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.
Jerome Christudas Vs. State of Kerala Represented by its Secretary to ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-06-2016
Seemingly in conflict are the legislative will and the executive will: which one should prevail? The legislative will. It needs no cogitation. 2. In its familiar fealty to the Rule of Law and its constitutional obligation to give effect to the legislative will the statutory scheme this Court has twice rendered judgments: directing the authorities to hold elections to a co-operative society within a strict time frame. Nevertheless, twice the directions were ignored. 3. The Court is, yet again, constrained to give directions for the third time. It, however, has no illusion that it will not be ignored or flouted for the third time, too. The Court's anxiety and apprehension are well founded for the learned Government Pleader has represented that it is neither for the Court nor the Election Commission to fix the date of election it is for the administrative committee. In support of his submissions, the learned Government Pleader has placed reliance on a judgment of the learned Division Benc...
State of Kerala, represented by Joint Commissioner (Law) Vs. M/s. M.R. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-06-2016
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. These revisions under Section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and original petitions stand remitted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as per the remand order dated 28.4.2011 in Civil Appeal No.3758 of 2011 and connections. 2. The basic substratum of these litigations relates to the interpretation and construction of SRO.No.641/81 and SRO.No.1516/90 issued by the Government of Kerala in exercise of powers conferred under Section 10 of the KGST Act. As per SRO.No.641/81 which is deemed to have come into force on 1.4.1981, reduced rate of tax was prescribed on the purchase of rubber by manufacturers of finished rubber projects within the State for use of such rubber by such manufacturers in the manufacture of finished rubber products within the State. Through SRO.No.1516/90, the term 'finished rubber products' occurring in SRO.No.641/81 was sought to be explained by the introduction of an Explanation which is deemed to have come into for...
Kanhangad Municipality, represented by its Secretary Vs. Pullayikodi I ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-06-2016
1. The first defendant in the suit is the appellant. 2. The plaint A schedule property measuring 15 cents has been obtained by the plaintiff as per Ext.A1 assignment deed. The plaint B schedule property is a portion of the plaint A schedule property. The case of the plaintiff is that the first defendant Municipality has encroached on the plaint B schedule property and formed a road through the same. The second defendant is the contractor engaged by the first defendant for the purpose of forming the said road. The suit was, therefore, filed seeking a decree directing the defendants to surrender the plaint B schedule property to the plaintiff. The first defendant resisted the suit, contending that the plaint B schedule property is not part of the plaint A schedule property owned by the plaintiff. According to the first defendant, the plaint B schedule property is owned by one Padmanabhan and the road was formed after obtaining the consent of Padmanabhan. It was also contended by the firs...
Paul Vs. Varghese and Another
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-05-2016
This Original Petition arises from a suit instituted by respondents 1 and 2, who are son and mother respectively, for a declaration that they have acquired right of easement by prescription over the plaint B schedule way. The respondents reside in the plaint A schedule property belonging to the first respondent, in which the second respondent has life interest. The adjoining northern property belongs to the petitioner. Plaint B schedule way is in this property. The parties are close relatives. Their properties belonged to their ancestor Kunju Vareed. In a partition that took place in his family in 1099 ME(1924 AD) the plaint A schedule property was allotted to the grandfather of the first respondent and the northern property to the grandfather of the petitioner. The respondents allege that the B schedule pathway came into existence in 1099 M.E and for the last 90 years they and their ancestors have been using it for their ingress and egress. Just before the suit was filed the petitione...
The Managing Director, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and Oth ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-05-2016
Ashok Bhushan, CJ 1. Heard Sri.P.C.Chacko, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This writ appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 20/03/2015 in W.P.C.No.5708 of 2014. The appellants were respondents 1, 3, 4 and 5 in the writ petition. The brief facts giving rise to this writ appeal are: The writ petitioner was working as Conductor in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'). A disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and the petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 19/02/2001. An enquiry report was submitted. Thereafter, a show cause notice was also given to the petitioner. Disciplinary Authority considered the enquiry report, the reply of the petitioner and passed an order dated 25/08/2008 punishing the petitioner with barring of increments for three years with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the order of punishment on 25/08/2008, petitioner fil...
Jyni and Others Vs. P.T. Raphel Rachan Wood Industries and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-05-2016
Anil K. Narendran, J. 1. The appellants are the claimants in O.P.(MV)No.580 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, an application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation on account of the death of one Rajeev in a motor accident occurred on 25.02.2010. The appellants are the wife, children and mother respectively of the deceased. On 25.02.2010, while the deceased was standing on the side of a public road, a tipper lorry bearing Registration No.KL-7/T-7668, owned, driven and insured by respondents 1 to 3 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased, resulting fatal injuries. Claiming a total compensation of Rs.42,30,000/- under different heads, the appellants filed claim petition before the Tribunal. 2. Before the Tribunal, respondents 1 and 2 remained absent and they were set ex-parte. The 3rd respondent insurer alone filed written statement. On the side of the appellants Exts.A1 to A8 were marked. On th...
Leo Lukose and Another Vs. Cochin University of Science and Technology ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-04-2016
1. Mr.K.Krishna Menon who was the Principal of the prestigious Madras Law College (now Dr.Ambedkar Government Law College) for 19 long years (1930-1949) used to welcome the freshers as follows:- "Gentlemen, you are seen here because you cannot be seen elsewhere" Those were the days when the students sought refuge in the law colleges as they could not succeed in securing admission in other professional colleges owing to their poor academic record. The situation has changed more than half a century down the lane and the law colleges are now the most sought after institutions for the students to pursue their education. This necessarily involves a more serious imparting of education to the students which the Universities and the law colleges in the State are yet to realise. 2. The Writ Petition seeks the implementation of the directions contained in Satheesh Kumar v. Mahatma Gandhi University [2015 (4) KLT 151] wherein it has inter alia been held as follows:- "Therefore the prescription of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›