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.
O.P. Prakash Vs. M.U. Chacko and Another
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-03-2015
1. The defendant is the appellant. The respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit for eviction on the strength of title. Though the plaintiffs took the stand that Ext.A-1 agreement is for a lease and not a licence, both the courts below have found that it is only a licence and not a lease. But both the courts below concurrently found that the plea of the defendant that Ext.A-1 agreement amounted to an irrevocable licence under Sec.60(b) of the Easements Act, is without any substance and that the trial court accordingly, decreed the suit, which has been affirmed by the lower appellate court. 2. The plea of the defendant is that Ext.A-1 amounts to an irrevocable licence and that he constructed the existing permanent structure over the property in question (plaint B schedule property) and that he is running a hotel therein and that he is entitled for the protection of the irrevocability of the licence in view of Sec.60(b) of the Easements Act and that accordingly, he is not entitled to be evic...
State of Kerala represented by the Chief Secretary to Government and O ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-03-2015
Antony Dominic, J. 1. The respondent herein had worked as Teacher and Headmaster in aided schools in the State for the period from 6.7.1953 to 25.3.1968. Thereafter he resigned from service and his own representation Ext.P2 shows that the resignation was for better prospects. By Ext.P2 dated 14.8.1999, he applied for pension. This was followed by various representations claiming pensionary benefits and all these representations were rejected on the ground that as per Rule 29(a) of Part III KSR, a person who has resigned from service will have to forfeit his past service. It was in such circumstances, he filed the writ petition with a prayer to declare that Rule 29(a) of Part III KSR is unconstitutional and also to quash orders rejecting his claim for pension. Consequential directions for the grant of pension were also sought for. In the writ petition the respondent also placed reliance on Exts.P7 and P8, whereby, according to him, two similarly situated persons were granted pension and...
S.V. Suresh Kumar Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by the Secretary to ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-03-2015
1. The issue in this writ petition is with regard to the refund of amounts deposited by a prospective licencee before he could obtain the licence and commence the business. 2. The petitioner was granted the privilege to vend toddy for the abkari year 2005-2006 in a shop within the Changanacherry Excise Range. In compliance with the statutory provisions, before the confirmation and actual issuance of licence, the petitioner paid the following amounts: 1. Rs. 56,880/- : annual rental 2. Rs. 1,07,400/- : wages of workers payable for one month In advance 3. Rs. 67,200/- : toddy workers' welfare fund (3 months' advance) 3. Obtaining the consent of the landlord being a pre-requisite, the petitioner who intended to establish his business in a rented premises could not secure the consent of the landlord. As a result, the petitioner on 27.06.2005 submitted Ext.P1 representation before the Assistant Excise Commissioner, the third respondent, requesting the said authority to cancel the privilege ...
State of Kerala, Represented By the Principal Secretary to Government ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-03-2015
Shaffique, J. 1. WA Nos.1817, 1898, 1910, 1911 and 1913 of 2015 are filed by State of Kerala challenging the common judgment dated 5/8/2015 in WP(C) Nos.14218, 14244, 14808, 16149 and 14144/2015. WA Nos.1832, 1838 and 1839/15 are also filed challenging the very same common judgment. WA No.1832/15 is filed by the additional 5th respondent in WP(C) No.14808/2015. WA No.1838/2015 is filed by additional respondents 5 and 6 in WP (C) No.14144/2015 and WA No.1839/15 is filed by the additional 3rd respondent in WPC No. 14244/2015. 2. Since the questions involved in all these writ appeals are the same and since it arises from a common judgment, all these appeals are heard and decided together. 3. The contentions urged on behalf of the writ petitioners, who are the respondents in these appeals are common in nature. The challenge in the writ petitions are with reference to delinking of certain wards from Thiruvananthapuram Corporation as well as Kozhikode Corporation and formation of such wards ...
K. Sukumaran Vs. The Senior Manager, The Kollam District Co-Operative ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-2015
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank, and the learned Government Pleader, apart from perusing the record. 2. The petitioner, having served the second respondent, retired on 31.10.2013 as Station Master. While he was in service, in 2001, along with two others, he stood guarantee to the loan obtained by one of his colleagues from the first respondent Bank. 3. Having committed default, the principal borrower retired from service in 2009 and later died in 2011. Two other sureties, too, also retired in 2011 and 2012 respectively. 4. In 2013, after his retirement, the petitioner sought a 'No Liability Certificate' from his employer, who, in turn, issued Ext.P2 Liability Certificate dated 26.09.2014. Among the liabilities mentioned in the said certificate, item No. 4 pertains to the loan to which the petitioner stood guarantee way back in 2001. Aggrieved, seeking removal of item No.4 from Ext.P2, the petitioner has filed the pre...
Mithun Shamsuddeen Vs. P.T. Krishnan and Another
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-2015
1. Crl.M.C. No.3144/2015 was filed by the original fifth accused in CC No.283/2013 while Crl.M.C.No.3695/2015 was filed by the fourth accused in the same case pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-V, Kozhikode for quashing the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The common case of both the petitioners is that first respondent filed a private complaint against five accused persons alleging commission of the offences under Sections 143, 144, 149, 447 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The case of the complainant in the complaint was that the accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and criminally trespassed into the property of his wife and widened the existing road by causing damage to the property. After taking evidence, the court below had taken cognizance of the case as against all the accused persons originally as CC No.283/2013 for the offences under Sections 143, 144, 149, 447 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code....
M/s. Hindustan Hardware Stores represented by its Managing Partner and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-2015
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J. 1. Dismissal of the Arbitration O.P., pursuant to dismissal of the application to condone the delay in filing the same, made the appellants to approach this Court by way of this appeal. The first appellant partnership firm, joining hands with two other persons, who were partners , had approached the Court below by filing an O.P. (Arbitration). During the pendency of the proceedings, the second petitioner bid farewell to this world, pursuant to which, the legal heirs were impleaded as additional petitioners, who in turn are shown as the appellants 3 and 4 herein. 2. The dispute is mainly with regard to the return of money, to the extent the deceased partner was having interest in the firm. Pursuant to the demise of the concerned partner, the due amount was demanded by the respondents herein, which was refused to be acted upon. After several rounds of negotiations, on finding that there was no other alternative, the respondents approached the District Court, Er...
Saji Mathew Vs. Bindu and Another
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-01-2015
1. This is an application filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order passed by the Family Court, Muvattupuzha, in C.M.P.No.33/2015 in M.C.No.94/2014 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner and first respondent are husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized on 16.05.2005 and a son was born to them in that wedlock. Later their marital relationship has been irrecoverably broken down and they were living separately and she was leading an adulterous life with one Kamaruddeen. 2nd respondent is the child born on 22.01.2013 to the first respondent in the said Kamaruddeen. Petitioner filed application for divorce on the ground of adultery and also another petition for declaring the paternity of the 2nd respondent and another petition for getting the custody of the son, who is admittedly born to him in that wedlock. It is thereafter that the first respondent filed a petition for getting maintenance for her and her ...
The Managing Director, State Bank of Travancore and Another Vs. P.V. K ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-01-2015
Shaffique, J. This appeal has been filed by respondents in O.P.No. 16856 of 2000 challenging the judgment dated 24.06.2015 by which the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents herein, who hereinafter is referred to as the petitioner. 2. The writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P6 order and seeking for a direction to respondents/appellants to grant the benefits provided under Clause 20.8 of the 'First Bipartite Settlement' and consequent service benefits including pensionary benefits to the petitioner. The short facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that the petitioner was initially appointed in the State Bank of Travancore as a temporary employee and he was regularised in service as per Ext.P4 order dated 04.09.1965 with effect from 20.09.1965. He was on probation for a period of six months and thereafter he was appointed to the post of regular Watchman on 20.03.1966. 3. In the mean time, the first Bipartite Settlement was executed bet...
Indian Potash Ltd., represented by its Regional Manager K. Shankar Vs. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-01-2015
1. The issue involved in all these writ petitions is whether amounts received by the petitioners by way of subsidy from the Central Government on the sale of fertilizers effected by them, can be included in the taxable turnover on which they have to discharge their tax liability under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act [hereinafter referred to as the 'KVAT Act']. 2. The petitioners in these writ petitions comprise of both manufacturers and importers of fertilizers, who sell the fertilizers so manufactured/imported by them to consumers within the State. In respect of those fertilizers as are notified under the Fertilizer Control Order, the Central Government fixes the MRP at which the fertilizers can be sold by the petitioners and the petitioners cannot charge a price in excess of the price so fixed by the Central Government when they sell the said fertilizers. To compensate the petitioners for the loss suffered by them, consequent to the requirement of selling the fertilizers only at the p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »