Kerala Court September 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.
N. Satheesh Kumar and Others Vs. Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam r ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-29-2015
1. It is better to produce less number of well trained law degree holders than to produce a large number of ill-trained or untrained law degree holders Observed Honourable Mr.Justice J.Chelameswar while speaking for the Bench in C.M.Balaraman v. Registrar, Osmania University, Hyderabad and others [AIR 1998 Andhra Pradesh 105]. The present writ petition has been filed by the law students complaining of appalling standards in imparting training in the College despite the prescriptions of the Bar Council of India. 2. The petitioners are the students of the five years LLB Course and three years LLB Course of the Government Law College, Ernakulam functioning under the Mahatma Gandhi University. Their common complaint is that the Semester examinations of the University are often scheduled without being preceded by sufficient number of teaching hours. It is asserted that there was only 128 hours of study in the X Semester of the five years Course and 135 hours of study in the VI Semester of ...
Varghese Kocheth Vs. The State of Kerala, represented by Public Prosec ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-28-2015
1. The petitioner is the 5th accused in Crime No.171/2004 of the Pathanamthitta Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code. On investigation, a final report was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 307 and 394 IPC. It seems that the role of the petitioner is only limited to the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC, read with other offences. 2. A1, A4 and the petitioner were absconding. The trial against A2 and A3 alone was proceeded with as S.C.No.319/2007 and the same has ended in an acquittal through Annexure-C judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Court-II Pathanamthitta. The case against the petitioner is presently pending as S.C.No.703/2012. 3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that no purpose would be served in proceeding with the trial in S.C.No.703/12 and in fact the personal appearance of the petitioner itself is not required. It seems that the court below has chosen to...
K.A. Ipekutty Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by the Secretary to Gov ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-28-2015
1. The petitioner, a Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank, assails Ext.P7 order of the first respondent, the Government. In elaboration, it can be said that Ext.P7 order of the Government directs the petitioner Bank to extend the benefit of stepping up of pay to the third respondent with retroactive effect on a par with another employee who is, in fact, junior to the third respondent. The challenge is essentially on the ground that Ext.P7 order is ultra vires of the Government. The third respondent, in turn, filed W.P.(C) No. 14753 of 2015 seeking enforcement of Ext.P7 order of the Government. 2. Since both the writ petitions raise the same question of law and fact involving the same parties, this Court has decided to dispose of both 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. 19579 of 2015 for the narrative purpose. 3. On 10.10.2003, one Mr. Balagopalan, ju...
The Kerala State Electricity Board represented by its Secretary, Thiru ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-28-2015
Shaffique, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the respondents in WP(C) No.20386/2014 challenging judgment dated 15/1/2015 by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by setting aside Exts.P5 and P6. 2. The respondent herein, who is hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, filed the writ petition challenging Exts.P5 and P6 to the extent of altering his seniority in the post of Overseer and directing refixation of his salary and further directing recovery of excess pay allegedly drawn by the petitioner. 3. The short facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that the petitioner entered service in the Kerala State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) as Lineman on 15/12/1987. He was granted leave without allowance as per order dated 19/3/1988. He availed of leave from 22/3/1988. The leave was subsequently extended for three years from 22/3/1991 and for another spell of three years w.e.f. 22/3/1994. He rejoined duty on 10/1/1997. His probation was d...
V.K. Venkitachalam Vs. State of Kerala, represented by its Principal S ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-28-2015
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. This writ petition is filed as a Public Interest Litigation seeking a direction commanding the 2nd and 3rd respondents to take immediate action against the 1st respondent and its officials for violating the provisions of the Performing Animals (Registration) Rules, 2001 in the event of conducting a Gajamela. 2. Counter affidavit has been filed by 1st and 2nd respondents to the writ petition. Brief facts of the case emerge from the pleadings of the parties are: The petitioner, claiming concern for the protection of elephants and their well-being, has filed this Public Interest Litigation for implementation of the Performing Animals (Registration) Rules, 2001(hereinafter referred to as '2001 Rules') which has been framed under Section 38(1) and (2) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as '1960 Act'). 3. Petitioner's case in the writ petition is that large number of captive animals are found in Kerala and the possessors of these...
George.P. Cherukoth Vs. Mariyumma and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-28-2015
1. The revision petitioner, who is the plaintiff/appellant in A.S. No.25 of 2010 of Sub Court, Perumbavoor, is aggrieved by dismissal of I.A.No.1178 of 2011, by which he sought review of the judgment and decree of the appellate court. 2. The plaintiff, who was the owner of an item of property, contented that the 1st defendant who was the owner of western property, indiscriminately and unscientifically excavated his property and thereby caused serious threat of loss of lateral support to plaintiff's property from the defendants property. Mandatory and prohibitory injunctions were sought to restore the lateral support and to prohibit the defendant from removing soil from plaint 'B' schedule property, without leaving at least 15 ft. width from the boundary. The trial court, refused to grant mandatory injunction, but granted a relief of prohibitory injunction. It was carried in appeal, at the instance of the plaintiff. The lower appellate court substantially allowed the appeal. This was ch...
Nanmanda Rural Co-Operative Housing Society Limited and Another Vs. K. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-28-2015
1. The first petitioner is a Co-Operative Society and the second petitioner, its President. In this writ petition, they impugned Ext.P1 award of the Co-Operative Arbitration Court; Ext.P4 judgment of the second respondent, the Co-Operative Tribunal; and also Ext.P6 order in review passed by the second respondent. 2. The facts in brief are that the first petitioner society, initially, initiated disciplinary proceedings against the first respondent, its erstwhile Secretary. In the very beginning, the first respondent was said to have objected to the appointment of a person as the Enquiry Officer on the ground that he had been rendering legal advice to the respondent society. Though the Enquiry Officer referred the issue to the Managing Committee of the Society; it, nonetheless, directed the Enquiry Officer to go ahead with the enquiry. 3. Since the first respondent did not participate in the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer rendered ex parte findings and submitted the report to the Managing ...
C.G. Jamaludheen Vs. The Station House Officer, Minicoy Police Station ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-28-2015
1. Petitioner is the accused in CC No.13/2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Androth, which has arisen from Crime No.6/2006 of Minicoy Police Station. Originally, the crime was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 IPC. Later, the rider of the motor bike died while undergoing treatment at the hospital in connection with the accident in question and consequently, the offence under Section 304A IPC is also incorporated. 2. According to the petitioner, he was only a cyclist, who was pedalling a bicycle, which allegedly hit on the motor bike and, therefore, he can only be termed as a pedestrian on the road. The further argument is that as the cycle was not automatically propelled, offences under Sections 279, 338 and 304A IPC will not lie. The allegation against the petitioner is that all of a sudden, he came by pedalling a bicycle from the pocket road to the main road and caused the same to hit on the motor bike that was being ridden by the dec...
Valsalan P.D. @ Babu and Another Vs. State of Kerala represented by Th ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-28-2015
1. Petitioners are A2 and A3 in S.C.No.41/2011 of the Additional Sessions Court-III, Kasaragod registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304, 308 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. 2. Originally, there was only one accused in the crime. On investigation, a final report was filed. The learned Magistrate has chosen to commit the case to the Court of Sessions. On getting the case committed, the same was made over to the Additional Sessions Court for trial and disposal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, through Annexure A5 order has directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kanhangad to conduct a further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. The said order was passed suo motu and not on any application by the investigating officer. The same is under challenge. 3. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Following the decision in Hemant Dha...
Gracy Thomas Vs. State of Kerala, represented by The Govt. Pleader/Pub ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-28-2015
1. The husband of the petitioner is the accused in S.C.No.176/2004 of the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 55(a) and 8 (1) and (2) of the Abkari Act. 2. According to the petitioner, the accused is suffering from 80% disability and has become paralytic. It is also the case of the petitioner that the accused cannot understand any proceedings in court and is incapable of defending the case. It has been pointed out that he suffers from dementia and impaired cognition. The consultant physician of the General Hospital, Neyyattinkara has reported that the petitioner suffers from dementia and impaired cognition with 50% neurological disability. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that last time the accused was taken to the court by an ambulance and immediately he was enlarged on bail also. Of course, for framing charges, the presence of the accused is required. For all other postings of the case, the court below shall ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »