Kerala Court February 2016 Judgments
Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee, represented by Administrator/Se ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-16-2016
1. Heard Sri.P. Gopal, the learned Standing Counsel for the Review Petitioner, Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. According to the learned Standing Counsel for the Review Petitioner, the court , defined in Section 2(d) of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1978, means: the District Court having jurisdiction over the area in which the Temple is situated. Therefore, the suit in question ought to have been filed before the District Court, Thrissur. 3. The incident involved in the case had occurred at the premises of Puthalath Ayyappa Kshethram at Vadanappalli, which is far away from the Guruvayoor Temple, when an elephant belongs to the Guruvayur Devaswom brought to that temple for the festival ran amok. 4. According to the learned Standing Counsel for the Review Petitioner, this Court has not considered the decisions in Vasudevan Namboodiri v. Parameswaran Namboodiripad [2014 (3) KLT 386] and also in Pandit v. Sree Krishna Swamy Devaswom [201...
Tag this Judgment!P.A. Muhammed Siyad and Others Vs. Sreejith Appu and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-15-2016
Shaffique, J. 1. These appeals are filed against common judgment dated 18/3/2015 in a batch of writ petitions. By the aforesaid judgment, the learned Single Judge directed the Kerala Public Service Commission (for short KPSC) to advise 394 vacancies reported by the Kerala State Electricity Board (for short KSEB) based on interim orders passed by the Court, taking into account the ranking positions of the respective candidates and observing the rules of reservation and communal rotation. The appeals have been filed by the KSEB and its officers as well as third parties seeking leave of this Court. 2. Facts of the case as disclosed in WP(C) No.29942/13 against which WA No.1606/2015 has been filed are: Petitioner claimed that he is included as rank No.5 in the supplementary list for Viswakarma community in the ranked list published by the KPSC for the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in the KSEB. The rank list was to expire on 15/12/2013. According to the petitioner, large number of...
Tag this Judgment!Vayalali Girishan and Others Vs. State of Kerala Public Prosecutor
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-15-2016
Raja Vijayaraghavan, J. 1. As many as 25 accused were indicted for the offence under Section 143, 147, 148, 324 and 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC, S.3 and 5 of the Explosives Substances Act, 1908 and Section 27(1) of Arms Act, 1959 and they were tried by the Court of Sessions, Thalassery, for their role in a gruesome incident involving explosive devices which took place at 5.15 p.m on 23.5.2002 at a place called Karkode in Thillankari amsom, Kannur District. 2. The prosecution case, as is revealed from the evidence, unfolds in the following manner:- Uthaman, an activist of the RSS was murdered on the previous day and a hartal was organized by the RSS on 22.5.2002 at the Karcode Area. Deceased Ammukutty Amma was a distant relative of Uthaman, and she along with her grandson, Shiju (PW 1) and some other persons who owe allegiance to the RSS were returning back in a Jeep driven by one Shihab, after attending the funeral ceremonies of the deceased. A total of 13 persons were inside ...
Tag this Judgment!Chittur Primary Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank L ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-15-2016
1. The petitioner is a Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank, registered and unctioning within the purview of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, framed thereunder. The petitioner had made a request to the 3rd respondent Co-operative Service Examination Board constituted in terms of Sec.80B of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, on 19.1.2009, to take steps for conduct of selection examination for appointment to three posts out of which two were in general category and one in SC/ST category. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent Examination Board issued necessary notification in that regard on 20.2.2009 inviting applications from interested candidates for the selection process. The selection examination was duly held on 11.7.2009 by the Board and the consolidated list was sent on 5.12.2009. The rank list was also prepared on 5.12.2009. The details in this regard are referred to in Ext.P4. According to the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Madayi Syamala and Another Vs. Sudha Sundareswaran and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-15-2016
1. The decision in E.A.No.133 of 2013 in E.P.No.183 of 2012 in R.C.P.No.53 of 2007 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode, as confirmed in appeal, is under challenge in this Second Appeal. 2. The facts relevant for examining the correctness of the impugned decision are the following: The grandfather of the second respondent filed R.C.P.No.53 of 2007 for eviction of the tenants from the petition schedule building therein, under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The need, on the basis of which eviction of the building was sought in the said proceedings, was that the second respondent, a dependent of the petitioner therein is unemployed and that she wants to run a nursery in the petition schedule building. Since the building was sought to be evicted for the requirement of the second respondent, when the eviction petition came up for trial, the second respondent also gave evidence. In her deposition as PW2, the second respondent has reitera...
Tag this Judgment!The Chirakkal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd Vs. The Commissioner Of In ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-15-2016
B. Radhakrishnan, J . 1. These appeals by primary agricultural credit societies registered and classified as such under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, for short, 'KCS Act', relate to exemptions claimed by them with reference to section 80P(4) of Income Tax Act, 1961; hereinafter, 'IT Act'. Issues are also raised relating to the validity or otherwise of the returns filed by the assessees beyond the period stipulated under section 139(1)/(4) or section 142(1)/148 for the purpose of deciding exemption under section 80P of the IT Act. Inci dental issues relating to doubtful debts proportionate to the gross total income and the status of rural branch to claim deduction referable to section 36 (1)(viia) of the IT Act are also raised. 2.Heard Snr.Adv.Firoze B.Andhyarujina and Snr.Adv.T.M.Sreedharan and other learned advocates for the appellants and Snr.Adv.P.K.R.Menon, learned senior standing counsel for the Government of India (Taxes) assisted by Adv.Jose Jose...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Mohammed Shafi and Others Vs. Union of India represented by its S ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-12-2016
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. The petitioners have filed this writ appeal against judgment dated 13.8.2015 in W.P(C) No.23197 of 2015 by which judgment, the writ petition has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case as emerged from the pleadings of the parties are: On 1.6.2007 petitioners 1 and 2 who are travelling in a bus from Bangalore to Mangalore were arrested by Upilangadi Police Station, Mangalore and an amount of Rs.39,22,679.50 was seized. The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement (FEMA) initiated an investigation for contravention of provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as, 1999 Act). For the purposes of investigation under 1999 Act, Assistant Director, the 4th respondent, made an application before the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Puthur for a direction to the police to handover the seized property. The Additional Civil Judge passed an order allowing the application, bu...
Tag this Judgment!Shekharan Vs. State rep. by The Circle Inspector of Police, Piravom
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-12-2016
V. Raja Vijayaraghavan, J. 1. The appellant, after having found guilty of fratricide, has preferred this appeal challenging the conviction, and sentence . 2. Prosecution case runs thus: Ammini Amma is the mother of Sekharan, the accused, and Rajan, the deceased. She was staying with Sekharan and his family in the family house. The deceased Rajan is her elder son and there were pending disputes between her two sons in respect of a pathway lying on the eastern side of the family house, which was being used by deceased Rajan to gain access to his property which was situated about 20 meters towards the north. There were frequent spats between Rajan and Sekharan and it has come out in evidence that both were alcoholics. On 17.2.2009, there arose some dispute in connection with the blowing up of the fuse of a water pump between Rajan and Sekharan and the prosecution alleges that Sekharan kicked Rajan resulting in Rajan falling on the ground. Prosecution further alleges that, in a horrendous ...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Sree Anjaneya Medical Trust Vs. by Anil Kumar, Chairman and Manag ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-11-2016
Anu Sivaraman, J. 1. The challenge in this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act is against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal rejecting the appeal preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax refusing to register a Trust under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is the contention of the appellant, Sree Anjaneya Medical Trust, that the Trust was registered on 27.05.2005 with education and relief of the poor as its principal objects and had made an application dated 12.12.2008 for registration of the same under the Act to avail the benefits of Sections 11 and 12 of the Act. Pursuant to the application, a survey was conducted in the premises of the Trust in terms of Section 133A of the Act on 19.03.2009. Pursuant to the directions issued by the authorities under the Act, a deed of modification was also executed on 18.06.2009. However, on 25.06.2009 the application was rejected relying on the survey conducted...
Tag this Judgment!P.M. Kelukutty and Others Vs. Young Men's Christian Association, repre ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-11-2016
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. These three Writ Appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 19.01.2016 delivered in W.P(C) Nos.30016 of 2015, 33407 of 2015 and 33798 of 2015. Writ Petitions were filed challenging the order dated 18.08.2015 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode by which order the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed the applications filed by the United Bank of India under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 2002 Act ) for getting possession of the properties covered by Exts.P3 to P13, whereas the applications for taking possession of properties covered by Exts.B1 and B2 were rejected. Writ Petitions were filed by the petitioners who claim to be tenants of the properties, Exts.B3 to B13, challenging the orders passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate which Writ Petitions have been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Aggrieved by ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »