Court : Kerala
1. Petitioners are persons, who are aggrieved with their impending retirement, which occurs at the end of the academic year. WP(C) No.10257 of 2016 is filed by teachers, who are retiring at the age of 56, from aided affiliated Colleges, whose salaries are paid by the Government under the direct payment agreement. WP(C) No.11511 of 2016 is filed by teachers, who are working with the University of Kerala itself, whose retirement is at the age of 60. The retirement, respectively at the age of 56 and 60, is by way of prescriptions made by the State under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners claim that they ought to be granted extended period of service and permitted to continue till the age of 65 as per the 'UGC Regulations On Minimum Qualifications For Appointment Of Teachers And Other Academic Staff In Universities And Colleges And Measures For The Maintenance Of Standards In Higher Education 2010'(herein after for brevity 'UGC Regulations'). The UGC Regulations spec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Shaffique, J. 1. These appeals have been filed against common judgment dated 19/8/2015 in a batch of writ petitions by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions and quashed the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, and the declaration and awards passed pursuant to the said notification, to a limited extent. The respondents 1 to 3, namely Union of India representing Ministry of Railways, the General Manager, Southern Railway and the Divisional Manager, Southern Railway, Thiruvananthapuram are the appellants. 2. The short facts involved in the writ petition as can be seen in WP(C) No. 10608/2011 from which WA No.2172/2015 has been filed are: The petitioners, residents near the Thiruvalla Railway Station, contended that in the year 2000, cement unloading and transporting work which was being done at Changanacherry Railway station was shifted to Thiruvalla after constructing two new tracks at the side of the second platform. According to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. The question whether the temporary exemption provided in Rule 13 A (i) (a) of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the General Rules' for short) to the members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes is applicable to the special tests which are essential qualifications prescribed under the Special rules, and a further question whether the said exemption is applicable to promotion alone and not for appointment by transfer, have come up once again for consideration in these O.P.(KAT)s as well as Writ Appeals. All the Original Petitions are filed by the Government; whereas W.A No.668 of 2009 and W.A No.2764 of 2009 are filed by third parties against the very same judgment in W.P(C) No.38283 of 2007. As the issue arising for consideration is common, all these cases were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. By the impugned judgment and the impugned orders herein, this Court and the Kerala Administrative Tribu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. Whether the removal of admission and access to entertainment event and amusement facilities [sub-clause (j) of Section 66D of the Finance Act, 1994] from the Negative List of Services by an Amendment of 2012 and the consequent imposition of service tax on such activity would result in the Union Parliament trenching upon the exclusive field assigned to the State, under Entry 62 List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India is the question raised herein. 2. Entry 62 of List II [any reference to Lists I, II or III is to the Lists under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution] deals with taxes on luxuries, including taxes on entertainments, amusements, betting and gambling . The State has also brought out the Kerala Local Authorities Entertainments Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as State Act of 1961 ], wherein Section 3, the charging section, provides for levy of tax and the rate of tax; connected cases the same being on the price for admission to any entertainme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. The constitutional validity of Section 56A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, falls for consideration in these writ petitions. 2. In W.P.(C)No.18030/2014, the petitioners are the Co-operative Bank and one of its members; respondents 4 and 5 are the borrowers, the latter of whom mortgaged her property as security for the loans. Apart from being husband and wife, the fourth and fifth respondents are the petitioners in 18030/2014 respectively. 3. While the Bank has raised the issue of vires of Section 56A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, the borrowers, on the other hand, seek the enforcement of Exhibits P7 and P8 orders passed by the authorities drawing their power from the impugned provision. 4. Since the writ petitions have similar issues involving the same parties, this Court has proposed to dispose of the writ petitions through a common judgment. For ease of reference and convenience, the facts as pleaded and the parties as have been arrayed in W.P.(C)No. 1803...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. This petition is filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash Annexure F charge sheet laid against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under S.9B(1) of The Explosives Act, 1884. 2. The prosecution allegation is that, on 07.08.2013, the petitioner was found in possession of 25 bundles of Safety Fuses and 100 ordinary Detonators kept in the store room of the premises owned by the petitioner at Thonipoika. Under the premise that the petitioner was in possession of the above explosives without a valid licence or permit, investigation was conducted and charge was laid before the jurisdictional Magistrate. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is running a quarrying unit under the name and style as Al-Fathima Metal Crusher Unit at Anchal. Annexure B is the consent to operate issued by the Kerala State Pollu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. Whether charging prices in excess of MRP (Maximum Retail Price) printed on the label of Beer served to guests in a Bar Hotel, operating on the strength of an FL3 Licence issued by the Excise Department, will attract the penal provisions of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules 2011, is the question that is to be answered in this petition filed under S.482 of the Code. 2. The prosecution case as is revealed from the complaint laid before the court below runs thus: An inspection was conducted on 22.12.2011 by the second respondent in the premises of M/s Hotel Savoy Bar at Kozhikkode. He placed an order for 3 portions of 90 ml- MC Whisky, 1 portion of 90 ml -MC Brandy, one bottle of Beer, snacks and a soda and on his request a bill was issued for the same. Measurements were made in respect of Whisky and Brandy supplied to the complainant and the same revealed that it was in accord with the order placed. In respect of the beer purchased by the Senior Inspector, it was reveale...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Hariprasad, J. 1. Maliyekkal Rosamma, ( the testatrix , hereinafter), executed Ext.B3 Will well before her mundane existence ended. What were her intentions at the time of executing Ext.B3? Whom did she intend to benefit ultimately? Was it her husband Chacko @ Kunjacko or her son Sebastian (1st defendant)? Did she intend to confer an absolute right on her husband, including the power to make a testamentary disposition over the property included in Ext.B3 Will? If that be so, was the right given to the 1st defendant, as per Ext.B3, only a chance to succeed? What is the legal effect of Ext.B2 Will, the one executed by husband of the testatrix? Answers to these intricate questions will resolve the issues. Primarily, a proper construction of Ext.B3 is called for in this case. 2. Relevant facts are thus: The suit is for partition of A schedule immovable property and B schedule cash deposits. 1st defendant is the appellant. Plaintiff and other defendants are the respondents. Plaintiff and de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Facts in Brief: 1. Syllogistically speaking, the major premise is this: A and B have been appointed to similar posts in two similar organisations; the minor premise: When disputed, A's appointment was upheld based on B's appointment; the conclusion: when conversely B's appointment is questioned, it should be upheld based on A's appointment. 2. That is logic, not law. Logical fallacy may not be fraught with dangerous consequences; a flaw in law or its interpretation is. For Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., the life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience. 3. To elaborate, I may observe that initially, A's appointment was questioned. He sustained his appointment showing that B was similarly appointed; thus, A's appointment has attained finality. At a later point in time, however, B's appointment was questioned. Then B wanted to sustain his appointment because A's appointment was approved under identical circumstances based on the very B's appointment. Now, B's contentions...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. The issue in these writ petitions concerns the legality of an appointment made by the President of a Society. The appointment is said to have been ratified subsequently by the managing committee. Acting on the complaints of certain persons, the Assistant Registrar interdicted the appointment; the Society implemented his directive. But the employee was not heard before her termination. Thus, the Court is called upon to decide on the propriety of the procedure adopted by the Assistant Registrar and the Society in removing the employee. 2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 38458 of 2015 challenges Exts.P2 and P3, the order of the Assistant Registrar and the resolution of the society respectively, through which the petitioner s appointment was sought to be cancelled. 3. In W.P. (C) No.2028 of 2016, the petitioner, who is said to be a rival candidate for the post, raises an issue concerning the competence of the President to appoint the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 38458 of 2015. The appointmen...
Tag this Judgment!