Court : Kerala
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. These three Writ Appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 19.01.2016 delivered in W.P(C) Nos.30016 of 2015, 33407 of 2015 and 33798 of 2015. Writ Petitions were filed challenging the order dated 18.08.2015 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode by which order the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed the applications filed by the United Bank of India under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 2002 Act ) for getting possession of the properties covered by Exts.P3 to P13, whereas the applications for taking possession of properties covered by Exts.B1 and B2 were rejected. Writ Petitions were filed by the petitioners who claim to be tenants of the properties, Exts.B3 to B13, challenging the orders passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate which Writ Petitions have been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Aggrieved by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Shaffique, J. 1. W.A.No.1844/2012 is filed by State of Kerala and its Officers who are respondents 1 to 3 in W.P.C.No.714/2004 challenging judgment dated 12/10/2011. W.A.No.2129/2012 is filed by the 4th respondent in W.P.C.No.714/2004, who is the Manager of the School. W.A.No.1850/2012 is filed by the 5th respondent in W.P.C.No.714/2004. 2. Parties are described as shown in the writ petition unless otherwise mentioned. 3. The writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P10 and for a direction to respondents 1 to 4 to appoint the petitioner as UPSA in the School and for a direction to the 3rd respondent not to approve the appointment of the 5th respondent to the post of UPSA. 4. The short facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that the petitioner's mother Smt.T.Sujatha Devi, while working as Headmistress in St.Augustine's High School, expired on 05/12/2001. Petitioner acquired the qualification to be appointed as UPSA and submitted an application on 29/05/2003. However, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Shaffique, J. 1. This Writ Appeal is filed by the respondents in the writ petition, the State of Kerala and its authorities challenging the judgment dated 18/08/2010 in W.P.C.No.35771/2010. The writ petition was filed by the respondent herein challenging Ext.P4 and P5 and for a direction to the respondents not to proceed against the petitioner in the light of Exts.P1 to P3. 2. The short facts involved in the writ petition are: Petitioner claimed that his father Sri.Paily and his mother Smt.Eli were having ownership and possession in respect of 25.25 Acres of land in Kuppathode village in Mananthawady Taluk. Petitioner's father executed a gift deed bearing No.2227/71 of S.R.O, Mananthawady by which an extent 13.50 Acres of land was gifted in favour of the petitioner. He filed ceiling return before the authorities under Section 85(2) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'KLR Act') on 14/12/1972. The Taluk Land Board (for short 'TLB') passed an order dated 28/06/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
K.T. Sankaran, J. 1. The Criminal Appeal is filed by accused No.25 in RC.10(s)/2014/CBI/SCB/TVPM on the file of the Court of Session, Thalassery, by which the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application for anticipatory bail filed by accused No.25 under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accused No.25 (P.Jayarajan) had filed Crl.M.C.No.989 of 2015, on the file of the Court of Sessions, Thalassery, for anticipatory bail. But, that application was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge as per the order dated 24.7.2015. Again, accused No.25 filed Crl.M.C.No.83 of 2016 for the same relief and the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the same as per the order dated 19.1.2016. At the time when the first and second applications were dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, P.Jayarajan was not arraigned as an accused in the case. Later, as per the report dated 21.1.2016 filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as 'CBI'), P.Jayarajan was arraigned as a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Anu Sivaraman, J. 1. The challenge in this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act is against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal rejecting the appeal preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax refusing to register a Trust under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is the contention of the appellant, Sree Anjaneya Medical Trust, that the Trust was registered on 27.05.2005 with education and relief of the poor as its principal objects and had made an application dated 12.12.2008 for registration of the same under the Act to avail the benefits of Sections 11 and 12 of the Act. Pursuant to the application, a survey was conducted in the premises of the Trust in terms of Section 133A of the Act on 19.03.2009. Pursuant to the directions issued by the authorities under the Act, a deed of modification was also executed on 18.06.2009. However, on 25.06.2009 the application was rejected relying on the survey conducted...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. These three Writ Appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 19.01.2016 delivered in W.P(C) Nos.30016 of 2015, 33407 of 2015 and 33798 of 2015. Writ Petitions were filed challenging the order dated 18.08.2015 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode by which order the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed the applications filed by the United Bank of India under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 2002 Act ) for getting possession of the properties covered by Exts.P3 to P13, whereas the applications for taking possession of properties covered by Exts.B1 and B2 were rejected. Writ Petitions were filed by the petitioners who claim to be tenants of the properties, Exts.B3 to B13, challenging the orders passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate which Writ Petitions have been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Aggrieved by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. The petitioner is an eminent Scientist, who worked in the Department of Space from its very inception in the year 1972 and headed the Indian Space Research Organisation [for brevity "ISRO"] as its Chairman for about half-a-dozen years. The petitioner has been honoured with doctorates by Universities and decorated by the Country itself. The petitioner challenges Exhibits P1, P2 and P3 orders which so to say, placed him in the dock and blacklisted him from any Governmental engagement. The issue assumes poignancy, since the Space programme is the most prestigious initiative in any developing or developed country of today's world; for reasons of the significant ramification it has on the defence of the Country and the tantalizing temptation it offers in unravelling the secrets of the beyond; often termed as the next frontier of mankind. The report at Exhibit P1 and the orders at Exhibits P2 and P3 are issued on the ground that an agreement entered into with a private company has been do...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. This writ appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 18th June, 2013 in W.P(C) No.15387 of 2013, by which, the writ petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed as barred by time. 2. Brief facts, which gave rise to the writ appeal are :- the petitioner's land was acquired by notification dated 22.2.1983 issued under Section 4(1) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act. Though the compensation awarded to the appellant was very meagre, he could not initiate any proceedings under Section 18 for enhancement of compensation. An application under Section 28A was filed by the petitioner on the basis of L.A.R No.98/1992 which was rejected by order dated 19th July, 2008 (Ext.P1). The petitioner, thereafter, made an application (Ext.P5) for redetermination of compensation on the basis of L.A.R No.222 of 2001 . The said application was rejected by Ext.P6 order dated 3.2.2009. The petitioner, again made an application, Ext.P7, for making reference under Sec.28A(3), w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. These Writ Petitions are related to excavation and transporting ordinary earth by one Sri. Scaria who is the writ petitioner in W.P.(C).No. 431/2016. 2. The W.P.(C).No. 1209/2016 is filed by the local resident challenging environmental clearance certificate issued to Sri. Scaria. 3. The W.P.(C).No. 1466/2016 is filed by another local resident seeking implementation of stop memo issued by the Local Panchayath. 4. W.P.(C).No. 431/2016 is filed by Sri. Scaria himself challenging the stop memo issued by the Local Panchayath. Admittedly Sri. Scaria obtained environmental clearance. Based on the environmental clearance he is extracting the ordinary earth from the site. 5. The W.P.(C).No.1209/2016 is filed challenging environmental clearance stating that environmental clearance is issued without public consultation as contemplated under the notification of Ministry of Environment and Forest dated 14.9.2006. According to the writ petitioner therein notification clearly contemplates a public...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. Abdul Shukhoor, a young man of 21 years, was brutally murdered in broad day light at the ridge of a paddy field. The allegations, prima facie, reveal that an open trial was conducted by a particular political party n the so-called charge that the deceased had also participated in an attack staged towards A-32 and A-33 in S.C.No.845 of 2012 pending before the Sessions Court, Thalassery. It is alleged that the deceased, who was running away from the hands of a group of assailants, was chased and ultimately stranded at a ridge of the paddy field, where he was surrounded by the assailants, and was hacked to death. 2. The prosecution alleges that A-32 and A-33 were undergoing treatment in room No.315 of the Co-operative Hospital, Taliparamba, where some of the other accused persons were also present. On catching the deceased, he was questioned, his name was obtained, and his photographs were taken by using mobile phones by some of the assailants. The photographs and details were allegedl...
Tag this Judgment!