Court : Kerala
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. These Writ Appeals have been filed against the common judgment dated 18.08.2015 by which W.P(C) Nos.22658, 22771 and 21098 of 2015 have been dismissed. The Writ Appeals raising common question of facts and law are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the three Writ Appeals are as follows: W.A. No.1872 of 2015 (arising from W.P(C) No.22658 of 215). The 1st petitioner, a Charitable and Educational Trust, is running DM Wayanad Institute of Medical Sciences. Permission to start Medical College with an intake of 150 students was granted in the academic year 2013-14 after conducting due inspection by the Medical Council of India (fort short, "the MCI"). Letter of permission was issued on 15.07.2013. After establishment of the Medical College, petitioners have been conducting the Medical College. An application was made for renewal of the permission for academic year 2014-15, pursuant to which inspection was conducted, by the Medical Coun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in :
Cases Relied:
Dilip Bastimal Jain V Baban Bhanudas Kamble and others [AIR 2002 Bom 279].
Vimala Ammal V C. Susheela [AIR 1991 Mad 209].
Dwarka Prasad Singh v. Harikant Prasad Singh [(1973) 1 SCC 179 :. AIR 1973 SC 655].
P.P.S Pillai V Catholic Syrian Bnak [2000(3) KLT 629].
Peter Cherian v. Abraham [2007 (4) KLT 680].
Satheedevi v. Prasanna [2010(2) KLT 642 (SC)].
Ali Rowther v. Kochupennu [1986 KLT 718].
Kali Charanv. Janak Deo [A.I.R. 1932 Allahabad 694].
Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal [A.I.R.1982 S.C.818].
Potter v. Sanders (6 Ha. 1).
Daniels v. Davison (17 Ves 433).
Holmes v. Powell (8 De G.M. and G. 572).
Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders and Investors (P) Ltd., (2013) 5 SCC 397.
(Kafiladdin case, AIR p. 68).
R.C. Chandiok v. Chuni Lal Sabharwal:AIR 1971 SC 1238:(1970) 3 SCC 140.
SCR p. 369 in Durga Prasad v. Deep Chand viz.
S.V.R. Mudaliar v. Rajabu F. Buhari, AIR 1995 SC 1607.
Cases Referred:
Bankim Chandra v. Anand Bazar Patrika [AIR (37) 1950 Calcutta 128].
Thanga Pandiyan v. S.R.Periaswami Thevar [1953 KHC 196: 1953 KLT 475, 2015 KHC 90.
Mohandas K. K. and others V Thankamma Pillai [2015 KHC 90].
Durga Prasad and Anr. v. Deep Chand and Ors. [AIR 1954 SC 75].
Appukuttan v. Kamalakshi [1996(2) KLT 977].
Dilip Bastimal Jain V Baban Bhanudas Kamble and others [AIR 2002 Bom. 279],
W.P. 6225 of 2007 of Bombay High Court, Chendivel R vs G Damodaran and others [AIR 2015 Mad 96], 2010(2) KLT 642 (SC).
Krishna Chandra Kabiraj and others V Sankaran Kabiraj and others [AIR 1950 Calcutta 128].
Chendivel R vs G Damodaran and others [2015 KHC 2237: AIR 2015 Mad 96].
Vigro Industries Pvt Ltd V Venturetech Solutions P Ltd : 2012(5) CTC 359.
State Bank of India V Cracure Pharmaceuticals Ltd : 2013 STPL (Web) 939
Comparative Citation:
2016 (1) KLT 75 (SN) (C.No.79),
Asha, J. 1. Appellant is the 1st defendant in O.S No.478 of 2007, on the file of the First Additional Sub Court, Thrissur. 1st respondent herin filed the suit against the appellant and his wife who is the 2nd respondent herein, praying for a decree for specific performance of Ext.A1 agreement. On coming to know about the settlement deed executed by the appellant in favour of his wife alienating the plaint schedule property in her name, the plaint was amended as per order in I.A No.626 of 2009, seeking a declaration that the document No. 902/07 of Sub Registry Office, Thrissur is not binding on the plaintiff or the plaint schedule property and cancelling the document. 2. The suit was decreed declaring that document No.902/2007 executed between the appellant and the 2nd respondent herein is a sham document not binding on the 1st respondent and directing the 1st respondent to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.3,22,500/- to the appellant within 30 days and a further direction to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
A. Hariprasad, J. 1. Defendant in a suit for partition is the appellant. He is aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, rejecting his contention that the subject matter of the suit is not a co-ownership property of the plaintiff and the defendant, but it is a property belonging to a partnership firm, constituted by the parties to the suit. Appellant therefore contended that a suit for partition is incompetent. 2. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. We carefully perused the lower court records. 3. Facts relevant for disposal of the appeal, stated shortly, are as follows: The appellant and respondent are brothers. Two others by names Varghese and Babu, are their siblings. Plaint schedule property was acquired by all the four brothers in the year 1973 as per Ext.A1 registered sale deed. A cinema theater by name 'Thavus Theater' was established in the property under a partnership by all the four co-owners. While so, a suit for dissolution of partnership and r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
K.T. Sankaran, J. 1. Terrorism is one of the main threats to the safety and security of India and the people of India. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (Act 37 of 1967) was enacted to provide for the more effective prevention of certain unlawful activities of individuals and associations and for dealing with terrorist activities and for matters connected therewith. The Act was amended in 2004 and the words and for dealing with terrorist activities were inserted in the preamble. The Act was amended in 2008 and 2013 as well. In order to effectively combat terrorism, certain stringent provisions have been incorporated in the Act. One among these provisions is subsection (5) of Section 43-D of the Act, which provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, no person accused of an offence punishable under Chapters IV and VI of the Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. These Writ Appeals and Writ Petitions raise identical questions of facts and law and have been heard together. Writ Appeal No.1056 of 2008 is being treated as the leading Writ Appeal and reference of pleadings in the said Writ Appeal shall suffice in deciding all the cases. 2. W.A. No.1056 of 2008 has been filed by the State of Kerala challenging the judgment dated 22.08.2007 in W.P.(C) No.22236 of 2005. W.P(C) No.22236 of 2005 was filed by the Kerala Land Development Corporation Employees' Union and 82 employees challenging the decision of the State Government refusing to approve the proposal of the Kerala Land Development Corporation to increase the age of retirement of its employees from 55 to 60 years. The Learned Single Judge quashed the order of the State Government and directed that employees of the Corporation shall be entitled to continue in service till 60 years as resolved by the Board of Directors in its meeting dated 14.05.1998. 3. The other Writ App...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Anil K. Narendran, J. 1. The appellant is the second opposite party in W.C.C.No.269 of 2006 on the file of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Palakkad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner'), an application filed by the first respondent herein, under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), read with Rule 20 of the Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1924 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), claiming a lump sum amount of Rs.1,00,000/- together with interest as compensation for the injuries sustained in an accident occurred on 14.3.2006, in the course of his employment under the first opposite party, the second respondent herein. 2. The first respondent is a permanent employee in the tea estate owned by the second respondent at Nelliyampathy. On 14.3.2006 at 9.00 am, while the first respondent was plucking tea leaves in the estate, he was attacked by a wild pig, resulting injuries to his right knee. Immediately after the acc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. The petitioner essentially challenges the legality and validity of the decision of the 1st respondent at Ext.P-16 in rejecting the petitioner's claim for Scheduled Caste (Hindu Sambava) status for admission to professional courses, 2007. The said impugned Ext.P-16 dated 30.6.2007 is based on an enquiry report (Ext.P-10) of the 3rd respondent-KIRTADS (Kerala Institute for Research, Training and Development Studies for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes), which, according to the petitioner, is not taking into account the crucial relevant criteria and the principles laid down by the Apex Court on the issue of conversion and reconversion of Scheduled Castes. The petitioner's paternal great grandfather and paternal grandfather (Chothi) belonged to Hindu Sambava community. It is also not in dispute that his forefathers prior to his paternal great grandfather were also belonging to the said community. It is evident from Ext.P-8 (report dated 9.5.1988 of the Village Officer concerned), that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. These revisions under Section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and original petitions stand remitted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as per the remand order dated 28.4.2011 in Civil Appeal No.3758 of 2011 and connections. 2. The basic substratum of these litigations relates to the interpretation and construction of SRO.No.641/81 and SRO.No.1516/90 issued by the Government of Kerala in exercise of powers conferred under Section 10 of the KGST Act. As per SRO.No.641/81 which is deemed to have come into force on 1.4.1981, reduced rate of tax was prescribed on the purchase of rubber by manufacturers of finished rubber projects within the State for use of such rubber by such manufacturers in the manufacture of finished rubber products within the State. Through SRO.No.1516/90, the term 'finished rubber products' occurring in SRO.No.641/81 was sought to be explained by the introduction of an Explanation which is deemed to have come into for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J. Dismissal of the Insurance cases filed by the appellants/educational institutions before the Employees Insurance Court under Section 75 r/w Sec. 77 of the Employees Insurance Act (for short Act ) for a declaration that their Institutions are not liable to be covered under the Act; that no contribution is liable to be paid by them under any circumstance; that Teachers are not liable to be considered as employees as defined under Section 2(9) of the Act and thus seeking to set aside the notice/proceedings issued by the authorities of the ESI Corporation, is the subject matter of challenge in all these cases preferred under Section 82 of the Act. In some of the cases, violation of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, for intruding into the minority status/rights is also projected as a ground for interference. 2. One of the main contentions raised in these appeals is as to the incompetency on the part of the authorities concerned to proceed with further st...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Shaffique, J. 1. All these writ petitions have been referred to this Court by a common reference order dated 6/8/2015 wherein the learned Single Judge having considered the matter in detail and answering certain issues, expressed doubt regarding the power of Central Board of Secondary Education (for short 'CBSE') to reduce the limitation period for correcting the date of birth in the mark sheet by one year, by observing that the period of five years have been specified based on a concession made before a Division Bench of this Court. 2. All these writ petitions were filed by separate writ petitioners claiming that the CBSE and the respective Principals/Headmasters of the school should be directed to correct the date of birth in the mark sheet and the registers maintained by the said authorities, as the date of birth appearing in the Register maintained by the local authority is different. 3. The short facts in WP(C) No.1362/2015 are: The petitioner was born at Abudhabi, United Arab Emi...
Tag this Judgment!