Kerala Court January 2016 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.
R. Zeena, Chief Promoter, M/s. Travancore Multi State Co-Operative Cre ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-08-2016
1. The petitioner, a promotee of a proposed Multi-State Co-operative Society, assails Exhibit P5 communication of the respondent on the grounds that she cannot be compelled to obtain a No-Objection Certificate from the Registrar of Co-operative Societies of the State concerned. 2. The facts in brief are that when the petitioner submitted her application under Section 7 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, to the respondent for the registration of a Society, the respondent through Exhibit P3 required the petitioner to comply with certain objections, which include the production of a No-objection Certificate and modification of bye-laws. 3. In the course of time, the petitioner appeared before the respondent in person and presented the documents required by the respondent. She has, nevertheless, did not produce any No-Objection Certificate from the Registrar of Co-operative Societies of the State of Kerala. 4. Under those circumstances, the respondent, making a specific r...
The Kasaragod District Co-Operative Bank Ltd. and Another Vs. K.A. Rad ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-08-2016
Ashok Bhushan, CJ. 1. Heard both the sides. This writ appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 09.10.2015 in W.P.(C) No. 26585 of 2005. 2. The first respondent to the writ petition is in appeal challenging the judgment of learned Single Judge by which judgment the learned Single Judge has set aside Exts.P4, P9 and P11. The brief facts for deciding the appeal are as follows: The petitioner joined the Bank as a Steno-cum- Typist and later her services were regularised with effect from 13.05.1990. Petitioner made an application for giving her grade promotion. An order was passed on 31.01.1998 giving grade promotion to the petitioner with retrospective effect from 13.05.1990. Petitioner's pay was fixed and accordingly payment was made. While so, the Bank has issued memo dated 01.10.2004 directing the petitioner to refund an amount of Rs.33,570/-. Proceedings dated 29.03.2005 was issued by the General Manager directing for recovery of the amount within one month. The Revision Petiti...
Joby Thomas Vs. The Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Kottaya ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-08-2016
1. In response to Exhibit P1 notification issued by the second respondent Bank to fill up the posts of Attendar and Salesman, the petitioner applied for the post of Attendar. Having faced the written test and interview, as is evident from Exhibits P2 and P3, the petitioner was awaiting the results. At that juncture, the first respondent issued Exhibit P4 proceedings cancelling the entire selection. Assailing Exhibit P4, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 2. Ms.Reshma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, representing Mr.Swathi Kumar, the learned counsel on record, has submitted that the first respondent has no jurisdiction to issue Exhibit P4 order. In elaboration, she has submitted that since the dispute is concerning the recruitment into a Co-operative Bank, the competent authority to adjudicate the disputes, if any, is the Cooperative Arbitration Court under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. She has also submitted that though Exhibit P1 notific...
Jaison Vs. State of Kerala, rep. by Public Prosecutor
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-08-2016
V. Raja Vijayaraghavan, J. 1. The life of Gopakumar, a 23 year old canteen supervisor working at the canteen attached to the Westfort Hi-Tech Hospital at Thrissur, was snuffed out at 8.p.m on 12.01.2003. The appellant, who was working as a supplier in the same canteen, was charged for having committed the crime. He was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur, (Fast Track Court - No.II - Ad hoc) for having committed offence punishable u/s 302 of IPC and as per judgment dated 10.07.2009, was found guilty and was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with a default clause. The above finding of guilt, conviction and sentence is challenged in this appeal. 2. A brief resume of the prosecution case is as follows :- Deceased Gopakumar and the appellant were working in the canteen attached to the Westfort Hi-Tech Hospital, Ponkunnam Trissur. While the deceased was working as a supervisor, the appellant was the waiter. Their relationshi...
A.B. Ananthapadmanabhan Nair and Another Vs. The District Collector an ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-07-2016
1. The petitioners, who are husband and wife, purchased 13.510 cents of land in S.No.390/5A/2 in Marady Village, Muvattupuzha Taluk by separate sale deeds. On the said piece of land, they constructed a building with a ground floor and a first floor. It is their case that the ground floor belongs to the 1st petitioner husband, and the first floor belongs to the 2nd petitioner wife. By Ext.P5 order dated 25.07.2012, the 3rd respondent assessing authority under the Kerala Building Tax Act, assessed both the floors as a single unit for the purposes of levy of building tax. The petitioners therefore preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The said appeal was dismissed by Ext.P7 order dated 14.01.2013, where the appellate authority relied on the fact that an internal staircase that existed in building was the sole means by which access could be obtained to the first floor of the building, as also the ground floor of the building and hence, he was of the view that the building was...
Vasudevan Vs. Devakay and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-07-2016
1. The defeated first defendant in a suit for partition is the appellant. 2. The suit property belonged to one Kalavan. The plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 are the children of Kalavan. Defendants 4 and 5 are the children of the deceased daughter of Kalavan. The property sought to be partitioned was a property purchased by Kalavan in the year 1920. According to the plaintiff, Kalavan died intestate after the Hindu Succession Act and as such, on his death, the suit property devolved on the plaintiff and defendants and that she is entitled to 1/5 share over the same. The first defendant resisted the suit, while defendants 2 to 5 supported the plaintiff. According to the first defendant, Kalavan died on 14.4.1946, prior to the Hindu Succession Act and as such, since the parties were governed by Hindu Mitakshara Law, the suit property devolved exclusively on him, being the only son of Kalavan. The trial court accepted the case of the first defendant and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff too...
M.V. Vineetha Vs. The Kerala Public Service Commission, Pattam, Repres ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-07-2016
1. Exhibit P4 is the recruitment notification issued by the first respondent on behalf of the District Co-operative Bank inviting applications for the post of Public Relations Officer. The prescribed qualifications are (a) the Bachelor's/Master's Degree in Public Relations/Journalism from a recognised University with not less than 50% marks or (b) a Master's Degree in English/Malayalam Literature from a recognised University with not less than 50% and Post-Graduate Diploma in Public Relations/Journalism from a recognised University/Institute. The notification also prescribes, apart from the basic qualification, an experience of minimum three years in this field . Presumably, this field may mean Public Relations/Journalism. 2. In response to Exhibit P4 notification, the petitioner applied for the said post. Having received the petitioner's application, the second respondent issued Exhibit P5 communication requiring her to produce for verification the qualification and experience certifi...
K. Sakeer Hussain and Another Vs. State of Kerala, represented by the ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-07-2016
1. The petitioner, who is an authorised dealer of Hyundai Motor Cars, is aggrieved by Exts.P3 and P4 orders, whereby the claim for exemption from building tax preferred by the petitioner has been rejected by the 1st respondent, and the buildings put up by the petitioner subjected to tax under the Kerala Building Tax Act. It is the case of the petitioner that, in the premises owned by it, there are two buildings, one of which is used as a show room for the display and sale of vehicles and the other, is used as a workshop/factory for repairing and servicing of vehicles that are sold by Hyundai Motors. Ext.P3 assessment order, as also Ext.P4 order of the 1st respondent that denies the petitioner the benefit of exemption under Section 3 of the Kerala Building Tax Act, proceed on the assumption that both the buildings constitute a single unit where only a small portion of 548.34 sq.mtrs. is used as the show room and an area of 1781.02 sq.mtr. is used as a workshop. It is the case of the pet...
Kerala Public Service Commission, Represented by Its Secretary and Ano ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-06-2016
Anu Sivaraman, J. 1. The common question which arises for consideration in these appeals is with regard to the reservation of vacancies for appointment of physically handicapped persons in identified posts in public sector undertakings. W.A.No.362 of 2015 2. This appeal is filed by the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) against the judgment dated 20.10.2014 in W.P.No.27234 of 2011. The petitioner in the writ petition, who is the first respondent herein, was a candidate for selection to the post of Assistant Grade II/Clerk/Junior Clerk/LDC/Cashier in various State Government owned Companies/Boards/ Corporations, pursuant to a notification dated 28.3.2007. He is an orthopaedically handicapped person. The writ petitioner, who had all the requisite qualifications, was an applicant in the said selection. A ranked list was published by the KPSC on 25.8.2009. Thereafter, it is submitted that, by an addendum notification to the above ranked list, a supplementary list of persons included i...
Kanhangad Municipality represented by its Secretary Vs. Amina and Anot ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-06-2016
1. The first defendant in a suit for injunction, both prohibitory as well as mandatory, is the appellant. 2. The plaint A schedule property belongs to the plaintiff and her children namely Faizal, Haris, Nazeer and Saleem. The plaint B schedule property is a portion of the plaint A schedule property. The first defendant is the Municipality within which the plaint schedule properties are situated. The second defendant is a contractor of the first defendant. The case of the plaintiff is that as directed by the first defendant, the second defendant has trespassed into a portion of the plaint A schedule property and formed a road through the same. The portion of the plaint A schedule property through which the road was formed is shown in the plaint as the plaint B schedule property. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore the plaint B schedule property to its original position. A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »