Kerala Court March 2016 Judgments
The Range Officer and Another Munnar Tea Garden Residency, Represented ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-16-2016
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. The Range Officer/Authorised Officer, Kerala Forest Department and the Tahsildar, Devikulam, who were respondents 1 and 2 in W.P(C) No.29534 of 2015 have come up in appeal against the judgment dated 26.10.2015 in the aforesaid Writ Petition by which judgment, the learned Single Judge has permitted the petitioner to cut and remove 9 planted Eucalyptus trees from 25 cents of land in R.S. No.49/1-1, Block No.14 of Pallivasal Village. 2. Brief facts of the case as emerged from the pleadings on record are: Petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in business of running hotel, hospitality management, etc. For establishing a hotel in Munnar, petitioner purchased 25 cents of land in R.S. No.49/1-1 by sale deed dated 06.05.2015. The previous owner of the property was given no objection certificate by the Pallivasal Grama Panchayat on 24.01.2007 for construction of a building in the said property. In the property there were 9 Eucalyptus trees planted by the previous owner....
Tag this Judgment!K.N. Pradeep Vs. The Station House Officer and Anothers
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-16-2016
1. The common question of law in all these writ petitions is regarding enforcement of the interim order issued under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act 26 of 1996) as amended by the Act 3 of 2016, by the Arbitral Tribunal. 2. The writ petitioners have availed vehicle loans from finance companies, which have been arrayed as party respondents in the writ petitions. They have approached this Court raising a grievance to the effect that the interim order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal is enforced/being attempted to be enforced without putting the orders for enforcement, following the procedures under the Code of Civil Procedure, before the Principal Civil Court. 3. Before proceeding to consider the questions that have arisen for consideration, it is appropriate to refer the power of this Court to interfere with an order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. The Constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal is referable to a Contract. The jurisdiction, therefore, is based on ...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Satheesh Babu Vs. State of Kerala, represented by Public Prosecut ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-15-2016
1. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.36/2016 of Nadapuram Police Station registered for the offence under Section 2 of the Prevention of Insult to National Honour Act, 1971. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has not cared to lower the National Flag hoisted in front of the Panchayat Office, Thooneri, even after sunset. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that instances of disrespect to the Indian National Flag are clearly specified in Explanation 4 of Section 2 of the Prevention of Insult to National Honour Act, 1971, and that an act of not lowering down the flag after sunset does not fall in the various instances which are mentioned in Explanation 4 of Section 2 of the said Act. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to the decision rendered by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Amgonda Vithoba Pandhare v. Union of India and others [2012 (4) Bom. C.R.(Cri) 219], wherein it was held that:- Ex...
Tag this Judgment!P.C. George Vs. The Hon'ble Speaker, Kerala Legislative Assembly and A ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-14-2016
1. I will rather resign than face an ignominious exit thought - a Legislator. But the Speaker kept the resignation pending and disqualified the Legislator. Was this action justified and justiciable is the short question. 2. The first respondent is the Speaker of the Kerala Legislative Assembly of which the petitioner and the second respondent (who was later elected as the Chief Whip of the Kerala Government) are members. The second respondent moved Ext. P1 petition before the first respondent for disqualifying the petitioner in terms of Article 191 of the Constitution of India. The second respondent contended that the petitioner has voluntarily given up his membership of the political party to which he belonged and hence disqualified. As many as 19 acts of the petitioner were enumerated in Ext. P1 petition to show that the petitioner has incurred disqualification as per Para (1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. The most prominent amongst the items is the letter written by ...
Tag this Judgment!Kunjumol Nandiyanathayil Vs. The Circle Inspector of Police, represent ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-14-2016
1. The victim, who is the mother of the deceased, in SC.No.356/2007 of the Thrissur Sessions Division, has come up seeking the transfer of the case from the files of the IVth Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur to the Ist Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur. 2. It has come out that the evidence in the Sessions Case is voluminous. Altogether 46 witnesses were examined and a series of documents were marked in the case so far. Out of the 46 witnesses, who were examined, PW1 to PW45 were examined before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who is presently manning the Ist Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur, while he was the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur. During the course of the trial, i.e., after the examination of PW45, the said learned Additional Sessions Judge was transferred and posted as the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur. PW46 was examined before the Additional Sessions Judge, who is presently working as the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur. 3. The req...
Tag this Judgment!Syam K.V and Others Vs. The Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. and Ot ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-11-2016
1. All these Writ Petitions relate to appointment to the post of Sub Engineers by direct recruitment in the 10% quota for the employees of the Kerala State Electricity Board (`Board for short). Hence these Writ Petitions were heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment. The parties and documents referred to in this judgment are as described in W.P.(C) No.31433/2014, unless otherwise specified. 2. The petitioners in all these Writ Petitions are employees of the Board, who submitted applications pursuant to Ext.P19, a notification published in Kerala gazette dated 31.12.2011 issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission (`PSC for short) as category no.487/11, for appointment to the post of Sub Engineers by direct recruitment against vacancies in the 10% departmental quota. The method of appointment was notified as : direct recruitment (through departmental quota from the qualified employees who are working in KSEB). The qualification prescribed was: 1. S.S.L.C or its eq...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Represented by the Secretary and Another Vs. M.C. Fran ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-11-2016
1. This interlocutory application has been filed seeking clarification of the judgment in Francis v. State of Kerala [2016 (1) KLT 821] dealing with the alteration of motor cycles. The State of Kerala as well as the Regional Transport officer are the applicants and have detailed the various alterations commonly made to motor cycles. They contend that there is a sudden spurt in accidents involving motor cycles and that rampant alterations are done to perform bike stunts as well as single wheeling. They want all the alternations to be specified lest the riders of the motor cycles are caught off guard for alleged alterations effected. 2. It is clarified that any material change in the motor cycle different from that approved by the manufacturer amounts to a structural alteration under Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The commonly noticed alterations are the following:- i) Replacement of front forks ii) Modification of rear shock absorbers done on swing arm iii) Removal of head ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Represented by Secretary Vs. Subhadra and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-11-2016
1. This appeal is filed by the 1st respondent in the writ petition challenging judgment dated 30/06/2015 in WP(C) No. 29317/2013 by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition quashing Ext.P6 and directing the appellant to grant freedom fighter's pension to the petitioner within a period of three months. 2. The short facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that the petitioner, being the wife of Sri.M.K.Karunakaran, applied for freedom fighter's pension under the Swathantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme on the ground that her husband late Sri.M.K.Karunakaran had participated in the freedom movement of the nation. According to the petitioner, her husband remained underground for six months and more and he was a proclaimed offender. Petitioner's husband earlier filed an application for pension and there was delay in processing the same. After his death, petitioner filed WP(C) No.36025/2004 before this Court. The learned Single Judge directed the Central Government...
Tag this Judgment!Deepa Vs. Sasi @ Sivaramakrishnan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-10-2016
C.K. Abdul Rehim, J. 1. This writ petition is filed against that part of the judgment of the Family Court, Palakkad in O.P.No.658/2006 dated 23.2.2008 whereby the Family Court refused to consider the claims raised in I.A. Nos.676/2006 and 1515/2006, while allowing the application for divorce. 2. Facts required for disposal of the writ petition are as follows. The petitioner and respondent are wife and husband respectively. Marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 3.9.2003 as per the rituals and custom prevailing in the Hindu community. Petitioner was provided with an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and 26 sovereigns of jewellery. The respondent misappropriated the said amount and also a chain weighing 5 sovereigns and a bangle weighing 1 sovereign. Due to the cruelty and torture at the residence of the respondent demanding more money and jewellery, the petitioner had been taken back to her parental home on 4.12.2003. Thereafter the petitioner filed O.P.No.658/2006 s...
Tag this Judgment!Sayed Vs. Gopalakrishnan and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-10-2016
K. Ramakrishnan, J. 1. The claimant in O.P.(MV) No.327 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha is the appellant herein. The claim petition was filed by the claimant for compensation for the personal injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 21.11.2000. The case of the appellant in the claim petition was that he was travelling in a motor bike with No.KL6-7821. When it reached the place of occurrence, a jeep bearing No.KL6-555 came from the opposite direction, driven by the second respondent, owned by the first respondent and insured by the third respondent hit against his bike and caused severe injuries to him. He was a fish vendor by profession and aged 52 years at the time of accident. He was getting a monthly income of Rs.4,500/-. He suffered permanent disability thereby he could not attend his work. So, he claimed a total compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- on various heads. 2. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex-parte. 3. The third respo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »