Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: armed forces tribunal act 2007 section 30 appeal to supreme court Court: kerala Page 4 of about 306 results (0.165 seconds)

Kukkila Narayana Naik Vs. the Additional District Magistrate, Cannanor ...

Court : Kerala

Reported in : AIR1971Ker162

..... communicated to the licensee, particularly because he has got a right of appeal against the order of cancellation and he cannot properly put forward his contentions before the appellate tribunal, until he knows why the cancellation is made. the early decision of subba rao j. in narasimha reddi v. dt. magistrate, cuddapah, 1953-1 mad lj ..... namely, the gun.'i respectfully agree with the above statement.6. the position has been now made almost beyond controversy in the relevant provisions contained in the arms act of 1959. section 17 of the act deals with variation, suspension, and revocation of licenses. it is sufficient to read subsections (3), (4), (5) and (6) of the above section ..... licence,-- (a) if the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder of the licence is prohibited by this act or by any other law for the time being in force, from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or is of unsound mind, or is for any reason unfit for a licence under this .....

The State of Kerala and anr. Vs. K. Madhavan

Court : Kerala

Reported in : AIR1964Ker254

..... with the subject matter of the inquiry or who is not connected otherwise with the government servant whose conduct is under inquiry, or(iv) a special officer or tribunal appointed by the government for the purpose. 2. subject to the provisions of sub-rule (i) such inquiry against members of the service men. tioned in ..... of the special police establishment and that a general consent would not be a good consent. we do not see any force in this argument. under section 6 of the delhi special police establishment act, no member of the said establishment can exercise powers and jurisdiction in any area in a stats without the consent of ..... police or the government.note.---officers mentioned in columns i and 2 shall include officers of corresponding ranks in units like the malabar special police, special armed police battalion, district armed reserves, etc., where different designations are also used.3. if an officer conducting an oral inquiry is succeeded in office by another officer before the .....

Reghunatha Panicker and Etc. Vs. Kunjala Thankappan and ors., Etc.

Court : Kerala

Reported in : AIR1987Ker159

..... does not go to show that the petitioners in these two criminal m.cs have used any criminal force against the first respondent. the force, as per the complaint, was used only by the first accused. the overt act attributed to the petitioners is only prevention of entry of the complainant into the assembly hall. that prevention ..... of haryana, air 1970 punj & har 379 (fb). 'article 227 gives superintendence to this court over all courts and tribunals within its territorial jurisdiction, but the haryana legislative assembly is neither court nor a tribunal subordinate to this court over which it has jurisdiction of superintendence according to that article. the power of mr. speaker to ..... and both the rule and the exception will be found to depend upon whether the particular act can or cannot be regarded as a proceeding in parliament. in bradlaugh v. brakine, (1883 (47) lt 618) the deputy serjeant-at-arms was held to be justified in committing the assault with which he was charged, since it .....

Ananthakrishnan Vs. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Court : Kerala

Reported in : (1988)IILLJ526Ker

..... , he was prevented from raising the competency of the authority which issued ext. p 1. it was the direct consequence of the act done by the respondents. after having withheld the rule which was in force at the time of ext. p 1, the respondents cannot be allowed to urge that the petitioner should be non-suited because he ..... petitioner has disentitled him to any relief would depend on the facts of each case. if reasonable explanation is given for not taking any objection to the jurisdiction before tribunal that can be accepted by the high court and relief would be granted by way of certiorari. (vide division bench decision in section kumaraswamy reddiar v. noordeen and ..... be dismissed and in support he has relied on kumaraswami reddiar v. noor-deen (1960) klt. 778: wherein one of us had held that, if a party armed with an objection fails to raise it at the appropriate time and allows the proceeding to continue, that would preclude the person from invoking the jurisdiction under article 226. .....

Achuthan Nair and Others Vs. Union of India, Represented by General Ma ...

Court : Kerala

Reported in : 2012(3)ILR(Ker)490; 2012(3)KLT514; 2012(3)KLJ337

..... alleppey district in kerala state. aneesh kumar's transit from his station of duty to his home, was on home leave. he is a member of the uniformed armed force. he was authorised to carry the weapon which was in his possession. the entry of the local passengers into s12 bogie, without reservation of seats is unauthorised entry. ..... therefore, even if the incident is an untoward incident, no compensation is payable by the railway administration, since the deceased suffered on account of his own criminal acts. 7. the tribunal had before it, exhibits a1 to a10 and the testimony of achuthan nair, the father of the deceased. exhibit a3 is the first information report, of which ..... personnel and that the available policemen could not control the mob or protect aneesh kumar. 4. the tribunal dismissed the application holding that the incident is not an 'untoward incident' as defined in section 123(c) of the act and that even if it were one so, aneesh kumar suffered injuries and died only due to his .....

Shaila Nassar Vs. Uzhamalakkal Grama Panchayat

Court : Kerala

..... the appeals at the w.p.(c) no. 1352 of 2014 ..3.. threshold itself. the petitioner further alleges that ext.p6 order was passed by the tribunal in a mechanical manner acting in excess of its jurisdiction.4. in the detailed counter affidavit filed by respondents 3 and 4, they have justified the impugned order.5. arguments have been ..... p.(c) no. 1352 of 2014 -------------------------------------------------- dated this the 21st day of may, 2015 judgment under challenge in this writ petition is ext.p6 common order passed by the tribunal for local self government institutions, thiruvananthapuram in appeal nos.684/2013, 732/2013 & 733/2013.2. appeal no.684/2013 was filed by the 3rd respondent challenging ext.p4 ..... filed on 23.07.2013. therefore, it was argued that the said appeal was filed within time. i see valid w.p.(c) no. 1352 of 2014 ..6.. force in the said submission.8. similarly, from ext.r3(b), it can be seen that annexures 1 and 2 in that exhibit were put to the knowledge of the .....

Mr.K.P.Abdul Majeed Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin

Court : Kerala

..... justified in finding the appellant guilty and imposing penalty of rs. 15 lakhs under the provisions of the customs act 1962 only on the basis of the retracted confessional statements of the co-accused? 2. whether 'the appellate tribunal under the facts and circumstances of this case, is correct in finding the appellant guilty under the provisions of ..... evidence. as far as retraction statement is concerned, it is for the person who claims that retraction has been made genuinely to prove that the statements were obtained under force, duress, coercion etc. otherwise, the materials indicate that statements were given voluntarily. when the statute permits such statements to be the basis of finding of guilt even ..... of the house of k.v. moosan haji. i also hold him responsible for the illicit import of the walkie talkie found in the lorry and also the fire arm with r.c.no. 1 of 2010 -:12. :- ammunition found in the house of e.k. sivanandan." when such facts are also appreciated and considered by two .....

Indian Nval Canteen Service Employees Un Vs. Union of India

Court : Kerala

..... supreme court while considering the question as to whether employees of unit run canteens of army, navy and air force were government servants and whether central administrative tribunal has jurisdiction over them under the administrative tribunals act 1985 held that though the funding of unit run canteens is not made out of the consolidated fund of ..... 2 scc611 held that the employees working in the unit run canteens are government servants and therefore central administrative tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the applications of such employees under the provisions of the administrative tribunal act. further it is held that though they are treated as government servants by itself would not entitle them to ..... they form part of naval force as defined under section 3(10) of the navy act 1957. in so far as incs had been constituted and formed to promote the comfort and well being of the officers and soldiers of armed forces they have to be considered as part of the naval force. w.p.c.no. .....

Aley Antony Vs. Ouseph Chacko

Court : Kerala

Reported in : 2004(2)KLT867

..... that the building which is the subject-matter of the application is a hut for the purpose of section 2(25) of the act and further that the original applicant was a kudikidappukaran. accordingly the land tribunal allowed the application and directed allotment of 10 cents around the homestead towards the kudikidappu rights. as against the plea of res judicata in the ..... pius c. kuriakose, j. 1. this proceeding under section 103 of the kerala land reforms act (for short 'the act') impugns the order of the appellate authority (land reforms) thrissur setting aside an order passed by the land tribunal, pala allowing an application under section 80b of the act filed by one ouseph antony. revision petitioners are the legal heirs of ouseph antony. i may .....

S.Muhammed Ismail Vs. State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

..... they, being relevant, are extracted below for reference:"15. whether section 3(1) of the act overrides the judgment given by forest tribunal, high court and supreme court in the context of 1971 act is a question to be answered. the 1971 act was in force with effect from 10.05.1971. i.e. the vesting of ownership and possession of all ..... government.-- (1) notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, or in any judgment, decree or order of any court or tribunal or in any custom, contract or other documents, with effect from the date of commencement of this act, the ownership and possession of all ecologically fragile lands held by any person or any ..... 931/12 2 referred to as `act 26 of 1971'), which came into force from 10.05.1971, the estate was notified as a private forest vested in the state under section 3 of the act. thereupon appellant's father filed oa no.139/1977 before the forest tribunal, palakkad, constituted under section 8 of act 26 of 1971. by ext. .....