Court : Kerala
Shaffique, J. 1. These appeals are filed against common judgment dated 20/5/2015 in a batch of writ petitions, by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions, which challenged notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred as the 'LA Act') and further proceedings pursuant to the same. Hence, the appeals are heard and decided together. 2. The facts involved in the above writ petitions disclose that a common notification dated 30/5/2008 under Section 4(1) of the LA Act was published in Kerala Kaumudi daily on 2/6/2008, for acquisition of 250 acres of land in different survey numbers forming part of Veiloor Village, Thiruvananthapuram. The purpose of acquisition was for setting up of a "Life Science Park" for Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred as the Corporation). In WA No. 1464/2015 which arises from W.P.(C) No. 3011/2010, a separate Section 4(1) notification was published on 3/10/2008. Enquiry wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. The sole question arises for consideration in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C', for short) is: Whether the presence of the accused is mandatory for the examination contemplated under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C? 2. The person who has raised this question before this court is the 2nd accused in S.C No.1075/2007. According to him, an application moved by him as Crl.M.P No.1383/2013 after the closure of the prosecution evidence for getting exempted from being personally present for examination under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C was dismissed by the Additional District and Session's Judge, Thiruvananthapuram on 22.04.2013 and therefore, he was aggrieved. 3. The allegation against the petitioner was that he along with the 3rd accused in the case has sold the dinner sets stolen by the 1st accused on 23.06.1999 from the Kowdiar Palace to multiple persons, during the course of his employment there as a store-keeper. 4. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. Since the issue involved in all these writ petitions is the same, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the reference to facts and exhibits is from WP(C) No.19506 of 2011. 2. The petitioner, is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, and a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "KVAT Act" and "CST Act"). The petitioner is registered with the Department of Telecom for providing passive infrastructure services to various telecommunication operators in India on a shared basis. As a part of its activity, the petitioner installs the necessary infrastructure to facilitate telecommunication operation. For providing the passive infrastructure services, the petitioner enters into a Master Services Agreement with the sharing operators, wherein the inter se roles and responsibilities of each party are clearly defined. In orde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P9 common order dated 30.6.2015 of the Kerala State Election Commission, the 1st respondent herein, in O.P.Nos.96 of 2013 to 100 of 2013. They have also sought for a declaration that obedience of the whip issued by the competent authority under the Constitution of the party, rather than the autocratic and monarchic order issued by the President of the party, can never be interpreted as being disloyal to the party to attract the disqualification under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The petitioners herein are members of Socialist Janatha (Democratic) party (hereinafter referred to as 'SJ(D) party'). The 2nd respondent herein is the President of SJ(D) party. The 2nd respondent filed O.P.Nos.96 of 2013 to 100 of 2013 before the Kerala State Election Commission (hereinafter refer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. This Writ Appeal has been filed by the respondents to Writ Petition No.5298 of 2014 against the judgment dated 02.02.2015 by which judgment the learned Single Judge directed the appellants to consider appointment of the Writ Petitioner in accordance with law. Parties shall be referred to as described in the Writ Petition. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the Writ Petition as emerged from the pleadings of the parties are: Writ Petitioner was appointed as Scientific Assistant on 12.12.1982 in the Coir Board. She was initially promoted on adhoc basis as Scientific Officer in the year 1994. Subsequently, petitioner was selected for the post of Senior Scientific Officer under direct recruitment with effect from 06.12.2007. Secretary of the Coir Board issued a Notification inviting application for appointment on the post of Director (RDandTE). Petitioner who fulfilled the qualification for the post submitted application. The Coir Board published a rank list in which petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. The question involved in this Original Petition is whether an application for amendment of the plaint can be maintained in an appeal filed after the enactment of the CPC Amendment Act 22 of 2002. 2. The petitioner filed A.S.No.56 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Kollam challenging the judgment and decree in O.S.No.188 of 2002, Munsiff's Court, Kollam. In the appeal, the petitioner filed an application for amendment of the plaint (I.A.No.3382 of 2010). The lower Appellate Court dismissed the application on the ground that as per the proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure, no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. The court below also held that on the merits, the application for amendment cannot be allowed. 3. Rule 17 of Order VI of the Code o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. The Original Petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.588 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the First Additional Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, by which the court below dismissed the application for amendment of the plaint. 2. The petitioner/plaintiff entered into an agreement for sale with the respondents. The respondents agreed to sell their property to the petitioner fixing a price at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per cent of land. The plaintiff contended that a sum of Rs.2 lakhs was received by the defendants as advance sale consideration. As per the agreement dated 17.5.2006, the period of six months was fixed for completing the transaction. 3. Since the defendants were not ready to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff caused to issue two lawyer notices to the defendants directing them to execute the document after receiving the balance consideration. In the notice dated 4th October, 2006, it is stated thus : That my client is always ready and willing to purchase the property m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Ramachandra Menon, J. These appeals/revision arise from a common order dated 20.03.2003 passed by the Subordinate Judges Court, Thalassery in I.A.Nos.1503, 1504, 1505 and 1506 of 1999 preferred in O.P.No.72/1992. The issue relates to the affairs of a partnership firm and the course and proceedings pursued with regard to the determination of rights and liberties. 2. It is stated that the firm was originally constituted with two partners. Huge financial assistance was availed by the firm from the Kerala Financial Corporation and also the State Bank of India, creating mortgage of the property having an extent of 18 cents. Pursuant to the coercive steps taken by the financial institutions, steps were taken to see that private sale was arranged in some or other manner to save the property and further assets. It was in the course of the said proceedings, that the partnership was sought to be widened by inducting two more partners and a Deed was executed accordingly. As per the agreement exec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Ashok Bhushan, CJ. 1. These writ petitions were being heard by the learned Single Judge, who, by a common order dated 30.7.2015 directed the writ petitions to be placed before the Honourable Chief Justice, so as to obtain orders as to whether the above cases could be posted before a Division Bench. Thus, these writ petitions came to be placed before this Bench for hearing. 2. All the writ petitions consist of similar issues of facts and law and hence, all have been heard together. W.P.(C) No.17271 of 2015 is being treated as the leading writ petition and the references and pleadings in the aforesaid writ petition shall be sufficient to decide all the writ petitions. Facts :- W.P.(C) No.17271 of 2015 The petitioners, who are three in number passed their Higher Secondary Examination in March 2014. They applied for B.Sc Nursing in Rev. Noorunnissa College of Nursing, Andersonpet, Karnataka State. The College conducted a selection test, on the basis of which, all the petitioners were given...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. This Regular Second Appeal essentially arises out of the challenge made as against the permission granted by the statutory authorities concerned for the establishment of a vault type cemetery in the appellant St.Mary's Orthodox Church, Vettipuram, Pathanamthitta district. The contesting respondents herein had filed Original Suit, O.S.No.57/1999 before the Munsiff's Court, Pathanamthitta, praying to set aside the impugned orders issued by the statutory authorities concerned in the matter of permission for construction of a vault type cemetery by the St.Mary's Orthodox Church authorities concerned (respondents 5 and 6 in the O.S.) and for consequential injunction. The trial court has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree rendered by the Munsiff's Court, Pathanamthitta, on 29.9.2000 in O.S.No.57/1999, the church authorities had filed Appeal Suit, before the District Court concerned. The lower appellate court, as per the impugned jud...
Tag this Judgment!