Kerala Court February 2016 Judgments
S. Bright Vs. The Chief Secretary to Government of Kerala, Secretariat ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-23-2016
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. This writ appeal has been filed by the 1st respondent to the writ petition against the judgment dated 09.12.2015 in W.P.(C) No.2705 of 2010. The writ petition was filed by the State authorities challenging the order of the Kerala Lok Ayukta dated 03.12.2008 by which order the Lok Ayukta directed the State Government to sanction pensionary benefits to the complainant(appellant) as provided in Clause 4B of Government Order dated 02.05.1968. Aggrieved by the order of the Lok Ayukta, the State has filed the writ petition which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment. 2. The learned Single Judge took the view that the Kerala Lok Ayukta could not have exercised any authority to sanction or non-sanction of pensionary benefits, which cannot be classified as maladministration within the meaning of the Lok Ayukta Act. The learned Single Judge also noticed that the complainant took voluntary retirement on 13.01.2000 whereas the complaint was fi...
Tag this Judgment!N. Rajan Vs. The State of Kerala, Represented by the Secretary to Gove ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-23-2016
1. The petitioner, a member of the fourth respondent Co-operative Society under the management of the third respondent Administrative Committee, assails Exhibit P3 order issued by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the second respondent, permitting the third respondent to fill up ten posts of Salesman/Peon lying vacant in the Bank. 2. As seen from the record, the term of the earlier Managing Committee came to an end in August 2011 for want of quorum; as a result, on 29.08.2011, the third respondent Administrative Committee was appointed. Though the Society initially proposed to have the election on 28.10.2012, the proposal could not materialize because of the pending litigation. It is represented that SLP No.17632/2013 is pending before the Honourable Supreme Court, in which status quo orders have already been granted. 3. In the light of the pending litigation, as there is no possibility of having a regular election to the Managing Committee in immediate future, the third r...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. D. Radhakrishnan Pillai Vs. The Travancore Devaswom Board represen ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-23-2016
Antony Dominic, J. 1. Among these cases, the writ petitions came up before a learned single Judge of this Court and the common question raised was whether the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the 'UGC Regulations, 2010', for short) was applicable while making appointments to the post of Principal in colleges affiliated to the Kerala and Mahatma Gandhi Universities. When the matters were heard, placing reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in S.N.College v. N.Raveendran [2001 (3) KLT 938], it was contended that the conditions of service of teachers of affiliated colleges are to be prescribed by the University concerned in terms of the Act governing the same and that in the absence of any amendment being made to the University Act or the Regulations framed thereunder, the UGC Re...
Tag this Judgment!Yunus C.M., Vs. C.M. Aboobacker and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-23-2016
1. In a suit for partition what is the procedure to be followed when the court finds that division of the property by metes and bounds cannot be conveniently or reasonably made ? 2. The petitioner is the 1st defendant, respondents 1 and 2 the plaintiffs and the other respondents defendants 2 to 7 in the suit from which this Original Petition arises. The suit is for partition of 2.3 ares of land with a house thereon. A preliminary decree was passed directing its partition. The petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 are entitled to 1/6 share each. Respondents 1 and 2 together are entitled to 2/6 shares and respondents 5 to 8 together are entitled to 1/6 share. The commissioner appointed by the court in the final decree proceedings reported that partition of the property by metes and bounds cannot be conveniently made as its extent is too small. The learned Munsiff ordered sale of the property under the provisions of the Partition Act of 1893. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application to...
Tag this Judgment!Sujith P. @ Unnishan Vs. State of Kerala, represented by the Public Pr ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-23-2016
1. Petitioners are challenging the orders passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery in MC Nos.126/2015, 19/2016, 20/2016 and 21/2016. Through the said orders, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery, has issued preliminary orders under Section 111 Cr.P.C., thereby requiring the petitioners to appear before him and to show cause why they should not be ordered to execute bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like amount, for keeping peace for a period of one year. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Magistrate has violated all the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Madhu Limaye and another v. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Monghyr and others [AIR 1971 SC 2486] as well as the parameters laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Moidu v. State of Kerala [1982 KLT 578 (FB)]. The learned counsel for the petitioners has invited the attention of this Court to the decision rendered by a learned Single Judge...
Tag this Judgment!V.G. Padmanabhan Vs. The Special Officer, Thalassery Primary Co-Operat ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-22-2016
Facts: 1. Both the petitioners are the members of the sixth respondent Society; the second petitioner has also had the distinction of being the former President of the parent Society Tellichery Primary Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. 2. Initially, Iritty Taluk was created by carving out some territories from two other taluks; namely, Kannur and Thalassery. The creation of the new taluk has, therefore, necessitated the division of the two Co-operative Societies situated in those Taluks: the Kannur and the Tellichery Primary Agricultural and Rural Development Banks. In that process, the Government has appointed a Special Officer to oversee the operations of bifurcation of the existing societies and registration of the new society. 3. In the course of time, the Special Officer passed a resolution proposing to hold the election to the new society on 27.02.2016. Accordingly, acting on the resolution thus passed, the Election Commission issued Exhibit P1 notification to hold the ele...
Tag this Judgment!SNDP Sakha Yogam rep. by its Secretary Vs. Elanjithanam Devi Samajam r ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-22-2016
1. This second appeal arises from a suit instituted under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for short). The suit which was instituted before the Subordinate Judge's Court invoking its concurrent jurisdiction was decreed by the trial court. The fourth defendant in the suit challenged the decision of the trial court in appeal before the District Court. The District Court reversed the decision of the trial court and dismissed the suit. Even though the suit stands dismissed, the first defendant is aggrieved by the decision of the appellate court and hence this second appeal. 2. When the second appeal came up for admission, this Court entertained a doubt as to the maintainability of the appeal preferred by the fourth defendant before the District Court. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the parties were heard on the following question of law: Whether an appeal would lie before the District Court against the decision in a suit under section 9...
Tag this Judgment!The New India Assurance Company Limited Now represented by its Manager ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-22-2016
Ramachandra Menon, J. 1. The insurance company is before this Court challenging the correctness and sustainability of the award passed by the Tribunal fixing the total compensation payable as Rs.3,24,750/- and in mulcting 50% of the liability upon the shoulders of the appellant in a claim under Section 163A of the Act, despite the finding that the accident was solely because of the negligence on the part of the deceased. The contention appears to be that, once it is found by the Tribunal, based on the evidence, that the accident was because of the negligence on the part of the deceased, no liability could have been fixed on the Insurer of the vehicle which was being driven by the deceased person. 2. The factual sequence revealed from the proceedings shows that the deceased was driving a tourist bus bearing No. KL-05/R-2646 on 21.4.2007 and when it reached the spot of occurrence, the bus collided with a container lorry bearing No.HR- 38/H-7683 owned and insured by the 3rd and 4th respon...
Tag this Judgment!Regy V. Edathil Vs. Hubert Leslie D Cruz
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-22-2016
K. Ramakrishnan, J. The landlord in R.C.P.No.13 of 2011 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kochi is the revision petitioner herein. The rent control petition was filed by the landlord for eviction of the petition schedule building from the possession of the respondent on the ground of bonafide need under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, (hereinafter called the Act for short). 2. The case of the petitioner in the petition was that, the petitioner is the absolute owner of the tenanted premises with No.16/990T, which is part of a larger building known as Edathil Buildings . It is a three storied building facing P.T. Jacob Road on its south. The ground floor of the building belongs to the petitioner and the first and the second floor belong to his mother and brother respectively. The respondent is in possession of the petition schedule building on a monthly rent of 1,320/- and other rooms in the petition schedule building are in the occupation o...
Tag this Judgment!Vilasini and Others Vs. Thankam Alias Thankamma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-22-2016
1. The plaintiffs in a suit for partition are the appellants. 2. The properties sought to be partitioned belonged to the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, namely, Krishnan Nair and his mother Kunjukutty Amma. The properties owned the by Krishnan Nair and Kunjukutty Amma were partitioned between them as per Ext.A1 partition deed in the year 1952. The properties included in the C-schedule to Ext.A1 partition deed were allotted to Kunjukutty Amma, her daughter Kalyani Amma and her daughter, the defendant. Krishnan Nair died thereafter. Kunjukutty Amma also died later. According to the plaintiffs, Kunjukutty Amma died on 25.12.1957, after the introduction of the Hindu Succession Act and as such, on her death, her one half share over the properties included in the C schedule to Ext.A1 partition deed devolved on them as the legal representatives of her pre-deceased son Krishnan Nair and the suit is for partition of the said one half share over the said properties. The defendant resi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »