Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2006Ker275; 2006(3)KLT17
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This matter has been placed before us on a reference made by a learned single Judge having expressed doubt with regard to the correctness or otherwise of the learned single Judge's judgment in Ramesh Kumar v. Kannapuram Grama Panchayat 1997 (2) KLT 434 wherein the learned single Judge took the view that the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 would apply to a Hindu outside the territory of India only if he is a Hindu domiciled in the territory of India and that he should have permanent residence in India.2. Petitioners herein are husband and wife who belong to Nair community. Their marriage was solemnized on 13-7-2005 at Vinayaka Kalyana Mandapam at Ernakulam in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act. First petitioner husband is employed at Canada and second petitioner his wife is a native of Kannur District in Kerala. First petitioner's parental home is at Thodupuzha and parents own properties there. First petitioner was born while parents were at Canad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1988Ker175
John Mathew, J. 1. This is an appeal filed under Section 10 of the Kerala Dramatic Performances Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The District Collector, Ernakulam who is the first respondent herein, passed an order dt. 17-3-1987 under Section 4(1) of the Act, copy of which is produced as Annexure III to the Memorandum of Appeal, prohibiting the staging of the drama 'Kristuvinte Aaram Thirumurivu' for a period of three months in any part of the Ernakulam District. This appeal is filed by the Convenor of Aasayaviskara Samrakshana Samithy, Ernakulam District which is stated to be a society for protecting the freedom of expression and speech of the public and for creating consciousness among the public to protect the said rights. Originally, the District Collector, Ernakulam and Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ernakulam alone were the respondents in the appeal. Subsequently, some organisations and individuals filed petitions for impleading them as additional respondents. On...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1990Ker20
Ramakrishnan, J.1. The appeal and the memorandum of cross-objection are filed respectively by the plaintiff and defendant in the suit.2. Plaintiff and defendant are both firms carrying on business in rice and other food-grains in Mattancherry and Calicut respectively. According to the plaintiff, defendant entered into two contracts on 19-7-1975 with them for the purchase of three wagons each of Nepal rice. The first contract was for three wagons at the rate of Rs. 362/- per quintal, bilticut, ready R.R. from 'Jayamgur' or 'Jogbani' to Calicut. The second contract was for three wagons again, at the rate of Rs. 365/- per quintal bilticut, ready R.R. from 'Jogbani' to Calicut. The other terms and conditions of the two contracts were identical. The payment was agreed to be made against R R in cash or by T.T. at Cochin through bank. There was an agreement to pay interest from the date of contract at 18% and also bank commission at 50 Np. per hundred rupees. The defendant also paid a total a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1993)ILLJ686Ker
Usha, J.1. An Advocate practicing in the Thrissur Bar is the petitioner herein. He was appointed as Additional Government Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor, Thrissur for a period of three years under Government order dated October 7, 1991. The challenge in this original petition is against termination of his service as Addl. Government Pleader and Addl. Public Prosecutor, Thrissur before the expiry of the term of appointment.2. Ext. P1 order of appointment would show that the appointment was subject to the terms and conditions provided under the Kerala Government Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) and Conduct of Cases Rules, 1978. Rule 9 of the above Rules provides that the term of appointment of a person appointed as Addl. Government Pleader and Addl. Public Prosecutor shall be for a period of three years. But Rule 17 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules, the Government may terminate the appointment of any Government Law Officer, other...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1978Ker176
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J. 1. These appeals are against the decision of a learned Judge and raise the question of the validity of the prevailing system of admissions to the medical colleges of this State. The grounds of attack raised in writ petitions which have given rise to these appeals, may be classified under two broad heads: attack against the reservation of a certain proportion of seats to be filled up from the geographical limits of what is generally referred to as the 'Malabar area' of this State; andattack basically against the scheme of admissions to the medical colleges in this State on an assessment of the merit of students drawn from different Universities, stated to be with no uniformity of standards in the matter of syllabus or curriculum of studies, or assessment of results. The learned Judge, to state again broadly, upheld the challenge against the reservation of a proportion of seats to students from the Malabar area, and held that the said reservation was unconstitution...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2006(1)KLT315
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. The appellant is the manager of an aided U.P.School. She is challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in O.P. No. 35376/2000 reported in 2002 (2) KLT 502. The appellant was not a party to the said Original Petition. However, aggrieved by the general directions in the said judgment, which resulted in the educational authorities issuing consequential directions to the disadvantage of the appellant in the form of Annexures A3 to A5, the appellant has come up in appeal on obtaining leave of this court for the same. The facts necessary for disposal of the Writ Appeal are summarised hereunder.2. The Original Petition, which was disposed of along with a connected O.P. No. 4010/2002, the common judgment in which is impugned in this appeal was filed by the President of the Parent Teacher's Association of Government Girls High School, Kollam, the 1st respondent herein, complaining about the advertisement hoarding erected by the second respondent in the Original Pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1975CriLJ1164
P. Govindan Nair, C.J.1. This is one in a series of petitions praying for the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, arising from the orders of detention passed under Section 3(1)(c) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, for short, the Act, as amended by the Maintenance of Internal Security (Amendment) Ordinance, 1974 (No. 11 of 1974), issued by the President under Article 123 of the Constitution, It is by the amending Ordinance that Section 3(1)(c) was enacted which is in these terms:3. Power to make orders detaining certain Persons : - (1) The Central Government or the State Government may-(a) ....(b) ....(c) if satisfied with respect to any person (including a foreigner) that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the conservation of foreign exchange or with a view to preventing him from-(i) smuggling goods, or(ii) abetting other persons to smuggle goods or(iii) dealing in smuggled goods it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2009CriLJ2930
K.T. Sankaran, J.1. The criminal appeals arise out of S.C. No. 819 of 2001, on the file of the Court of the Sessions Judge, Kollam, Crl. A. No. 1070 of 2004 is filed by the first accused while Crl. A. No. 1071 of 2004 is filed by the second accused.2. Accused No. 3, Sinu, turned out to be an approver and he was tendered pardon under Section 306(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.3. The prosecution alleged offences punishable under Sections 302, 376, 394, 404 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court found accused Nos. 1 and 2 guilty of the offences under Sections 302, 376, 404 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302. rigorous imprisonment for a term of ten years under Section 376, rigorous imprisonment for a term of three years under Section 404 and rigorous imprisonment for a term of seven years under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were also ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE3D DAY OF MARCH201512TH PHALGUNA, 1936 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 255 of 2015 () ------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMP9582014 of ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE, KOTTAYAM DATED2811.2014 REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------ NOBLE MATHEW, AGED53YEARS S/O.LATE M.D MATHEW, MANNAMPLACKAL HOUSE CHIRAKKADAVU P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT686520. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA - 682 031.2. K.M MANI, AGED ABOUT85YEARS, S/O.LATE MANI,KARINGOZHACKAL HOUSE, VELLAPPAD, PALA, LALAM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM - 686 001. R1 BY ADVOCATE GENERAL SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0303-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.------------------------------ Crl.R.P.No.255 of 201...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE27H DAY OF NOVEMBER20146TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2010 of 2014 () -------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CrL.A6812008 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA DATED1312-2013 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC6372007 of J.M.F.C.,IRINJALAKUDA DATED1009-2008 REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- PRINCE P.J, AGED44YEARS, S/O.JOSE, PAZHEDATHPARAMBIL HOUSE, MADAYIKONAM.P.O. KUZHIKKATTUKONAM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADVS.SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN SRI.SEBIN THOMAS SMT.J.KASTHURI SRI.VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------- 1. NOBLE T.FRANCIS, S/O.THALIYATH FRANCIS, IRINJALAKUDA, VILLAGE DESOM AND TALUK, PIN-680121.2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) R2 BY P...
Tag this Judgment!