribunal on the application filed by the 2nd respondent to set aside the sale; (b) The office will intimate the fact of attachment to the Sub Registrar concerned. (c) The Official Liquidator will hand over possession of the property to the petitioner herein with...
Hindustan Newsprint Limited, rep. by its Managing Director Vs. HNL Cau ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-21-2015
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J. Would the non-renewal of licence issued to a contractor under the relevant provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act,1970 [ CLRA Act in short], that too for a short period, grant any automatic/vested right to the workers engaged by the contractor to raise a claim for being treated as employees of the principal employer? Will it amount to a dispute as envisaged under section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, if any such claim is raised by the workers/Unions and is it obligatory for the Conciliation Officer to have the issue conciliated and on failure, to send a referral report to the Government for causing adjudication? These are the legal issues involved in this appeal. 2. The challenge is mainly against the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the claim of the Union/writ petitioner has been accepted, setting aside the impugned order and directing the conciliation authority to have the matter conciliated, despite the f...
Somarajan and Another Vs. The District Collector, Kollam and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-21-2015
1. These batch of writ petitions are filed seeking for a direction to consider the applications filed by the petitioners under clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order for utilising land for other purposes. The petitioners' case is that their land has been converted prior to the Act 28 of 2008 and is no longer fit for paddy cultivation. The petitioners would submit that their paddy land is not included in the draft data bank either as a paddy land or wetland and therefore, the Collector has to give permission in terms of clause 6 of KLUO to utilise the land for other purposes. 2. KLUO is issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in the wake of food scarcity to boost up production of food crops. It refers to certain food crops which includes Paddy also. The nature of the power vested with the Collector under the KLUO, is in the nature of the enabling powers to command the holders of the land to cultivate those food crops, which are referred in the KLUO. The right of land hol...
The Managing Director, Kerala State Beverages Corporation Limited Vs. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-21-2015
Shaji P. Chaly, J. 1. These writ appeals are filed by the Respondents in W.P. (C) Nos.19204 and 26208 of 2005, 19427 of 2009, 6316, 20180, 30569 and 33110 of 2010, 9959 and 32207 of 2011, viz. the State and the Kerala State Beverages Corporation, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions by a common judgment dated 29.05.2015 and directed the State Government to implement the order bearing No. G.O.(Rt.) No.81/2002/TD dated 20.02.2002, by which the Government have launched a scheme to provide 25% daily wage employment arising in the Kerala State Beverages Corporation (hereinafter called 'the Bevco') to the displaced arrack workers. Since the issue involved in the appeals are common, they are considered and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Arrack (country liquor) in eternity is the heart and soul and fuel and spirit of these litigations. Arrack was banned in Kerala with effect from 01.04.1996, as a result of which 12,500 workers were rendered jobless. To tide over...
V. Rajendranath Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-21-2015
B. Kemal Pasha, J. 1. A building permit was issued after all the legal formalities to the petitioner, for carrying out the construction of a multi-storied building having 13 floors. He has started the construction and completed the construction upto the 6th floor. While so, the District Executive Magistrate, Wayanad stepped in and initiated proceedings as if proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. 2. Initially, Annexure-A4 order dated 30.01.2015 was issued, thereby directing the petitioner to stop the construction forthwith and in case of any objection to obey the order, to appear before the District Executive Magistrate on 05.02.2015 at 3 p.m., to show cause. On 05.02.2015, the petitioner filed an explanation. 3. On the next day to the passing of Annexure-A4, the District Executive Magistrate has passed Annexure-A5 order as if he was invoking the power under Section 142 Cr.P.C., and directed the petitioner to stop the construction forthwith. Annexure-A4 and Annexure-A5 are under challen...
C.M. Abdul Majeed and Others Vs. Mohammed Shafeeque @ Shafeeque and Ot ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-21-2015
Anil K. Narendran, J. 1. The appellants are the claimants in O.P.(M.V.) No. 72 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, N.Paravur. It was an application filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation for the death of one Khadeeja in a motor accident occurred on 30.09.2009, on the Vypin-Munambam road, involving a motorcycle bearing registration No. KL-47/7705 owned, driven and insured by the respondents 1 to 3. The deceased was a pillion rider in the motor cycle. 2. Before the Tribunal, Exts. A1 to A6 were marked on the side of the appellants. After considering the materials on record, the Tribunal held that Khadeeja died due to the injury sustained in the accident and that the appellants being her legal heirs are entitled for payment of compensation. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 68,335/-, which was rounded to Rs. 69,000/-, towards compensation, together with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till ...
Thrikkakkara Grama Panchayat, Represented by its Secretary (Special Gr ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-18-2015
Introduction: 1. Since all the writ petitions raise the same question of law and fact involving, more or less, the same parties, this Court has decided to dispose of the writ petitions together through a common judgment. For ease of reference and convenience, I take into consideration the facts and exhibits in W.P.(C) No. 12924 of 2015 as the basis for the narrative purpose. 2. The petitioner Municipality, a Grama Panchayat in its earlier version (but referred to all through as Municipality), with its best of intentions has brought itself into a litigious quagmire, for which it has to blame itself partially, though. It has taken a policy decision that there should not be allotment of more than one shop room to one family. When the learned Ombudsman, the first respondent, rendered an order to the contrary, it has not laid immediate challenge; the Municipality s laxity seems to have led to a multiplicity of proceedings and also further complication of the issue. Facts: 3. Briefly stated,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »