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.
E. Maneesh Vs. State of Kerala, Represented By The Public Prosecutor a ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-14-2015
B. Kemal Pasha, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Annexure-A4 order passed by the learned Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode, is under challenge. When a complaint was filed by seeking a relief to forward the matter under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation, the court below has chosen to reject the complaint through Annexure-A4 order. Offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act are alleged in the private complaint. In such case, apart from forwarding the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the court below cannot take cognizance of the offences by proceeding through Section 200 or 202 Cr.P.C. 3. In the said matter, an investigation is required and sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is also required on the final report for taking cognizance of the offences. Even when the court below proceeds through Section 200 Cr.P.C., sanction is required within the meaning of Section 19 ...
Sunikuttan and Others Vs. Ernakulam District Co-Op.Bank Ltd. and Other ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-14-2015
1. The petitioners, 23 in number, are the Daily Deposit Collectors working in the first respondent Bank. Petitioners 3, 5, 10, 14 to 16 and 23 were appointed in 1989; whereas other petitioners were appointed subsequently on different dates. Their singular grievance is that despite clear, binding directions by the Government as well as the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, the first respondent Bank has not regularised them. 2. On 13.04.2005, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies issued Exhibit P1 circular commemorating the centenary of the Co-operatives and also on humanitarian grounds. The purpose of the circular, inter alia, is to regularise the Daily Wagers and the Deposit Collectors. Later, the same authority issued Exhibits P2 and P3 consequential circulars enhancing the monthly emoluments of and providing other service benefits to the Daily Deposit Collectors. 3. On the Government's part, it has issued Exhibits P4 and P7 orders improving the pay and other service conditions of...
Alex Vs. The Kerala State Election Commission, Represented by its Secr ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-14-2015
1. Writ petition has been filed challenging order dated 1/3/2014 in OP No.47/2013 of the Kerala State Election Commission (Ext.P3) by the petitioner in OP No.47/2013. He alleged that the 2nd respondent herein has incurred disqualification as provided under Section 91(1)(f) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and thereby disqualified from holding the office of Councillor of Aluva Municipality representing ward No.8. 2. The petitioner preferred a complaint before the Election Commission inter alia stating that the 2nd respondent entered into an agreement on 7/10/2012 with the Secretary of the Municipality whereby a charge was created in the property of the 2nd respondent which was offered as security for repayment of the amounts advanced for the work undertaken by the Sreekrishna Swamy Temple Advisory Ad hoc Committee. It is alleged that the said Committee is not a registered body and the fact that 2nd respondent has an interest in the said body, w...
Yunus rep. by Power of Attorney Holder Abdul Salam and Another Vs. Jas ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-14-2015
C.K. Abdul Rehim, J. 1. The petitioners herein are the respondents in O.P.No.930/13 on the files of the Family court, Chavara, which is instituted by the respondent herein seeking recovery of the value of gold and patrimony. The suit was contested before the court below by the respondent through the written statement filed. The case was posted for evidence before the Family court, Chavara on 12.09.2013. Since both the petitioners and their counsels were not present, the suit was decreed ex-parte. Subsequently, the petitioners filed I.A.No.346/14 seeking to set aside the ex-parte decree, along with an application to condone the delay of 137 days in filing the said application, as I.A.No.347/14. But the Family court had dismissed those interim applications without considering the merits upon which the application seeking to set aside the decree was filed. I.A.No.346/14 was dismissed on the premise that the relief sought for in that application is to set aside the ex-parte passed on 20.09...
State of Kerala, represented by The District Collector Vs. Thomas and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-14-2015
Anil K. Narendran, J. 1. These Land Acquisition Appeals arise out of a Section 4(1) notification dated 18.7.2009 published under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the doubling work of Chengannur-Chingavanam Railway track. Since identical issues are raised in these appeals and common arguments were advanced, we propose to dispose of these appeals by a common judgment. 2.1. L.A.A.No.18/2015:- This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 30.9.2014 of the Sub Court, Thiruvalla in L.A.R.No.86/2012. An extent of 1.20 Ares of dry land in Sy.No.789/19 of Kuttappuzha Village in Thiruvalla Taluk was acquired based on Section 4(1) notification published on 18.7.09. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at Rs.1,05,364/- per Are. The Reference Court based on Ext.A1 sale deed No.291/09 of SRO, Thiruvalla dated 30.1.2009 refixed the land value at 4,00,000/- per Are. Against the refixation Rs.of land value, the State is in appeal contending that the re-fixation so made is without...
Mary @ Achamma and Another Vs. Murali and Another
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-14-2015
1. The judgment debtors 1 and 2 bound by a decree for fixation of boundary and perpetual injunction in relation to an item of immovable property are the revision petitioners. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The suit was, initially, decreed ex parte on the basis of Exhibit C1 Mahazar and Exhibit C1(a) rough sketch. That decree was set aside. Thereafter, Exhibit A1 title deed was marked on behalf of the plaintiffs. The defendants again remained ex parte. Affidavit on behalf of the plaintiffs, in line of chief examination, was on record. Thereafter, Exhibits C1 and C1(a) were remitted and Exhibits C2 and C2(a) were produced by the Commissioner. Exhibit C2(a) plan was prepared by a retired Taluk Surveyor. The Advocate Commissioner was examined before the trial court as CW1. The defendants remained ex parte. 4. The trial court granted a decree as follows: i. The boundary between the plaint schedule property and the 1st and 2nd defendants' property on to the west i...
Asgar and Others Vs. Vasudeva Menon and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-11-2015
1. The plaint schedule property was part of the property which belonged to Vengunadu Kovilakam. In 1897 it leased out 909 acres to a foreigner for 75 years. The foreigner assigned it to a limited company. The Kovilakam leased out another 5 acres also to the company for 43 years, in 1945 the company assigned the property to another company, which assigned different parcels of the property to various persons including M/s.K.J.Plantations. In 1978 M/s.K.J.Plantations assigned the plaint schedule property to the petitioners by registered documents. Meanwhile, district court, Palakkad passed a final decree for partition in O.S.No.1 of 1964 filed by some members of the Kovilakam in respect of its properties including the properties involved in this proceeding. Respondents 16 to 21 who were allotted the property in the final decree filed E.P.No.7 of 2008 for delivery of their property. Claiming that the petitioners are lessees of those properties they filed E.A.No.38 of 2009 to obstruct the d...
Y. Georgekutty Vs. State of Kerala, Represented By Principal Secretary ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-10-2015
1. Ext.P6 order dated 09.06.2014 in W.P.(C) No.9626 of 2015, issued by the Government of Kerala, which is subsequently corrected through order dated 12.11.2014, is under challenge in these writ petitions. W.P.(C) No.9626 of 2015 is treated as the main case. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.9626/2015 is the de facto complainant/injured in C.C.No.130/1988 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Neyyattinkara. 2. The 2nd respondent in W.P.(C) No.9626/2015, who was the accused in C.C.No.130/1988 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Neyyattinkara, for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC, was convicted by the said court. A sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three more months, was imposed, through Ext.P1 judgment produced in W.P.(C) No.9626/2015. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.43 of 1990 before the Sessions Court, Thiruvanan...
Forum For Rural and Urban Development and Service rep. by its, Preside ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-10-2015
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. W.P.(C) No.18690 of 2009 filed as a public interest litigation raises environmental concern alleging illegal filling of wet land to the extent of 7.42.64 hectares (74,264 sq.m) situated within 15 kilometers from the Ashtamudi Lake, which is one of the 19 sites designated as 'wet land of international importance' in the State of Kerala. The writ petition was entertained as public interest litigation on 6.7.2009. Various orders were passed by the Division Benches from time to time including appointment of Advocate Commissioner by order dated 21.12.2010 to inspect the premises and submit a report. The Advocate Commissioner, after inspection, submitted a report. Counter affidavits by the State as well as the 8th respondent, who is the contesting respondent had already been filed. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 30.10.2015, the petitioner has also filed an additional affidavit, in which, counter affidavit has also been filed by the 8th respondent. 2. W.P.(C)...
K. Sunitha Vs. State of Kerala, represented by Secretary To Government ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-10-2015
1. This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: "i) To issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P4 as unjust, illegal and unconstitutional; ii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing 4th respondent to appoint the petitioner as H.S.A (Hindi) in Mahajana Sanskrit College High School, Neerchal in Kasargod District iii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing 4th respondent to revert/repost the 5th respondent as Primary School Teacher (Hindi) in the school managed by the 4th respondent;" 2. Ext.P4 is an order issued by the Manager of the School,taking the view that the promotion of the 5th respondent willprevail over the claim made by the petitioner under Rule 51A ofChapter XIVA of the Kerala Educational Rules (hereinafter referredto as 'the Rules'). 3. The short facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that the petitioner worked as H.S.A (Hindi) in the School managed by the 4th respondent from 15/07/1996 to 13/12/1996. Thereafter, for want of vacancy, her services were...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »