Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2000(1)ALT300
A.R. Lakshmanan, J.1. Heard Mr. T. Ravi Kumar for the petitioner and Mr. K. Ramakumar, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel, for the respondents. We also heard Mr. John Varghese, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, who appeared for the respondents in O.P. No. 6115 of 1997, which is also on the same subject matter. 2. The petitioner is an Advocate on the rolls of the Kerala Bar Council, who is practising in this Court and in other Courts and Tribunals. He applied for a new telephone connection within the territorial jurisdiction of Parur Telephone Exchange in 1997. He made a representation on 13-2-1997 explaining the hardships faced by him due to the lack of telephone connection at his office and requested to give new telephone connection to the petitioner at his office on a priority basis considering his profession as a lawyer. He also stated in the representation that he had obtained telephone connection at his house in the ordinary category. The representation is ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1999Ker328
Mohammed, J. 1. In all these cases a preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The objection is that this Court has no power or jurisdiction to entertain these writ petitions under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and hence we have to decide this question at the outset.2. The Regional Manager of the Tamil Nadu Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society Limited, Cochin issued demand notices to the petitioners-employees to remit the amount alleged to have been misappropriated by them on the basis of an enquiry report submitted by the AssistantDirector of Handloom and Textiles, Nagarcoil. The appellant in Writ Appeal No. 2107/98 and the petitioners in O.P. Nos. 7774 and 8182 of 1998 are the three employees among others, we are concerned in these cases.3. On behalf of the respondents it was contended that the cause of action for these cases arose outside the State of Kerala. First of all we have to find out the meaning of the expre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2000(1)ALT(Cri)176; 1999CriLJ2231
C.S. Rajan, J.1. The ghost of Varghese who met his tragic end in an alleged encounter with the Police 28 years back is still haunting the people of the State. The startling revelations of the additional 5th respondent (in O. P. No. 21142/98) who is a retired Police Constable that he shot Varghese compel1ed by his superior officers stirred up the hornets' nest and these original petitions are the outcome of those self-styled confessions of the police constable. All these original petitions (except O. P. No. 22485/98 filed by the kith and kin of Varghese) are Public Interest Litigations. The prayers in these Original Petitions are :(1) for a direction to the Government to conduct 'a confidence inspiring threadbare investigation' into the custodial murder of Varghese and to book the culprits and launch prosecution against them; and(2) to pay compensation to the kith, and kin of late Varghese to the tune of Rs. 10 lakhs.After issuing notice to the State, the learned Additional Advocate Gen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1998Ker385
ORDERK. Narayana Kurup, J.1. Having regard to the manner in which I propose to dispose of this Original Petition, I am satisfied that notice to the 5th respondent is not necessary. Accordingly, notice to the 5th respondent is dispensed with. Service of notice to other respondents is complete and counsel(s) heard.2. This writ petition filed in the nature of' Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to declare the candidature of the 5th respondent as null and void and for a direction to the first respondent' restraining the retired Judges of High Court and Supreme Court from contesting in the election to the Union and State Legislatures within 10 years of the retirement' and for a direction commanding the 4th respondent to conduct an enquiry into the allegations raised against the 5th respondent in Exts. PI and P2 news reports and for a declaration that retired Judges are not entitled to be appointed as Commissions under the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1998)IILLJ587Ker
A.C. Lakshmanan, J.1. Though a Division Bench of this Court, in the decision reported in 1997 (1) KLT 788 expressed their displeasure and sorrow by the unseemly controversy between the Advocate General (hereinafter referred to as 'the A.G.' and the Director General of Prosecution hereinafter referred to as 'the DGP') and disposed of the said case with a fond hope that the unhappy episode will be forgotten and not allowed to recur to sully the image of the two offices, the controversy, which appears to have been simmering, has come to the surface again.2. The root cause for the current controversy is the office direction issued by the Director General of Prosecution under Ext.P-1 dated February 5, 1998 informing the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association and the High Court Advocates Clerks' Association that copies of all criminal cases may be directly forwarded to his office with memo (after the cases are numbered in the registry section of the High Court and before sent to the Bench ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1997Ker291
Balasumbramanyan, J.1. Those Original Petitions essentially seek the relief of a declaration that the calling for and the holding of what has come to he known as 'bundh is unconstitutional and is hence illegal. O.P. 7551 of 1994 is filed by two citizens who arc generally carrying on their avocation in Cochin. O.P. 12469 of 1995 is by the various Chambers of Commerce in the State. In O.P. 7551 of 1994. it is sought to he declared as especially violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and also in contravention of the Directive Principles of State Policy embodied in the Constitution and the fundamental duties enumerated in the Constitution. Among the consequential reliefs sought for in the Original Petitions, a declaration is also sought that the calling for and holding a bundh is also a penal offence under the Indian Penal Code and is liable to he declared as such. In O.P. 7551 of 1994. in addition to the State and the Director General of Police, five registered All India poli...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1997]227ITR496(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J. 1. This petitioner has a grievance against rejection of the reference application by the order dated November 8, 1994, of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (exhibit P-9). The petitioner wants a direction for reference as regards the following four questions :' (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of Sections 80J and 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the profit referable to the articles, products or things manufactured by it in the course of its construction (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal's refusal to afford an opportunity to the assessee to produce the details called for by it for the first time at the hearing on December 7, 1993, amounts to a violation of the principles of natural justice which vitiates the appellate order ? (iii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1996(74)FLR2288]; (1996)IILLJ267Ker
P. Shanmugam, J.1. The Association of Planters of Kerala and a member of the said Association have filed the Original Petition seeking for a direction to direct the respondent to withdraw Ext, P2 notification dt. November 19, 1995. The said notification is a draft preliminary notification issued under Clause(b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act). The petitioners have also prayed for a writ of prohibition to prohibit the State Govt. from taking any further steps pursuant to the said notification.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are as follows: The Govt. of Kerala issued a draft preliminary notification containing proposals regarding the revision of minimum wages payable to the classes of employees employed in Tea, Rubber, Coffee, and Cardamom plantations in the State with effect from April 1, 1995. It is stated that approximately four lakhs of employees were employed in various plantations in Kerala. The last wage revision was made...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1996Ker37
Pareed Pillay, C.J.1. Company petition was filed under Section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') to rectify the register of shares of the first respondent-Company and to include petitioner's name as the joint holder of the shares registered in the names of respondents 2 and 3 and for consequential orders. Case of the petitioner is that he and respondents 2 and 3 had entered into an agreement in Nov. 1973 to acquire all the shares of the company and that respondents 2 and 3 in violation of the agreement acquired the shares and got it registered in their own names. The Company Court dismissed the petition holding that petitioner has no case that he had applied to the company for registration in the manner specified by the statute as transferee of its shares and that in the proceedings under Section 155 of the Act the direction regarding registration of a transfer cannot be granted overlooking the statutory prescriptions regarding the mode of transfer. The learned Judge...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1995Ker291
..... the benefit of the property given to her possession. she is certainly bound to make payments as damages for use and occupation. obviously these payments would represent a part payment of the damages for use and occupation. the government officials are not entitled to recognise her as a tenant or as a lessee in view of the statutory provision. there is no contract between the parties in writing in conformity with article 299 of the constitution of india. the decision of the supreme court in state of punjab v. m/s. om prakash ..... that the petitioner is an encroacher, trespasser or squatter. ext.p16 is arbitrary, and it is vitiated by inferential and factual mala fides. it is issued by the divisional forest officer who is highly prejudiced against the petitioner, because he had to face contempt proceedings. ext.p16 amounts to an abuse and misuse of the statutory power conferred on the second respondent. it is liable to be quashed. if the respondents wish to evict the petitioner, they can only do so by ..... writ petition to quash ext.p16 does not lie on that ground alone, the o.p. is liable to be dismissed.11-12. on the basis of the above contentions, and the facts narrated in the earlier paragraphs we shall now decide the various points in controversy.(1) identity of the property which is supposed to be the subject matter of the lease and the present litigation.-- it is true that originally properties were put up for auction as per ext. p1. pullala(west and east nelliampathy hills) 139 .....
Tag this Judgment!