Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2006Ker1; [2006(2)JCR276]; 2005(4)KLT119
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Whether children born out of inter-caste married couple could claim the status of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe for the benefit of reservation in admission to educational institutions and in public employment on the mere fact that one of their parents belongs to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe is the question that is posed for our consideration.2. We find that what has caused anxiety and even panic is the reluctance to accept the reality and the possible ramifications which such an adjudication might bring in the community texture. Identification of scheduled tribes and scheduled castes in a State or Union Territory is a presidential prerogative as gatherable from Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India. Nobody other than a person who is member of a caste/tribe can claim to be a scheduled caste or tribe. Therefore claim of a person born of intercaste marriage that he is a member of one or the other caste requires an adjudication. If he is found as a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (2006)IILLJ413Ker
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. Entitlement to gratuity payable on retirement reckoning the pay revision which came into effect after such retirement with retrospective effect is the moot question arising in this case. Facts are not in dispute, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was arrived at between the Indian Bank Association representing the Nationalised Banks and the organisations of the officers of such Nationalised Banks on June 23, 1995 concerning wage revision and other attendant benefits. The wage revision did have retrospectivity, as per the MoU, with effect from November 1, 1992. It was provided that the actual monetary benefit on account of such revision will be made available only to those who were in service on July 1, 1993 and afterwards. Different dates also were mentioned in respect of revision of H.R.A., D.A., Provident Fund, Compensatory Allowance etc. It was also made clear that in respect of those who retired between November 1, 1992 and October 31, 1994, the benefits of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2005CriLJ3848; 2005(3)KLT770
ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. The interesting question which comes up for consideration before us upon a reference by a Division Bench is the following:--'Whether the statement of an approver examined before the appropriate Magistrate under Clause (a) of Sub-section (4) of Section 306 Cr.P.C., is relevant and admissible under Section 33 of the Evidence Act during the subsequent trial in which he is not available for examination by reason of his death in the meanwhile?'The referring Bench was of the opinion that in the light of divergent views expressed by two Division Benches of this Court in Kurian v. State, 1989 (1) KLT SN 37 Case No. 60 and State of Kerala v. Monu Surendran, 1990 (1) KLT 53, regarding the right to cross-examine an approver, an authoritative pronouncement must come from a larger Bench.2. The appellants in this batch of appeals were the accused in the same or different cases popularly known as 'the mark list cases' tried by the Special Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram upon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2005(3)KLT823
ORDERK. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The accused in Crime No. 534 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam have filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Case for quashing Annexure No. XX Complaint filed by the second respondent and also Annexure XXI First Information Report registered by the Sub Inspector of Police, Ernakulam Town North Police Station in pursuance of that complaint.2. In the Criminal Miscellaneous Case it was averred that the second respondent is the second accused in Crime No. RC 3(S)/1994, CBI Kerala registered under Section 120B read with Sections 302, 201 and 34 I.P.C. relating to the death of Sri. K.G. Munna, whose charred body was found in a partially burnt Ambassador Car at Thuvassery Kunnu on MLA Road, Kottapuram on 11.4.1992. The case was initially investigated by the local police and then by the Crime Branch of Kerala Police. The father of the deceased filed O.P. No. 15974 of 1992 before this Court and this Court directed the C.B.I. t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2005CriLJ3916
Ram Kumar, J.1. In this appeal preferred from the Central Prison, Viyyur, the appellant (Hassan alias Hussain) who was the accused in Sessions Case No. 460/2001 on the file of the Addl. Sessions Court (Ad hoc), East Track Court No. 1, Manjeri, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him under Section 302, I.P.C.THE PROSECUTION CASE 2. The Case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows :--On 8-2-2000 at or about 10.15 a.m. on the southern road margin of Mangalam Alungal Road in front of the vegetable shop of Muhamrnedkutty alias Kunhumon (PW-3) in Mangalam amsom and desom, on account of his previous enmity towards Kizhakepediyekal Muhammedali for not letting out the shop room in his possession, the accused knowingly and intentionally caused the death of the said Muhammedali by stabbing him on the back and front of his chest with a knife. The accused has thereby committed an offence of murder punishable under Section 302, I.P.C.3. PW-2 (Rashid, who is the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2006Ker194; [2006(3)JCR324]; 2005(3)KLT865
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The question that is posed for consideration in this case is whether the Electricity Board can demand arrears of electricity dues including penalty incurred by a previous consumer from a new owner/occupier/allottee of the same premises as a pre-condition for electricity connection under Regulation 15(e) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy.2. Three Division Benches of this Court in Ramachandran v. K.S.E. Board, 2000 (2) KLT 694, K.J. Dennis v. Liquidator, 2001 (2) KLT 75 and Seena B. Kumar v. Asst. Executive Engineer, 2003 (3) KLT 987 have upheld the right of the Board, correctness of which was doubted by another Division Bench and referred the matter to a larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement and hence the matter was placed before us.3. Writ petitioner has purchased about 3 acres and 191/4 cents of land in Porathusseri Village in Mukundapuram Taluk in public auction conducted under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act for an ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : II(2006)DMC222; 2006(1)KLT110
ORDERK. Hema, J.1. Does a son require any written authorisation from his mother to prosecute his father and second wife for bigamy under Section 494 of Indian Penal Code (IPC, for short)? Is it necessary that a complaint filed by the son should reflect that the complaint is filed 'on behalf of the mother? These are the main questions which arise for consideration in this case.2. The second respondent herein filed a private complaint before the Magistrate's court against the father and his second wife. The offence alleged is under Sections 494 and 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC, for short). As per allegations in the complaint, complainant's father who is arrayed as first accused married his mother in accordance with the religious rites and two children were also born in the wed-lock. But, while the marriage was subsisting, his father married the petitioner herein. The complainant came to know about the second marriage only when divorce proceedings were initiated by his father against the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2005(4)KLT81
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. These Writ Petitions are filed challenging the constitutional validity of Section 76 of the Kerala Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (Kerala Act X of 1960), hereinafter 'the CF Act', for short, and the notification issued by the Government of Kerala as per S.R.O.No. 226/2002 published in the Kerala Gazette Extra-ordinary No. 420 dated 5-4-2002, by which, the Government authorized levy of additional court-fee in exercise of power under Sub-section (1) of Section 76 of the CF Act. After the issuance of the aforesaid Notification, the Chairman of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal issued a Circular, which is also under challenge.2. The petitioners are assessees under the Commercial Tax Laws, to wit, the Central Sales Tax Act, the Kerala General Sales Tax Act or the Value Added Tax Act. As against assessment orders and allied matters, they have statutory remedies by way of appeal to the Appellate Authorities or the Tribunals, as the case may be, as ar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2006Ker75; III(2006)BC330; 2006(1)KLT86
ORDERJ.M. James, J.1. The short question that is raised for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is, whether the execution court, which originally fixed an upset price or reserve price, for the property proposed to be sold, could reduce the same on the ground that, there are no bidders to purchase the property for the price so fixed.2. Dhanalakshmi Bank Limited, Mundur Branch, is the revision petitioner, and the decree holder in E.P.No. 226/2003 on the file of the Sub Court, Thrissur. It brought to sale, 1 acre 23 cents of property at Vellattanjur village, Thalappilly Taluk of Thrissur District. The reserve price fixed was Rs. 5 lakhs. When the property was put on sale, there were no bidders. Therefore, the sale was adjourned. The revision petitioner, decree holder, filed an execution application, praying to reduce the upset price fixed, from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 3.5 lakhs. But through the impugned Order, the court below, dismissed the prayer. Hence, this revision petition.3. I ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2006(3)JCR116(NULL)]
ORDERJ.M. James, J.1. The short question that is raised for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is, whether the execution Court, which originally fixed an upset price or reserve price, for the property proposed to be sold, could reduce the same on the ground that, there are no bidders to purchase the property for the price so fixed.2. Dhanalakshmi Bank Limited, Mundur Branch, is the revision petitioner, and the decree holder in E.P. No. 226/2003 on the file of the Sub-Court, Thrissur. It brought to sale, I acre 23 cents of property at Vellattanjur village. Thalappilly Taluk of Thrissur District. The reserve price fixed was Rs. 5 lakhs. When the property was put on sale, there were no bidders. Therefore, the sale was adjourned. The revision petitioner, decree holder, filed an execution application, praying to reduce the upset price fixed, from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 3.5 lakhs. But through the impugned order, the Court below, dismissed the prayer. Hence, this revision petition.3. I...
Tag this Judgment!