Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1999Ker213; [2000]101CompCas486(Ker)
Marimuthu, J.1. This C.M.A. has arisen challenging the order of the Subordinate Judge, Kozhikode, delivered in E.A. No. 610 of 1981 in E.P. No. 263 of 1979 in O.S. No. 142 of 1969. The appellant is the Kerala Financial Corporation, having its registered office at Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram.2. Some of the facts necessary for appreciation can be summarised hereunder: Respondents 4, 6, 7 and 8 and additional respondents 10 to 18 (legal representatives of deceased respondents 3 and 4) were the owners of 9 acres and 75 cents of land which was mortgaged to the appellant, on obtaining a loan. Since there was a default in the repayment of loan, the appellant proceeded against the owners of the land under Sections 31 and 32 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 before the District Court, Kozhikode and obtained an order in their favour in O.P. No. 87 of 1969. Then they moved for the execution of the order by filing E.P. No. 3 of 1973 for sale of the property, in which the sale was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2005Ker208; 2005(2)KLT746
K.T. Sankaran, J.1. The petitioner submitted an application on 22.4.2002 for being selected as the Stamp Vendor licensee in 'Peruvanna City' in Kozhikode Taluk, on the basis of Ext.R3(a) notification dated 4.4.2002, issued by the Additional Tahsildar, Kozhikode. The petitioner was called for an interview on 1.1.2003 as per Ext.P2 notice dated 5.12.2002. The petitioner appeared for the interview. The Original Petition is filed alleging that the third respondent was selected on extraneous considerations. The petitioner states that as per Ext.P1 application form, previous experience as a Stamp Vendor is a relevant criterion for selection. The petitioner had worked as Stamp Vendor at Pantheerankavu for a total period of two years, when the Stamp Vendor at Pantheerankavu was on leave. Ext.P3 issued by the Tahsildar, Kozhikode shows that the petitioner was allowed to work in the leave vacancy from 5.5.1994 to 4.11.1994. The petitioner was again appointed in the leave vacancy from 5.11.1994 t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2005(4)KLT1003
K.T. Sankaran, J.1. The main question of law involved in this Writ Appeal is whether a posthumous child of a teacher in an aided School, who died in harness, is entitled to get appointment under the Compassionate Employment Scheme on his attaining majority.2. Vasudevan, the father of the appellant, was a Sanskrit teacher in Punnur Cherupalam Aided Upper Primary School in Kozhikode District. Vasudevan died on 10.4.1980 while in service. Appellant, the child in the womb was born on 11.12.1980. He submitted an application for compassionate appointment under the Compassionate Employment Scheme as per G.O.(P)12/99/P&ARD; dated 24.5.1999, which was made applicable to teachers of aided schools under Rule 51B of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules. The application was made on 29.11.2000, within two years of his attaining majority. The appellant had the requisite qualification for appointment. The Manager of the School in Ext.P2 letter dated 10.1.2001, stated that the appellant is not el...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2006]133CompCas546(Ker); 2008(38)PTC554(Ker)
V. Ramkumar, J.1. The two defendants in O.S. No. 23 of 2005 on the file of the Second Additional District Court, Ernakulam, are the petitioners in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said suit. The aforementioned suit filed under Section 26 read with Order VII, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code and Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, is for a declaration that the plaintiff is the exclusive owner and proprietor of the marks Kamadon and Melchizedek method of meditation technique and its innumerable logos, insignias, emblems, devices and materials and for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants by themselves or through their directors, heirs, legal representatives, assignees, servants, agents, etc., from using, deploying, advertising or otherwise adopting in any manner the marks Kamadon and Melchizedek or any deceptive imitation thereof and to render a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2009CriLJ763
ORDER1. The question involved in this case is a fairly interesting interplay of- Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'} and Sections 131, 139 and 165 of the Evidence Act - in the context of the protection available to a person under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. Elaborate arguments were addressed by learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri. Santhosh P. Poduval and Sri. John S. Ralph, appearing for the party respondent.2. The petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in C.C. No. 198/00 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur, involving offences under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Prize Chit and Money Circulations Banning Act, 1978 {for short 'the Act'}.3. It is the complainant's case that he is a share holder in the 1st accused company. Accused 2 to 12 are the Directors and 13th accused is the Manager of the 1st accused. Accused 2 to 13 are responsible for the conduct of the business of the company and its day to day affairs. That the accused, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2009CriLJ1949
J.B. Koshy, Actg. C.J.1. These two writ petitions are filed as public interest litigation regarding granting of sanction for prosecuting the accused in the 'SNC Lavlin Scam' which is the biggest scandal that rocked this small but literate State of Kerala. It is the contention of the petitioners that in view of the agreement executed between the Kerala State Electricity Board and SNC Lavlin, a Canadian Intermediary regarding renovation and modernisation of Pallivasal, Chengulam and Panniyar Hydro Electric projects, State has lost more than Rs. 500 crores and certain persons obtained material gains of Rs. 300 crores. Comptroller and Auditor General found out the great loss caused to the State. Sri. Balanandan Commission report also shows the irregularities in the above deal. State Vigilance also after investigation found grievous irregularities, corruption and toss to the State. But Vigilance enquiry pointed out more guilt on the officers rather than persons behind it. Petitioners approa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Ramachandran Nair, J. The case has come up before the Full Bench as per Reference Order of the Division Bench dated 21.5.2010. The learned Single Judge referred the matter as per Reference Order dated 10.7.2009. The question referred before the Full Bench for its opinion, is the following: “Where the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered by coequal benches express conflicting principles of law, which cannot stand together and, thus, present a serious problem to the High Courts and Subordinate Courts, what are the principles to be followed in choosing one or other of the conflicting judgments by the High Court when in a case the applicability of the conflicting decisions rendered by the apex court has decisive impact in its disposal.” 2. The factual matrix is in a narrow compass. The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the judgment debtors in E.P.No.14/2005 in O.S.No.184/1986 of the Munsiff’s Court, Punalur. The suit was one for declaration of title of the plaintiffs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Ibrahim, Murugan, Abu Gani and Kareem Sadhik Basha detained under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, for short, “COFEPOSA Act” are the beneficiaries of these writ petitions filed seeking issuance of writs, directions or orders in the nature of habeas corpus on the ground that the orders for their detention and their continued detention in terms of those orders are in violation of Article 22(5) of the constitution and the different provisions of COFEPOSA Act. The detention orders are also sought to be quashed. 2. Adv. S. Palanikumar appearing on behalf of the petitioners in these cases, Adv. Govindu P. Renuka, the Central Government Counsel appearing for Union of India which is the second respondent and Adv. P.K. Babu, the Senior Government Pleader appearing for the State of Kerala and the Superintendent of the Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram, who are respondents 1 and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2012(2)KLT133(SN)(C.No.129)
Ramkumar J. Proceedings impugned in this petition In this petition filed under Sub-section (6) of Section 63 of theMahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the University Act" for short), the petitioner, who was formerly working as senior grade lecturer in Malayalam in the St.Alberts College, Ernakulam challenges the judgment dated 25.08.2009 passed by the Mahatma Gandhi University Appellate Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") dismissing University Appeal No.3 of 2009 filed by the petitioner. THE PETITIONER'S CASE 2. The case of the petitioner can be summarised as follows:- The petitioner is a senior grade lecturer in Malayalam and was the Head of Department in St.Albert's College, Ernakulam with 24 years of unblemished service. St.Albert's College is an aided college under the Government of Kerala and affiliated to the Mahatma Gandhi University. The first respondent is the Manager and the 2nd respondent is the Principal of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. At about 4.30 P.M. on 15.2.2012, a fishing boat "St. Antony", registered in India, while fishing off the coast of Kerala, was fired at, from a passing ship. As a result of this, of the 11 fishermen who were onboard the boat, two of them, namely Valantine @ Jelestine aged 44 years and Ajeesh Pink, aged 20 years were killed instantaneously. Immediately, the boat returned to Neendakara and the owner of the boat gave First Information Statement before the third respondent, the Circle Inspector of Police, Neendakara, who recorded the same and registered a case as Crime No. 2 of 2012, copy of which is marked as Ext.P2 for murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC). In Ext.P2 , it was alleged that while fishing at 33 Nautical Miles (NM) away from the police station, without any warning or alarm, there suddenly occurred repeated firing for about two minutes from a ship painted black and red. Since the assailants were not identified, the...
Tag this Judgment!