Court : Kerala
Shaffique, J. 1. Since common issues arise for consideration in these appeals, they are heard and decided together. 2. WA No.109/2015 is filed by respondents 3 and 4, viz., the District Town Planner and State Government challenging judgment dated 21/1/2013 in WP(C) No. 28724/12. The writ petition was filed by the 1st respondent herein, who is hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, seeking for a direction to the Municipality as well as the District Town Planner to pass final orders in his application dated 11/9/2012. Petitioner also sought for quashing Ext.P1 by which the Municipality has referred his application to the District Town Planner for certain clarifications. Petitioner inter alia contended that being the owner of 20.23 Ares of property in Meenachil Taluk, he applied for construction of a building viz., a residential apartment complex, as per application dated 11/9/2012. His application was forwarded by the Secretary of the Municipality to the District Town Planner for cer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. These Writ Appeals have been filed against the common judgment dated 05.12.2008 in a bunch of Writ Petitions filed by the respondents to these Writ Appeals. Writ Petition No.14350 of 2008 was treated as the leading Writ Petition by the learned Single Judge. Writ Appeal No.581 of 2009 arising out of the aforesaid Writ Petition is being treated as the leading Writ Appeal and reference of facts giving rise to W.A.No.581 of 2009 shall be sufficient for deciding all these Writ Appeals. 2. Parties shall be referred to as described in W.P(C) No.14350 of 2008. 3. Brief facts of W.P(C) No.14350 of 2008 are: First petitioner is the registered association of distributors of Liquified Petroleum Gas (for short, LPG ) duly appointed by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, a Government of India Oil Company. The second petitioner, a member of the first petitioner is one of the distributors of LPG. The Parliament enacted the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter refer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. The petitioner, a member of the fourth respondent Co-operative Society under the management of the third respondent Administrative Committee, assails Exhibit P3 order issued by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the second respondent, permitting the third respondent to fill up ten posts of Salesman/Peon lying vacant in the Bank. 2. As seen from the record, the term of the earlier Managing Committee came to an end in August 2011 for want of quorum; as a result, on 29.08.2011, the third respondent Administrative Committee was appointed. Though the Society initially proposed to have the election on 28.10.2012, the proposal could not materialize because of the pending litigation. It is represented that SLP No.17632/2013 is pending before the Honourable Supreme Court, in which status quo orders have already been granted. 3. In the light of the pending litigation, as there is no possibility of having a regular election to the Managing Committee in immediate future, the third r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. In a suit for partition what is the procedure to be followed when the court finds that division of the property by metes and bounds cannot be conveniently or reasonably made ? 2. The petitioner is the 1st defendant, respondents 1 and 2 the plaintiffs and the other respondents defendants 2 to 7 in the suit from which this Original Petition arises. The suit is for partition of 2.3 ares of land with a house thereon. A preliminary decree was passed directing its partition. The petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 are entitled to 1/6 share each. Respondents 1 and 2 together are entitled to 2/6 shares and respondents 5 to 8 together are entitled to 1/6 share. The commissioner appointed by the court in the final decree proceedings reported that partition of the property by metes and bounds cannot be conveniently made as its extent is too small. The learned Munsiff ordered sale of the property under the provisions of the Partition Act of 1893. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. This writ appeal has been filed by the 1st respondent to the writ petition against the judgment dated 09.12.2015 in W.P.(C) No.2705 of 2010. The writ petition was filed by the State authorities challenging the order of the Kerala Lok Ayukta dated 03.12.2008 by which order the Lok Ayukta directed the State Government to sanction pensionary benefits to the complainant(appellant) as provided in Clause 4B of Government Order dated 02.05.1968. Aggrieved by the order of the Lok Ayukta, the State has filed the writ petition which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment. 2. The learned Single Judge took the view that the Kerala Lok Ayukta could not have exercised any authority to sanction or non-sanction of pensionary benefits, which cannot be classified as maladministration within the meaning of the Lok Ayukta Act. The learned Single Judge also noticed that the complainant took voluntary retirement on 13.01.2000 whereas the complaint was fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Antony Dominic, J. 1. Among these cases, the writ petitions came up before a learned single Judge of this Court and the common question raised was whether the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the 'UGC Regulations, 2010', for short) was applicable while making appointments to the post of Principal in colleges affiliated to the Kerala and Mahatma Gandhi Universities. When the matters were heard, placing reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in S.N.College v. N.Raveendran [2001 (3) KLT 938], it was contended that the conditions of service of teachers of affiliated colleges are to be prescribed by the University concerned in terms of the Act governing the same and that in the absence of any amendment being made to the University Act or the Regulations framed thereunder, the UGC Re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. Petitioners are challenging the orders passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery in MC Nos.126/2015, 19/2016, 20/2016 and 21/2016. Through the said orders, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery, has issued preliminary orders under Section 111 Cr.P.C., thereby requiring the petitioners to appear before him and to show cause why they should not be ordered to execute bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like amount, for keeping peace for a period of one year. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Magistrate has violated all the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Madhu Limaye and another v. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Monghyr and others [AIR 1971 SC 2486] as well as the parameters laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Moidu v. State of Kerala [1982 KLT 578 (FB)]. The learned counsel for the petitioners has invited the attention of this Court to the decision rendered by a learned Single Judge...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
K. Ramakrishnan, J. The landlord in R.C.P.No.13 of 2011 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kochi is the revision petitioner herein. The rent control petition was filed by the landlord for eviction of the petition schedule building from the possession of the respondent on the ground of bonafide need under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, (hereinafter called the Act for short). 2. The case of the petitioner in the petition was that, the petitioner is the absolute owner of the tenanted premises with No.16/990T, which is part of a larger building known as Edathil Buildings . It is a three storied building facing P.T. Jacob Road on its south. The ground floor of the building belongs to the petitioner and the first and the second floor belong to his mother and brother respectively. The respondent is in possession of the petition schedule building on a monthly rent of 1,320/- and other rooms in the petition schedule building are in the occupation o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. These two writ appeals have been filed against common judgment dated 20.7.2010 in W.P(C) No.25534 of 2013. First respondent in W.A No.2022 of 2010 was the petitioner. The writ petition has been decided directing payment of Rs.10 lakhs to the writ petitioner as his share towards salvage money. Both the parties being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge have come up in appeal. 2. Parties shall be referred to as described in the writ petition. 3. In the writ petition, counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondents to which, reply was also filed. In the writ appeals, an affidavit dated 20.11.2015 was also filed by Union of India to which reply affidavit dated 17.12.2015 has been filed by the writ petitioner. 4. Brief facts of the case as emerged from the pleadings of the parties are:- The petitioner, an officer of Indian Navy, was on deputation to the Coast Guard between September, 1995 to December, 1996. Petitioner was the commanding officer o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. The plaintiffs in a suit for partition are the appellants. 2. The properties sought to be partitioned belonged to the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, namely, Krishnan Nair and his mother Kunjukutty Amma. The properties owned the by Krishnan Nair and Kunjukutty Amma were partitioned between them as per Ext.A1 partition deed in the year 1952. The properties included in the C-schedule to Ext.A1 partition deed were allotted to Kunjukutty Amma, her daughter Kalyani Amma and her daughter, the defendant. Krishnan Nair died thereafter. Kunjukutty Amma also died later. According to the plaintiffs, Kunjukutty Amma died on 25.12.1957, after the introduction of the Hindu Succession Act and as such, on her death, her one half share over the properties included in the C schedule to Ext.A1 partition deed devolved on them as the legal representatives of her pre-deceased son Krishnan Nair and the suit is for partition of the said one half share over the said properties. The defendant resi...
Tag this Judgment!