Kerala Court April 2016 Judgments
State of Kerala Represented by its Chief Secretary to Government and O ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-05-2016
Ashok Bhushan, C J. 1. These Writ Appeals raise an important issue pertaining to the extent of power which can be exercised by the District Disaster Management Authority (for short, the DDMA ) in reference to a disaster management, i.e., Whether in exercise of the power under Section 34 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 2005 Act ), the District Management Authority can direct for demolition of the construction belonging to a private individual standing on an underground canal so as to carry out renovation and repair works of the said canal which became imminent due to the fact that the structure of the canal has outlived its life and would have led to a disaster within the meaning of the 2005 Act? 2. Writ Appeal Nos.2745, 2767 and 2768 of 2015 have been filed against the common judgment dated 23.09.2015 rendered by the learned Single Judge in three Writ Petitions filed by respondent No.1 in the above appeals. Writ Appeal No.57 of 2016 has been filed b...
Tag this Judgment!S. Saritha Nair Vs. State of Kerala Represented by The Secretary, Mini ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-04-2016
1. The 1st accused in CC No.400/2013 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Pathanamthitta, which has arisen from Crime No.656/2013 of Konni Police Station, for the offences under Sections 406, 419, 420 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC, has come up by seeking a fresh investigation in the case by another agency. It is the case of the petitioner that the 9th respondent, who is none other than the Chief Minister of Kerala, is also a party to the transactions and, therefore, the investigating agency ought to have arraigned the 9th respondent also as an accused in the case. It is her further case that as the investigating machinery was under the 9th respondent, a proper investigation was not conducted and, therefore, she is entitled to have a fresh investigation in the matter by another agency. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Advocate General and learned Director General of Prosecutions. 3. The complaint of the petitioner is that even if the allegation again...
Tag this Judgment!Saidalavi Vs. T.A. Abdul Azeez and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-04-2016
1. The petitioner and respondents 1 to 6 were candidates at the election held for the reconstitution of Municipalities in Kerala on 5.11.2015. They contested from Ward No.31 in Palakkad Municipality. The petitioner was declared elected by a margin of 19 votes. Challenging the election on various grounds the first respondent filed E.O.P No.100 of 2015 in Prl Munsiff Court, Palakkad. He deposited Rs.1,000/- in the Munsiff Court. One of the contentions raised by the petitioner is that the Election Petition is not maintainable because the first respondent deposited the amount of Rs.1,000/- as security subsequent to the filing of the petition, and not at the time of its presentation as provided in Sub Section (1) Section 191 of the Kerala Municipality Act (hereinafter called the Act). This was heard as preliminary question. The learned Munsiff found that the first respondent deposited Rs.1000/- in the Munsiff Court when the election petition was presented. This is questioned in this Civil R...
Tag this Judgment!Asokan Vs. Geethamoni and Another
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-01-2016
K. Ramakrishnan, J. 1. The tenant in R.C.P.No.12 of 2009 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Cherthala is the revision petitioner herein. The first respondent herein as landlord filed the above rent control petition for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent, bonafide need and sublease under sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter called the Act for short. The case of the landlady was that she purchased the petition schedule building and property on 23.2.2008. The revision petitioner herein was a tenant under the predecessor. On 29.9.2008, she issued a notice demanding vacant possession of the petition schedule building for her own occupation and also arrears of rent and sub-lease. Even after receipt of notice, he did not send any reply and did not surrender possession. So the landlady approached the rent control court with the above petition for eviction under sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Act. ...
Tag this Judgment!Aarif Latheef and Others Vs. Dr. Asha K. John and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-01-2016
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. All these Writ Appeals except W.A. No.556 of 2016 arise out of W.P(C) No.39448 of 2015. Writ Appeal No.556 of 2016 arises out of the judgment in W.P(C) No.3504 of 2016. Common issues of fact and law being involved in all these Writ Appeals they have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. Writ Petitioners are the in-service candidates who have completed five years of service whereas the appellantsare in-service candidates who have completed two yearsof service. There is inter-se dispute between the candidates who have completed five and two years service, respectively regarding admission to Post Graduate Medical Course, 2016. Writ petitioners who have completed five years of service shall be referred to as petitioners whereas the in-service candidates who have completed two years of service shall be referred as appellants. 2. Brief facts and sequence of events giving rise to the Writ Appeals are: The issues which have been raised in thi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›