Kerala Court January 2016 Judgments
P.T. Sunil Kumar Vs. Excise Commissioner and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-29-2016
1. The issue that falls for consideration in this writ petition is whether the subsequent events or developments after the allotment of the privilege to vend toddy could be taken into account to determine retroactively the rights of the participants in the auction. 2. To put the issue in perspective, we may have to narrate the facts keeping the fifth respondent as the protagonist. 3. The fifth respondent was the licencee for the toddy shops of Group No.I in Kunnamangalam till 31.03.2014. While the licence was subsisting, the Excise officials periodically drew samples and sent them for chemical analysis. In two instances, the samples were tested adverse. 4. In elaboration, on 20.12.2012, the Department received Exhibit R5(d) chemical analysis of A-Sample taken from one of the shops of the fifth respondent. Consequently, on 20.02.2013, the authorities registered a crime against the fifth respondent for offences under Sections 57(a) and 56(b) of the Abkari Act ('the Act' for brevity). As ...
Tag this Judgment!Simi Salim and Another Vs. M/s. Tip Top Furniture Industries, represen ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-29-2016
1. During the Christmas holidays in 2007 respondents 1 to 3 filed a plaint in the court of district judge, Thiruvananthapuram, which has been empowered to entertain it by section 19(1) of the Kerala Civil Courts Act. The court took it on its file as I.A.No.3636 of 2007. The plaint showed that the court having jurisdiction to entertain the suit was sub court at Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioners in this O.P, who are defendants 1 and 2, entered appearance and filed Ext P2 'written statement'. They challenged the territorial jurisdiction of sub court at Thiruvananthapuram to entertain the suit as the plaint schedule properties are situated within the local limits of sub court at Attingal. They also raised a contention that as the valuation shown in the plaint was only Rs.25,000/- Munsiff court alone had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The district court returned the plaint with the endorsement ''returned for want of jurisdiction''. Along with the plaint the 'written statement' filed ...
Tag this Judgment!P.S. Jibin Vs. The Excise Commissioner and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-29-2016
1. The petitioner, a successful bidder in the auction of the privilege to vend toddy in Shop Nos.12 to 17 of Group No.III for the abkari year 2014-2017, is aggrieved by the subsequent cancellation of the provisional allotment. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the fourth respondent was the licencee of the shops in question for the abkari year 2013-14. As things turned out, on 24.08.2013, a squad of the Excise Department ('the Department') raided a nearby building in the fourth respondent's possession and found 1,150 litres of toddy, which was said to be not fit for human consumption. As a result, they registered Crime No. 72/2013 for an abkari offence under Section 55(a)(i) of the Abkari Act, Exhibit P1 being the crime and occurrence report. 3. Aggrieved, the fourth respondent challenged Exhibit P1 in Crl.M.C.No.4299/2013 invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure and obtained Exhibit P2 stay of all further proceedings. 4. At any rate...
Tag this Judgment!Thomaskutty Vs. The Commissioner of Excise and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-29-2016
1. The petitioner is a provisional grantee of the privilege to vend toddy in the toddy shops in Group No.XXI, Kuttanad Range of Alappuzha Division. On the other hand, the fourth respondent was a licencee of the privilege for the year 2013-14 for the same shops. In the oscillation of adjudication at the behest of both the petitioner and the fourth respondent; after going through tumultuous twists and turns, the matter finally resulted in Exhibit P8 order issued by the Commissioner of Excise. He has upheld the fourth respondent's right and declined to confirm the provisional grant in petitioner's favour. 2. The facts in brief are that on 11.07.2013, while the fourth respondent was the licencee of the shops mentioned above, the Sub Inspector of Police, Pulinkunnu Police Station, inspected one of the shops (T.S.No.76) belonging to the petitioner. He found two persons, allegedly the Manager and a Salesman, selling Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) in the store room. Having arrested those tw...
Tag this Judgment!K. Vijayakumar Vs. State of Kerala Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent o ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-29-2016
K. Ramakrishnan, J. 1. The sole accused in C.C.Nos.55/2000, 58/2000, 59/2000, 60/2000, 61/2000 and 62/2000 is the appellant in the above cases. The accused was charge sheeted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Alappuzha in V.C.No.7/1996 of VACB, Alappuzha alleging offences under sections 13(1)(c) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as 'the P.C. Act') and sections 468, 471 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell was that the accused in the above cases was working as Junior Employment Officer, District Employment Exchange, Alappuzha during the period from 24.11.1989 to 24.6.1991 and during that period, he had misappropriated an amount of Rs.42,320/- by forging 23 vouchers showing the registration numbers and names of some persons, who were said to have registered under the Unemployment Assistance Scheme entrusted to him on 27.11.1990, 30.11.1990, 22.12.1...
Tag this Judgment!Sakthivel Vs. Marayor Service Co-Opperative Bank Ltd. and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-29-2016
1. The petitioner is said to be the owner of an immovable property to an extent of 2.5 cents having purchased the same through Exhibit P1 sale deed from none other than his father, the additional eighth respondent. In this writ petition, the petitioner assails the first respondent Bank's efforts to bring the petitioner's property to sale for the realisation of the amounts owed by the additional eighth respondent, the erstwhile owner. 2. As the record reveals, the additional eighth respondent, while working as an Attendar in the respondent Bank, faced a serious charge of misappropriation; it has led to his dismissal from service. For the recovery of the misappropriated amount, the respondent Bank filed A.R.C. No.968/1999 and obtained an award dated 10.12.2003 against the additional eighth respondent. At the inception, the respondent Bank also had the property attached through Exhibit R1(f) order dated 19.01.2000 passed by the Joint Registrar. 3. On the strength of the award obtained by ...
Tag this Judgment!V.J. Michael and Others Vs. State of Kerala, rep. by Secretary to Gove ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-28-2016
Shaffique, J. 1. This writ petition is filed as a Public Interest Litigation. Petitioners claim to be residents of a Fishermen's Village. Their grievance is with reference to a primary school which is being run under the name and style "Little Flower English Medium Play School", which is functioning at Palluruthy in Ernakulam District. According to the petitioners, the school was inaugurated in the year 2009 and is fully funded by an Irish Lady Mrs.Mary Mc Cormack. Several students belonging to backward community are studying in the school. The school follows Central Board of Secondary Education syllabus. It is stated that the 6th respondent Trust, viz., Assisi Charitable Trust, was conducting the school and the Trust was managed by the 7th respondent. It is alleged that though the 7th respondent claims to be a priest, a crime came to be registered against him as Crime No.891/2010 on the basis of certain allegations raised by the victims of an orphanage. He was arrested and is undergoi...
Tag this Judgment!C.S. Sajith Vs. Regional Transport Authority, Represented by its Secre ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-28-2016
Shaffique, J. 1. These appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 26/6/2015 in WP(C) Nos. 15360 and 16032/15. 2. The short facts involved in these writ petitions would disclose that the appellant is the permit holder in respect of a vehicle bearing Regn.No.KL-08 W 9300 conducting service on the circular route Palakkad-Palakkad, the permit being valid till 22/12/2015. He is also the registered owner of the vehicle. The vehicle was purchased on hire purchase basis from M/s.Raja Murugan Finance, the petitioner in WP(C) No. 16032/2015, who is hereinafter referred to as the financier. Necessary endorsement in that regard was also made. 3. The appellant submitted an application before the Secretary, RTA on 12/2/2015 for replacement of the vehicle. The Secretary, RTA called upon the financier to give a no objection certificate (NOC) for enabling the appellant to replace the vehicle with another vehicle in the regular permit issued in his favour. The financier submitted an objection on 16/...
Tag this Judgment!Velayudhan Nair Vs. M/s. Young Men's Christian Association
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-28-2016
K. Ramakrishnan, J. 1. Tenants in R.C.(OP)No.29 of 2010, R.C.(OP)No.34 of 2010, R.C. (OP)No.31 of 2010, R.C.(OP)No.30 of 2010 and R.C.(OP)No.33 of 2010 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kollam, are the revision petitioners herein. Though independent rent control petitions have been filed by the landlord to evict the tenants in possession of different rooms in the same building, it is for a common cause of starting an internet cafe, shifting their mess to establish health club and gymnasium, public library cum reading room, reception cum launge etc., and the claim was made under Section 11(7) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The common allegation in all these cases was that the landlord is a religious charitable institution registered under the Travancore Cochin Literarary Scientific and Charitable Societies Act, 1955 and affiliated to National Council of YMCA's. The society formed principally for noble objects as its obje...
Tag this Judgment!Vineethan Vs. Fathima and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-27-2016
K. Ramakrishnan, J. 1. The tenant in R.C.P.No.18 of 2012 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Koyilandy is the revision petitioner herein. The original landlady filed R.C.P.No.18 of 2012 seeking eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule building on the ground of arrears of rent, bonafide need for her grandson and cessation of occupation of the building by the tenant under section 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as the Act for short. During the pendency of the petition, the landlady died and supplemental petitioners 2 to 4 were impleaded as her legal heirs. It is alleged in the petition that the original landlady leased out the building to the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.300/- as per a registered kychit dated 27.6.2003. He did not pay rent. So she filed R.C.P.No.7 of 2004 and subsequently the same was settled between the parties and arrears of rent upto 27.2.2004 was paid. Thereafter the rent w...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »