Kerala Court February 2016 Judgments
Seenath @ Seena Vs. Mohammed Ali
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-29-2016
Shaji P. Chaly, J. 1. These Original Petitions are filed by the petitioner and respondent respectively against Ext.P6 order of the Family Court, Ernakulam in E.A.No.134 of 2015 in E.P.No.53 of 2014 in O.P.No.2289 of 2012, dated 03.12.2015. By the said impugned order, the petitioner was granted four months time to pay the balance amount of Rs.15 lakhs with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of mediation agreement till the date of deposit, and coercive steps are kept in abeyance till such time. The petitioner/decree holder has filed O.P.(FC) No.608 of 2015 contending that, 6% interest granted by the Family Court is on the lower side and the Family Court should have ordered at least 12% interest on Rs.30 lakhs from the date of agreement dated 24.06.2013 till the date of payment. On the other hand, O.P.(FC) No.82 of 2016 is filed by the judgment debtor contending that the order imposing 6% interest by the Family Court as per the order impugned is illegal since as per the mediati...
Tag this Judgment!M.C. Francis Vs. State of Kerala, represented by The Secretary, Transp ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-29-2016
1. It has become the fashion of the day to customize the motor cycles to suit the likes of buyers by removing silencers, mudguard and even sari guard. Such removal in a bid to add glamour to the vehicles often pose danger to the public about which the users are unmindful. 2. The petitioner is the proud owner of a Royal Enfield Bullet Motor Cycle (2012 model) evidenced by Ext.P1 certificate of registration and the registration number of the vehicle is KL-07-BV-2841. The vehicle had a standard handle bar and a catalytic converter as silencer as per the proto type approved under Rule 126 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (the 'Rules' for short). However the vehicle was found 'fitted with a silencer that produced harsh heavy shell noise causing sound pollution and the original handle bar was found replaced with a non-standard one' appearing like a pipe. The vehicle was therefore intercepted by the third respondent Motor Vehicles Inspector on 18.02.2016 who issued Ext. P2 check repo...
Tag this Judgment!All Kerala Anti Corruption and Human Rights Protection Council represe ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-29-2016
1. During the course of an income tax raid at the house of Dr.Mohanlal, a well known cine artist, four elephant tusks were found at his residence. The matter was reported to the forest officials and consequently, on 21.12.2011, the Deputy Range Officer of the Malayattoor Forest Station and party conducted a search at his house and found four elephant tusks. Since he had no authorisation to keep those elephant tusks in his possession, OR No.14/2012 of Meckappala Forest Station was registered against him. It seems that even on the registration of the occurrence report, the contraband articles were entrusted to the 1st respondent herein, after the seizure. 2. Heard learned Senior Counsel Sri.T.A.Shaji for the petitioner, learned Senior Counsel Sri.M.K.Damodaran and Sri.K.R.Radhakrishnan Nair for the 1st respondent and learned Advocate General Sri.K.P.Dandapani for the State. 3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid action of the forest officials in han...
Tag this Judgment!M. Valsala Kumari Devi Vs. State of Kerala, represented by its Secreta ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-29-2016
1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare that the petitioner is fully eligible and satisfies the eligibility condition of teaching experience required under Note to Rule 6 of Chapter XXXII of Kerala Education Rules (for short, the KER ) in respect of the category of Principal reckoning her teaching experience with effect from 13.07.1990 in the category of High School Assistant and with effect from 01.08.2000 in the category of Higher Secondary School Teacher (for short, HSST ) in the absence of qualified hands having approved teaching experience of 12 years in the category of Higher Secondary School Teacher in terms of Note under Rule 6 of Chapter XXXII of K.E.R. and for other related reliefs, including a declaration that the 6th respondent is not better qualified or better suitable for promotion to the category of Principal over the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner has a checkered history. However, I propose to narrate only the relevant facts that a...
Tag this Judgment!K.A. Prem and Others Vs. K. Madhu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-29-2016
P.N. Ravindran, J. 1. The petitioners are the tenants in R.C.P.No.143 of 2014 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam, a petition filed by the respondent/landlord for an order of eviction under section 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short. The tenants had, after they entered appearance and filed a counter statement, filed I.A.No.10047 of 2015 (Ext.P1 in the instant original petition) praying for an order directing the landlord who was joined as the respondent in the said application to produce the following documents: "1. Attested copies of the audited Balance Sheets of M/s KPK and Sons for the assessment years 1994-1995 to 2014-15. 2. Attested copies of the Income Tax Returns filed by M/s KPK and Sons before the Income Tax Department for the assessment years 1994-1995 to 2014-2015. 3. Attested copies of the Sales Tax Returns filed by M/s KPK and Sons before the Commercial Taxes Department for the years 1994...
Tag this Judgment!N.N. Dikshit, Commissioner of Income Tax New Delhi Vs. Superintendent ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-29-2016
1. The appellant herein was the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Ernakulam during 2000-2002. On the allegation that he received an amount of Rs.10,000/- as illegal gratification from one Johny on 31.7.2002 at about 4 p.m, as a reward for passing favourable orders in the appeal brought by the said Johny against the assessment order passed and penalty imposed, by the Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Thrissur, the appellant faced prosecution before the learned Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-I, Ernakulam in C.C 17/2003. The said said Johny is a businessman having some share trading business and other business activities and he has a company by-name 'Johny and Company', started in 1988. On the ground of failure on his part to submit income tax returns in time, the Income Tax Authorities conducted a raid at his office and his residence on 2.2.1994 and seized some documents. Proceeding under the Income Tax Act was initiated against him and in the said proceeding, the Income Tax Commissio...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Malabar Builders India Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Director, Na ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-29-2016
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P11 notice that has been issued by the 1st respondent informing the petitioner that, as a precondition for maintaining Ext.P9 appeal preferred by the petitioner, against Ext.P7 order of assessment under the Kerala Building Tax Act, the petitioner would be required to pay the 1st instalment of the tax amount that was assessed on the petitioner by Ext.P1 assessment order. The challenge in the writ petition is against this condition that has been imposed by the 1st respondent as a precondition for considering the appeal preferred by the petitioner before him. It is the stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, inasmuch as in Exts.P7 assessment order and P8 demand notice, the petitioner has been assessed to building tax in an amount of Rs.17,42,100/-, and the said amount is directed to be paid in four equal quarterly instalments of Rs.4,35,525/- falling due on 25.09.2015, 25.12.2015, 25.03.2016 and 25.06.2016 respectively, his liability to ...
Tag this Judgment!Thressiamma Sebastian Vs. Shoji Ram and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-29-2016
P.R. Ramachandra Manon, J. 1. Inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in respect of the death of the husband of the appellant herein is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal, preferred for enhancement of the compensation. 2. The accident was on 13.6.2006. The husband of the appellant was travelling as a passenger in a jeep bearing registration No.RJ-20-P/2743 and when the vehicle reached the place of occurrence, a truck bearing registration No.RSH-3387 driven, owned and insured by respondents 1 to 3 before the Tribunal dashed against the jeep causing fatal injuries, leading to the death of husband of the appellant and causing injuries to others. The loss caused in this regard was sought to be compensated by filing a claim petition before the Tribunal by the appellant joining hands with the daughters and son, who in turn have been transposed as respondents in this appeal (for the reason that they were not readily available in station, as put forth by the learned ...
Tag this Judgment!Unnikrishnan and Another Vs. Manikandan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-26-2016
C.K. Abdul Rehim, J. 1. The petitioners are approaching this court invoking its supervisory jurisdiction vested under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P3 order passed by Family Court, Irinjalakuda in G.O.P.No.614/2015, dated 12.01.2016. 2. The petitioners herein are the respondents before the court below. The original petition before the family court was instituted by the respondent herein seeking to appoint him as guardian of the second appellant minor child, and to grant permanent custody of the minor child to him. While considering the original petition, Ext.P3 order was passed by the court below directing the 1st petitioner to produce the minor child before the Chief Ministerial Officer of the family court on every 3rd working Saturday at 10 a.m. and to permit the respondent to have one hour interaction with the child. It is challenging the said order, the above original petition is filed. 3. Contention of the petitioners is that, the court below went highl...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Venkataswaran, B.No. 6086, Asst. Sales Manager (Retd) Vs. The Cha ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-26-2016
1. The petitioner is aggrieved with the dismissal order passed at Ext.P4 as confirmed in the appellate order at Ext.P7. The petitioner an Assistant Sales Manager was proceeded against on imputations as are seen at Ext.P1 charge sheet. Briefly put, the allegations related to the release of stock to one of the customers without proper authorisation and without collecting the payments, especially when there were outstanding dues from that particular customer. There was also one another charge with respect to dishonour of five cheques having not been informed to the Regional office for further action. The petitioner was proceeded against under the FACT Employees (Conduct Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1977. 2. The Departmental enquiry was conducted and Ext.P2 enquiry report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner was offered every opportunity to defend himself, before the Enquiry Officer. There is no violation of principles of natural justice alleged by the petitioner also. The...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »