Kerala Court January 2016 Judgments
Robul Saikh @ Kalu Saikh Vs. The State of Kerala, represented by The C ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-18-2016
1. The present request of the petitioner is to extend the benefit under the first proviso to Section 436(1) Cr.P.C. to him by treating him as an indigent person for the purpose of the proviso. 2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.36 of 2015 of the Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Special Squad, Ernakulam, registered for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. As he was found in possession of a small quantity of ganja, the petitioner was placed under arrest on 06.12.2015. Still, he is undergoing detention. 3. The crux of the matter is whether the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) is a bailable offence or not? Going by the caption of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, at the first blush, it may appear that all the offences under the N.D.P.S. Act are non bailable and cognizable. At the same time, Section 37(1)(a) says that every offence punishable under that Act shall be cognizable. There, the legislature has not incorp...
Tag this Judgment!Thomas Mathew and Another Vs. State of Kerala represented by Secretary ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-18-2016
1. W.P(C). Nos.31493 of 2015, 31504 of 2015 and 1191 of 2016 all relate to the same issue and the resolution of the same would effectively dispose of WP(C) No.28256 of 2015. Hence, the three writ petitions are first considered and from among them, the documents are referred to from WP(C) No.31504 of 2015 and if otherwise, the writ petitions are specifically mentioned. 2. The entire controversy revolves around the issue of deciding the seniority of those persons, regularized on 18.03.1996 as per Ext.P1; whether the same has to be on the basis of the date of birth or the date of entry into service as a daily waged employee. All the petitioners herein, were regularized on 16.03.1996 as per Ext.P1 along with others, totaling 30 in different designations. The issue is confined to the 22 out of the 24 regularized as Assistants, by Ext.P1 and inter se seniority between them. 3. On the regularization in 1996, the 24 Assistants were shown serially in a list appended to Ext:P-1 showing their edu...
Tag this Judgment!Haji A. Abdul Rashid and Others Vs. The Special Tahsildar (L.A. Genera ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-18-2016
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 14.02.2008 in W.P(C) No.31996 of 2006 by which judgment the Writ Petition filed by the petitioners has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the Writ Appeal are: For the purpose of constructing a new Railway Line from Thrissur to Guruvayoor, land acquisition proceedings were initiated. The Special Land Acquisition Officer gave award dated 21.12.1990, 29.12.1990 and 20.01.1991 in respect of the petitioners' land. Some of the land owners covered by the very same Notification made application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act ) being L.A.R. No.2 of 1994 and others. The Sub Court, Thrissur by judgment and order dated 31.10.2001 enhanced the compensation payable to them as Rs.51,850/- per Are. Petitioners filed applications under Section 28A for redetermination of the compensation on the basis of the judgment dated 31.10.2001 in L.A.R. No.2 of 1994, on 20.12.2002. A...
Tag this Judgment!S. Sajikumar and Others Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board, represente ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-18-2016
1. The petitioners in the writ petitions are Office Attendants, who challenged the orders of the Board, giving an edge to the persons appointed under the sports quota for promotion to the cadre of Junior Assistants/Cashier by Ext.P4, which was affirmed by the Government in Ext.P6. The promotion order prepared of those sports persons at Ext.P5 is also assailed. The documents are referred to from W.P.(C) 20916 of 2005. The controversy revolves around whether the Board could have made the amendments to the regulations providing an advantage to the sports persons for promotion to the cadre of Junior Assistants/Cashier without consultation with the Kerala Public Service Commission [for brevity, KPSC]. 2. The qualification and method of appointment, with respect to recruitment and promotion in the Board, is produced at Ext.P1, which is made in consultation with the KPSC. The Lower Grade employees were allowed to be promoted to the post of Lower Division Clerk with the qualifications prescrib...
Tag this Judgment!P.V. Kurian Vs. Sunny John
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-18-2016
K. Ramakrishnan, J. 1. R.C.R.No.237/2014 was filed by the tenant while R.C.R.No.283/2014 was filed by the landlord in R.C.P.No.55 of 2010 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kollam. For the purpose of convenience, we are referring the status of the parties as 'landlord' and 'tenant' in these revisions. 2. The landlord filed the application for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent, bonafide need and subsequent acquisition of building by the tenant under Section 11 (2)(b), 11(3) and 11 (4)(iii) of the Kerala Building Lease and Rent Control Act (hereinafter called the Act ). The case of the landlord was that the petition schedule building belongs to him and it was let out to the respondent by their mother on a rent of Rs.950/- and thereafter it was enhanced to Rs.1,550/- per month. The tenant paid rent up to August 2008 and thereafter kept the rent in arrears. The mother of the petitioner died and the petitioner and his sisters became the legal heirs of their mother and became the...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-Tax Kochi and Others Vs. Keerthi Agro Mills ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-17-2016
A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. 1. These unnumbered Income Tax Appeals have been placed before us pursuant to a reference order dated 25.6.2015 in Unnumbered Income Tax Appeal of 2015 [ZITA No.359/2015]. In the said reference order, the reference court doubted the correctness of an order dated 10.8.2011 passed by this Court in ZITA No.460/2011, wherein, it was observed as follows: Registry has issued a query as to the court fee payable under Schedule II 3C of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act in respect of the Income Tax Appeal filed by the department against the respondent-assessee pertaining to assessment for the year 2003-2004. The case of the appellant- department is that they have filed another appeal I.T.A. No.647/2009 against the very same respondent-assessee pertaining to the very same assessment wherein they have paid maximum court fee of Rs.10,000/-. That appeal is stated to have been already disposed of by this court. This is another appeal filed against the order of the ...
Tag this Judgment!P.P. Govindan Vs. The Joint Registrar of Co-Op. Societies (General) an ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-15-2016
1. Co-operative Societies are supposed to showcase the spirit of co-operation among the people, even at the grassroots, to come together and organize themselves for mutual benefit or the common good. Unfortunately, they have become miniature training grounds for deception, simulation, and abuse of power at least, this case demonstrates thus. 2. For the eleven seats in the Managing Committee, the Society had intended to hold elections as the term of the then Managing Committee was coming to an end soon. Accordingly, the Committee at the helm of the affairs passed a resolution proposing to hold an election on 30.06.2015. Only eleven nominations were filed obviating any contest. 3. During the scrutiny of nominations, among eleven persons, one person was found disqualified. There could have been election or confirmation of the remaining ten candidates in the absence of any contest, but that was not to be. The moment one of the persons was found to have been disqualified, all the rest of th...
Tag this Judgment!T.K. Adhithya Varma Raja Vs. Irinjalakuda Co-Operative Agricultural an ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-15-2016
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. This writ appeal has been filed by the petitioner against judgment and order dated 25.11.2015 in W.P.(C) No. 15917 of 2015 by which judgment the writ petition has been dismissed. Brief facts giving rise to this writ appeal are: The 1st respondent Irinjalakuda Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. (for brief Bank) had been originally registered with an area of operation comprised of Mukundapuram and Kodungalloor Taluk. By Act 1 of 2000 Section 2(oc) was inserted in Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which defines the Primary Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank to be Societies having its area of operation confined to 'a Taluk'. Consequently, the 1st respondent Bank was bifurcated into two namely the Irinjalakuda Bank and Kodungalloor Bank. The State Government formed 12 Taluks in the year 2013 among which one of the newly formed Taluk was Chalakkudy Taluk, by bifurcating the area of Mukundapuram...
Tag this Judgment!K.K. Thasleem Vs. State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-15-2016
K.T. Sankaran, J. 1. Terrorism is one of the main threats to the safety and security of India and the people of India. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (Act 37 of 1967) was enacted to provide for the more effective prevention of certain unlawful activities of individuals and associations and for dealing with terrorist activities and for matters connected therewith. The Act was amended in 2004 and the words and for dealing with terrorist activities were inserted in the preamble. The Act was amended in 2008 and 2013 as well. In order to effectively combat terrorism, certain stringent provisions have been incorporated in the Act. One among these provisions is subsection (5) of Section 43-D of the Act, which provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, no person accused of an offence punishable under Chapters IV and VI of the Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an o...
Tag this Judgment!C. Madhu Office Attendant The Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd., ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-15-2016
1. The petitioner, an employee of the third respondent Company, has a grievance that the Government has issued Exhibit P3 directive to the third respondent to extend financial assistance to the fifth respondent, a Society, though the Government has no such power. 2. The facts in brief are that the fifth respondent is a Co-operative Society having the employees of the third respondent Company as its members; it also functions from the administrative building of the third respondent. With a huge fund basis, the fifth respondent Society has also collected deposits from its members, apart from extending the loans. 3. In the course of time, a couple of employees of the fifth respondent Society, in connivance with certain members of the managing committee, all of them being the employees of the third respondent, have indulged in huge misappropriation of funds running into about thirty one crore rupees, apart from subjecting the Society to maladministration. 4. As the fifth respondent Society...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »