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.
Louis Mathew Vs. State Information Commissioner, Office of the Kerala ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-10-2015
1. This writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P13 and P15. Ext.P13 is an order passed by the State Information Commissioner in an appeal filed by the 4th respondent by which decision has been taken to initiate proceedings against the petitioner under Section 20(1)(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') alleging that false information had been given to the 4th respondent. Ext.P15 is the order dated 28/02/2013 issued by the State Information Commissioner directing to take disciplinary action against the petitioner under Section 20(2) of the Act. 2. The short facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that the petitioner, while working as Agricultural Officer at Pandalam Thekkekkara, was called upon to send a detailed report in respect of an application submitted by the 4th respondent, Ext.P1 dated 22/03/2010 under the Act. According to the petitioner, the information sought therein is to assess and report the alleged damage said to have ...
P.K. Balan Vs. The Deputy Excise Commissioner, Thrissur and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-10-2015
Common Judgment: In all the three writ petitions, similarly situated petitioners, being the erstwhile licencees to vend toddy, have raised identical questions of law and fact involving the same set of respondents. That apart, all the petitioners have already had Exhibit P2 inter parte order from the Hon'ble Supreme Court on all the issues that have been raised in these writ petitions. 2. In the interpretation of Exhibit P2 order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, certain difficulties have cropped up; those difficulties seem to have led the authorities to pass Exhibits P9 and P10 orders. Assailing them, the petitioners have, once again, approached this Court. 3. The interpretative difficulty is in the following context: Earlier another batch of licencees, more or less, under similar circumstances, took the issue to the Apex Court and invited Exhibit P3 judgment (V.K.Ashokan v. Assistant Excise Commissioner (2009 (5) SCJ 783)). Soon thereafter when the petitioners knocked its doors, the Apex ...
C.P. Abdul Rasak Vs. P. Gangadharan and Another
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-10-2015
1. The accused in S.T.No.244 of 2006 on the files of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parappanangadi has filed this revision petition challenging the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the N.I. Act). 2. Heard. 3. The prosecution allegation is that the revision petitioner issued Ext.P1 cheque in favour of the complainant towards the discharge of his liability to the complainant. The complainant presented the said cheque for encashment. However, the same was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the revision petitioner. Statutory notice was received by the revision petitioner. 4. Before the trial court, PW1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked for the complainant. DW1 was examined and Exts.D1 and D2 were marked for the revision petitioner. 5. PW1 had given the evidence in tune with the contentions in the complaint. The learned counsel for t...
Komalakumar, Proprietor, Vs. The State of Kerala, Represented by the C ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-09-2015
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 07-09-2004 rendered in Appeal Suit, A.S.No.225/2000 by the District Court, Palakkad, which has affirmed the impugned judgment and decree dated 28-02-2000 in Original Suit, O.S.No. 410/1994 of the Munsiff's Court, Palakkad. The suit was for injunction, which was dismissed by the trial court on 28-02-2000, which in turn has been affirmed by the impugned verdict of the lower appellate court. So it is against the concurrent findings by both the courts below that the plaintiff has instituted the aforecaptioned Regular Second Appeal. 2. The case set up by the plaintiff is as follows:- That he is conducting the business of steel furniture and other fabrication works in the name and style, Ramco Engineering Works , which has been registered as a Small Scale Industrial Unit (SSI Unit). The plaint schedule property, having an extend of 37 cents of land, is part of the property acquired by the Government for industrialisati...
M/s. Hotel Keethi, Thampanoor, rep. by its Managing Partner, S.K. Sudh ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-09-2015
1. The first petitioner is a partnership firm comprising second and third petitioners as its partners, who are also incidentally father and son. To begin with, since 1981 the second petitioner, the father, had been the sole proprietor, having in his name an FL-3 licence till 2007. 2. For the first time, in 2005, owing to his ill health and also advanced age, the second petitioner, then in his mid-70's, wanted to induct the third petitioner, his son, into business thereby converting the proprietary concern into a partnership firm. In that regard, he submitted Exhibit P2 request to the second respondent. Since nothing significant materialized thereafter, once again, he submitted Exhibit P3 request in 2007 in terms of Rule 19 of Foreign Liquor Rules. 3. As can be seen from the record, the second respondent passed Exhibit P4 order on 16.03.2007 granting leave to the second petitioner to convert the business into a partnership firm. As a consequence, the second and third petitioners constit...
M/s. Sundaram BNP Paribas Home Finance Limited Vs. Nisha
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-09-2015
Ashok Bhushan, CJ 1. This writ appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 06/11/2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.C.No.33724/2015 filed by the respondent. Respondent has taken financial assistance from the appellant, which is a financial institution. A loan of Rs.50,00,000/- was disbursed to the writ petitioner in 2013 which was to be repaid over a period of 20 years. Certain default was committed by the writ petitioner. Consequently, the appellant initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SARFAESI Act). Thereafter a possession notice dated 14/07/2015 (Ext.P2) was issued. The writ petitioner filed the writ petition praying for the following reliefs: i) Call for the records leading to exhibit P2 and quash it, issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari; ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction ...
K. Gopalakrishnan and Others Vs. The Joint Registrar of Co-Operative S ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-08-2015
Introduction: 1. The petitioners, thirteen in number, were the members of the erstwhile managing committee, which assumed charge on 24.06.2013. It seems some of them were also the members of the previous managing committee. Because the managing committee was guilty of the negligence in supervising the administration of the Bank, the respondent authorities initiated an enquiry and eventually passed Exhibit P4 order of supersession under Section 32 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act ('the Act' for brevity). Assailing the said order, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. Facts: 2. The two employees of the respondent Bank Accountant and Secretary misappropriated funds to a tune of Rs.74 lakhs. As soon as the managing committee came to know of the misappropriation, it ensured recovery of Rs.64 lakhs from those persons. At any rate, given the magnitude of misappropriation, the Joint Registrar appointed an Inspector of the Department to enquire into the affairs of the Ba...
Shree Navanagar Sadavrat Trust Vs. State of Kerala, Through The Chief ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-08-2015
1. This original petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed challenging Ext.P15 order passed by the District collector under the provisions of the Kerala Escheats and Forfeitures Act, 1964, hereinafter referred to as the Escheats Act and Exts.P18 and P22 decisions of the Land Revenue Commissioner and the Government of Kerala confirming the Collector's decision. 2. Heard the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader. 3. Acting on information stated to have been given by a person that the parcel of land with building, which is involved in this litigation; 'property' for short, hereinafter; has escheated, the District Collector directed the Tahsildar to conduct a preliminary enquiry. Through Ext.P13, the Tahsildar reported that the property belonged to Shri Navnagar Sadavarat Trust which is the petitioner in this original petition. The Collector thereafter extended opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and issued the i...
Bharati Telemedia Ltd. Vs. Union of India, Rep. By Secretary and Other ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-08-2015
1. These writ petitions challenge the constitutional validity of the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, to the extent it seeks to levy luxury tax on Direct to Home Services (hereinafter referred to as DTH Services ). The petitioners in these writ petitions are all Companies engaged in providing DTH Services, having been granted licenses, by the Government of India, to provide such services under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the Indian Wireless Act, 1933 on the terms and conditions specified in the licenses issued to them. 2. In the broadcasting sector, the content of the broadcast reaches the ultimate subscriber through different distribution platforms. For the purposes of the instant cases, the examination is limited to only two of them viz. Cable TV network and DTH services. In the cable TV network, the services value chain comprises of four supply side entities namely (i) the broadcaster, (ii) the aggregator, (iii) The Multi-system operator (MSO) and (iv) The local cable operator (LC...
Subair Vs. State of Kerala Represented by the Cbcid, Malappuram
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-08-2015
1. The petitioner is the first accused in S.C.No.12/2014pending before the Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Vadakara. Hehas approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure( for short 'the Code') seeking to set aside Annexure A7 order dated 24.11.2014 passed by the said court in Crl.M.P.No.584/14 in S.C.No.12/2014. 2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows : On 28.06.2011 the petitioner herein along with three other accused were found in possession of brown sugar, kept for the purpose of sale, without any authority and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 21(c), 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985(for short 'the NDPS Act'). The crime in this case was registered by the Sub Inspector of Police, Perumpadappu Police Station, as FIR.No.212/2011 dated 28.06.2011, alleging the commission of the offence, punishable under Sections 21(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act. The allegation of the prosecution was that the petitioner along w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »