Kerala Court March 2016 Judgments
C.T. Titus Vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General) Idu ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-10-2016
1. The petitioner, a member of the respondent Bank, has a grievance that the second respondent secured his admission despite he being a minor. It was on 26.08.1986. 2. Initially, the petitioner submitted Exhibit P4 representation before the Joint Registrar, who did not act on it. Later, questioning the Joint Registrar's inaction, the petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.31269/2014 and invited Exhibit P6 judgment. Based on the direction issued by this Court, the Joint Registrar eventually passed Exhibit P8 order. Dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the second respondent was born on 01.10.1970, and by 26.08.1986, when he became a member, the second respondent was admittedly sixteen years old. To establish that the second respondent was a minor at the time of his securing the membership, the learned counsel has placed reliance on Exhibits P2 and P3, the School Leaving Certificate and Aadha...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala Public Service Commission represented by its Secretary and Anot ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-10-2016
Shaffique, J. 1. WA No.618/2012 has been filed by respondents 3 and 4, viz., the Kerala Public Service Commission (for short KPSC) and its District Officer, Kottayam challenging judgment dated 18/01/2012 in WP(C) No. 11650/2011. WA No.719/14 is filed by respondents 1, 2, 3 and 6 to 8 in the writ petition, viz., the State of Kerala and its various departments and officers. WA No.1449 of 2012 is filed by a third party after seeking leave of court challenging judgment dated 18/01/2012 in WP(C) No. 4900/2011. WA No. 1811/2013 is filed by the State of Kerala and its officers, respondents 3 and 4 in WP(C) No. 28055/10. All these appeals are arising from a common judgment by which the learned Single Judge had decided a batch of cases. However, appeals are limited only to a few cases viz., against the judgment in WP(C) Nos. 11650/2011, 4900/11 and 28055/10. The reason for challenging the judgment in WP(C) No. 11650/11 is on account of the fact that the learned Single Judge while considering th...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. P. Suresh Babu Vs. Union Of India Represented By The Secretary To ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-09-2016
Asha, J. 1. The question to be considered in this Original Petition is whether the period of training undergone by the petitioner, who was advised by the Kerala Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the `PSC for short) for appointment as Deputy Collector, can be reckoned as service for the purpose of consideration of his case for appointment by promotion to All India Service. The Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the `C.A.T ) dismissed his O.A rejecting his claim. 2. The facts leading to the impugned order are as follows: The Kerala Public Service Commission, as per letter No.R1A(2) 1414/05/GW dated 15.01.2005, advised the petitioner for appointment as Deputy Collector on Rs.7800-12975/- (revised) in the Land Revenue Department by direct recruitment as envisaged in Rule 2 of the Special Rules for the Kerala Civil Service (Executive). As per Annexure A5 order dated 9.8.2005, the Government accorded sanction for creation of one supernumerary post...
Tag this Judgment!Ramanan Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by its Secretary, Taxes(A)Dep ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-09-2016
Surendra Mohan, J. 1. Both these Writ Appeals are filed against a common order passed by the learned Single Judge in four Writ Petitions declining to grant the interim relief that was sought for by the petitioners. The appellants are licensees of toddy shops. Their licences have been suspended by the second respondent for the reason that the samples of toddy taken from the shops conducted by them have been found, on Chemical Analysis, to contain either starch or ethyl alcohol in excess of the permissible limit. On the basis of the Chemical Analysis Report, their licences have been suspended. The common contention of both the appellants is that, as per orders on applications submitted by them to the respective Magistrate's Courts, the `B' Sample taken from their toddy shops have been sent for chemical analysis to a different laboratory since they dispute the correctness of the first report. Therefore, the suspension of their licences should await the report of the second sample. 2. The ...
Tag this Judgment!V.A. Lilly Principal, St. Antony's Hss, Moorkkanad Vs. State of Kerala ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-09-2016
1. The petitioner is aggrieved with Exhibit P3 order of the Director of Higher Secondary Education, which directed the 5th respondent to be appointed as Higher Secondary School Teacher [for brevity HSST ]. 2. The incumbency details of the petitioner and the 5th respondent are as here in after stated. Both the petitioner and the 5th respondent were appointed as Lower Primary School Assistant [for brevity LPSA ] on 06.06.2000 and as HSST (Junior) on 01.01.2002; the very same dates. Both the petitioner and the 5th respondent also had prior service in the very same school, as Upper Primary School Assistants [for brevity UPSA ]. No documents of the petitioner's prior service is produced. But, the petitioner admits that the same was subsequent to the broken service of the 5th respondent. 3. The petitioner was promoted to the vacancy of HSST on 25.06.2010 when a vacancy arose in the subject of Economics; in which both the petitioner and the 5th respondent are qualified. The petitioner's appoi...
Tag this Judgment!Manju S. Pillai State of Kerala Represented by Secretary to Government ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-09-2016
1. The petitioner is concerned with her appointment as an HSST Junior (Hindi) on 17.07.2007. It is an admitted fact that the Manager appointed her to the additional division vacancy on 17.07.2007. The petitioner has also been continued all these years as can be seen from the facts disclosed from the records, initially on the appointment made and then by the orders of this Court. 2. The Regional Deputy Director of Higher Secondary Education (RDD) furnished the school details as on 31.12.2008 by Ext.P1 to the Director, based on which the Director maderecommendation as per Ext.P2. Going by Ext.P2 recommendation the student strength counted for fixation, for Hindi, indicated 70 students in Class XI and 122 students Class XII. The Director also observed that there is only a slight margin of two students in Hindi in the year 2007-08 and 2008-09 and hence the Government may take a decision as to sanctioning an additional post of HSST (Hindi Junior) (there is some discrepancy in Ext.P2 which w...
Tag this Judgment!Lonankutty Antony @ T.L. Antony Vs. The Joint Registrar of Co-operativ ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-08-2016
1. The petitioner, a member of the third respondent Co-operative Bank, availed himself of a loan after mortgaging a piece of property and later cleared it. When he sought the return of the title deeds of the property after clearing the loan, the respondent Bank refused. The refusal seems to be on the premise that the petitioner's wife also secured a loan, and the petitioner's title deeds are deemed to have been kept as security for the realisation of the said debt, too. In other words, the third respondent Bank has exercised its general lien. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has nothing to do with the loan obtained by his wife. He has further submitted that the petitioner is not a guarantor to the loan. Nor has he offered his property as security. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank has, on the other hand, strenuously contended that the petitioner has all along known abo...
Tag this Judgment!C. Remadevi Vs. Secretary to Government Food and Civil Supplies, Gover ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-08-2016
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 25.06.2015 by which W.P(C) No.23931 of 2014 filed by the appellant challenging the orders cancelling her ARD licence and order dismissing her appeal, has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this Writ Appeal are: Petitioner was a licensee of ARD No.563 in Neyyattinkara Taluk, Thiruvananthapuram District. Vigilance Officer, Commissionerate of Civil Supplies inspected the shop on 09.08.2012 and sent report regarding certain irregularities. The Controller of Rationing issued a show cause notice dated 07.09.2012 to the petitioner asking her to show cause with regard to five charges mentioned in the notice. By order dated 07.11.2012 the authorisation given to the petitioner was temporarily suspended. The Taluk Supply Officer also sent reports to the Director of Civil Supplies. The memo of charges dated 29.05.2013 was issued in which apart from the allegations mentioned in the show cause notice, severa...
Tag this Judgment!Biji and Another Vs. Vijil (Died) and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-03-2016
Shaji P. Chaly, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the respondent/wife against the judgment in G.O.P No.1293 of 2012 of the Family Court, Irinjalakuda, dated 06.02.2016. By the impugned judgment the Family Court has declined permanent custody of the minor child to 2nd and 3rd respondents who are the parents of the 1st respondent husband, but granted visitation rights. It is challenging the visitation rights permitted to respondents 2 and 3, this appeal is preferred. The 1st respondent husband is no more. 2. Brief facts required for the disposal of the appeal are that; the 1st respondent has filed the Original Petition seeking an order of permanent custody of the minor child, Anushka, aged 3 years. When the trial was in progress, the 1st respondent died in a motor accident and thereupon the 2nd and 3rd respondents herein, who are his parents, were impleaded as additional petitioners and the trial continued with them in the array of petitioners. The child was only 11 months old when the O...
Tag this Judgment!Jayachandran and Another Vs. Valsala and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-03-2016
Hariprasad, J. 1. This appeal is boarded before us by way of a reference. In the reference order, the learned Single Judge has observed that the ratio in Shyamalavalli Amma v. Kavalam Jisha (2007 (3) KLT 270) is irreconcilable with that in Narayani v. Aravindakshan (2005 (4) KLT 1) because the learned Single Judge, while disposing of Shyamalavalli Amma's case, did not advert to the judgment in Narayani's case. Learned Single Judge doubted the pronouncement in Shyamalavalli Amma's case, by placing reliance on the decision by the Supreme Court in Kalliani Amma v. K.Devi (1996 (2) KLT 42) too. 2. The defendants in O.S.No.916 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Thrissur are the appellants and the plaintiffs are the respondents. 3. We shall narrate the facts, in nut shell, for a clear understanding of the disputes. The suit is one for partition. There are 32 items of immovable properties scheduled to the plaint. It is averred in the plaint that the properties belonged to Vaikkat...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »