Kerala Court March 2016 Judgments
Dr. S. Geethu Vs. Kerala University of Health Sciences Represented By ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-31-2016
1. Life is a See-Saw but not so an examination quipped a medico when confronted with the results of his Post-graduate medical examination after repeated attempts leaving him confusion confounded. The in congruity between the MCI (Medical Council of India) Regulations and the KUHS (Kerala University of Health Sciences) Regulations is highlighted. 2. The petitioners are Post-graduate medical students who have failed in their M.D/M.S/Diploma courses either because they did not secure the minimum in one of the four theory papers or in one of the clinical/practical tests. The petitioners challenge the relevant clause in the KUHS Regulations as being repugnant and inconsistent with the MCI Regulations as regards the prescription for a pass in their examinations for the course. The petitioners have also a case that the KUHS Regulations have not been notified as yet in the Gazette and that their eligibility to pass in the examinations for the course should be judged according to the MCI Regula...
Tag this Judgment!Saji Mattathil Vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Arbitrat ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-30-2016
1. The petitioner borrowed certain amount from the respondent Bank and defaulted in its repayment. The respondent Bank, as a result, initiated recovery proceedings before the first respondent the Arbitration Court. 2. As seen from the record, the first respondent issued Exhibit P2 summons requiring the petitioner to attend the enquiry/trial on 18.08.2015 at Kannur Branch of the respondent Bank. The petitioner participated. The second hearing also took place on 29.09.2015 at Kannur. Subsequently, the first respondent decided to have the next hearings at Thiruvananthapuram, where the Head Office of the respondent Bank is situated. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. The petitioner's singular grievance is that he lives far away from Thiruvananthapuram and that for every hearing he has to travel over twelve hours. According to him, having held the initial two hearings at Kannur, the respondent Bank ought to have had its camp sittings for a further hearing at t...
Tag this Judgment!Manjilas Agro Private Ltd. Vs. Nil
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
1. This petition has been filed under Sections 390 to 394 and 582 of the Companies Act, 1956 and Sections 40 and 44 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 for sanctioning of a Composite Scheme of Amalgamation of two Transferor Companies and one Transferor Firm with the Transferee Company, named there under and with the following prayers:- 1. Sanction the Composite Scheme of Amalgamation shown in ANNEXURE-1 so as to be binding on the Members, Secured and Unsecured Creditors of the First Petitioner/First Transferor Company; Members, Secured and Unsecured Creditors of the Second Petitioner/Second Transferor Company; Partners, Secured and Unsecured Creditors of the Third Petitioner/Transferor Firm and Members, Secured and Unsecured Creditors of the Fourth Petitioner/Transferee Company. 2. Direct that a certified copy of this Hon'ble Court Order, including the Composite Scheme of Amalgamation as approved at the Meeting of the Shareholders/Partners of the Petitioners be delivered to the Registr...
Tag this Judgment!Shyamaladevi. A.K., Lakshmidevi Enterprises Vs. The Regional Transport ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
1. These writ petitions are filed challenging the action of the respective Motor Vehicles Authority refusing to register or renew the fitness certificate etc. etc. on the ground that the vehicles are not fitted with Anti-lock Braking System (ABS) as provided under sub-rule (9) of Rule 96 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. In the first three writ petitions captioned above and in W.P.(C) No.14921 of 2012, the Constitutional validity of the said rule is under challenge. Since the subject matter of the writ petitions are similar in nature, they are disposed of together for convenience. The facts stated in W.P. (C) No.19977 of 2010 are narrated hereunder for disposal of the writ petitions. However, the details of the vehicles are first referred so as to understand the nature of the vehicles in order to arrive at a finding as to whether they are covered under sub-rule (9) of Rule 96 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short, CMV Rules). W.P.(C) No.19975 of 2010. 2. The vehicle i...
Tag this Judgment!Vijyakumar and Another Vs. State of Kerala Rep By Public Prosecutor Ke ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-29-2016
1. The appellants figured as accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C.No.1980 of 2008 and they, along with one Sheela, were prosecuted for having committed offence punishable under Section 120-B, 364, 368, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the 3rd accused of all charges and the appellants were found not guilty of the offence under section 120-B, 364, 368 r/w section 34 of the IPC. However, they were found guilty for the offence under Section 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- each with a default clause of RI for five years each for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. They were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- with a default clause of six months for the offence under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The aforesaid conviction and sentence are under ch...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. J. Vijayan, Associate Professor of Commerce, Chavara and Others Vs ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-28-2016
1. Petitioners are persons, who are aggrieved with their impending retirement, which occurs at the end of the academic year. WP(C) No.10257 of 2016 is filed by teachers, who are retiring at the age of 56, from aided affiliated Colleges, whose salaries are paid by the Government under the direct payment agreement. WP(C) No.11511 of 2016 is filed by teachers, who are working with the University of Kerala itself, whose retirement is at the age of 60. The retirement, respectively at the age of 56 and 60, is by way of prescriptions made by the State under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners claim that they ought to be granted extended period of service and permitted to continue till the age of 65 as per the 'UGC Regulations On Minimum Qualifications For Appointment Of Teachers And Other Academic Staff In Universities And Colleges And Measures For The Maintenance Of Standards In Higher Education 2010'(herein after for brevity 'UGC Regulations'). The UGC Regulations spec...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Railways and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-23-2016
Shaffique, J. 1. These appeals have been filed against common judgment dated 19/8/2015 in a batch of writ petitions by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions and quashed the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, and the declaration and awards passed pursuant to the said notification, to a limited extent. The respondents 1 to 3, namely Union of India representing Ministry of Railways, the General Manager, Southern Railway and the Divisional Manager, Southern Railway, Thiruvananthapuram are the appellants. 2. The short facts involved in the writ petition as can be seen in WP(C) No. 10608/2011 from which WA No.2172/2015 has been filed are: The petitioners, residents near the Thiruvalla Railway Station, contended that in the year 2000, cement unloading and transporting work which was being done at Changanacherry Railway station was shifted to Thiruvalla after constructing two new tracks at the side of the second platform. According to t...
Tag this Judgment!S. Ansad Vs. State of Kerala Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Reve ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-22-2016
1. The question whether the temporary exemption provided in Rule 13 A (i) (a) of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the General Rules' for short) to the members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes is applicable to the special tests which are essential qualifications prescribed under the Special rules, and a further question whether the said exemption is applicable to promotion alone and not for appointment by transfer, have come up once again for consideration in these O.P.(KAT)s as well as Writ Appeals. All the Original Petitions are filed by the Government; whereas W.A No.668 of 2009 and W.A No.2764 of 2009 are filed by third parties against the very same judgment in W.P(C) No.38283 of 2007. As the issue arising for consideration is common, all these cases were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. By the impugned judgment and the impugned orders herein, this Court and the Kerala Administrative Tribu...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Kanjirappilly Amusement Park and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of In ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-22-2016
1. Whether the removal of admission and access to entertainment event and amusement facilities [sub-clause (j) of Section 66D of the Finance Act, 1994] from the Negative List of Services by an Amendment of 2012 and the consequent imposition of service tax on such activity would result in the Union Parliament trenching upon the exclusive field assigned to the State, under Entry 62 List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India is the question raised herein. 2. Entry 62 of List II [any reference to Lists I, II or III is to the Lists under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution] deals with taxes on luxuries, including taxes on entertainments, amusements, betting and gambling . The State has also brought out the Kerala Local Authorities Entertainments Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as State Act of 1961 ], wherein Section 3, the charging section, provides for levy of tax and the rate of tax; connected cases the same being on the price for admission to any entertainme...
Tag this Judgment!Manafudeen Vs. State of Kerala, Represented By The Public Prosecutor, ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-22-2016
1. This petition is filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash Annexure F charge sheet laid against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under S.9B(1) of The Explosives Act, 1884. 2. The prosecution allegation is that, on 07.08.2013, the petitioner was found in possession of 25 bundles of Safety Fuses and 100 ordinary Detonators kept in the store room of the premises owned by the petitioner at Thonipoika. Under the premise that the petitioner was in possession of the above explosives without a valid licence or permit, investigation was conducted and charge was laid before the jurisdictional Magistrate. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is running a quarrying unit under the name and style as Al-Fathima Metal Crusher Unit at Anchal. Annexure B is the consent to operate issued by the Kerala State Pollu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »