Court : Kerala
1. The petitioner is aggrieved with the dismissal order passed at Ext.P4 as confirmed in the appellate order at Ext.P7. The petitioner an Assistant Sales Manager was proceeded against on imputations as are seen at Ext.P1 charge sheet. Briefly put, the allegations related to the release of stock to one of the customers without proper authorisation and without collecting the payments, especially when there were outstanding dues from that particular customer. There was also one another charge with respect to dishonour of five cheques having not been informed to the Regional office for further action. The petitioner was proceeded against under the FACT Employees (Conduct Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1977. 2. The Departmental enquiry was conducted and Ext.P2 enquiry report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner was offered every opportunity to defend himself, before the Enquiry Officer. There is no violation of principles of natural justice alleged by the petitioner also. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
C.K. Abdul Rehim, J. 1. The petitioners are approaching this court invoking its supervisory jurisdiction vested under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P3 order passed by Family Court, Irinjalakuda in G.O.P.No.614/2015, dated 12.01.2016. 2. The petitioners herein are the respondents before the court below. The original petition before the family court was instituted by the respondent herein seeking to appoint him as guardian of the second appellant minor child, and to grant permanent custody of the minor child to him. While considering the original petition, Ext.P3 order was passed by the court below directing the 1st petitioner to produce the minor child before the Chief Ministerial Officer of the family court on every 3rd working Saturday at 10 a.m. and to permit the respondent to have one hour interaction with the child. It is challenging the said order, the above original petition is filed. 3. Contention of the petitioners is that, the court below went highl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Shaffique, J. 1. This writ petition is filed as a public interest litigation. The petitioner claims to be an environmental legal organisation. They have projected the plight of fishermen community on account of certain policy decisions taken by the Government of India. The substantial contention urged by the petitioner is in regard to the policy of Government permitting deep sea fishing. According to them, the issue was under consideration of the Government for quite a long time and various studies have been conducted by Government approved organisations and even with the assistance of Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations. As far as India is concerned, there had been several complaints regarding deep sea fishing vessels conducting fishing operations near the shore waters and often within territorial waters causing damage to the resources as also the livelihood of small scale fishermen. A committee has been constituted by the Ministry of Food Processing Indust...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. This reference to the Full Bench is made on a matrimonial appeal filed by the wife and children of the respondent seeking past maintenance. The dispute in this appeal is only regarding the eligibility of the first petitioner/wife to claim past maintenance. The defence set up by the respondent in this regard is that the parties belong to Hanafi sect of Sunnis among Muslims and therefore, the wife is not entitled to past maintenance. 2. When this appeal was heard by the Division Bench, the learned Judges noticed the decision of this Court in Amina v. Hassan Koya [1985 KLT 596] which was relied on by the Family Court. But, the Division Bench opined that there is divergence of opinion as between the decisions of this Court as to the applicability of any general principle that the Muslims of Kerala are predominantly Hanafis. Reference was made to Moosa Seethi v. Mariyakutty [1954 KLT 249], Abdulla Beary v. Alikunhi Beary [1957 KLT 849], Abdulla v. Katheesa [1983 KLT ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. A private complaint was initially filed as C.M.P. No.894/2008 by one Sunny John, Nirappumyalil veedu, Koothattukulam kara, Koothattukulam village, Muvattupuzha Taluk, Trustee Vadakara St.John s Jacobite Syrian Church, as the complainant. The same was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Consequently, Crime No.217/2008 of the Koothattukulam Police Station was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 141, 142, 143, 420, 468 and 471 of the India Penal Code. Subsequently, an investigation was conducted and a final report has been filed. The matter is pending as C.C.No.209/2010 before the court below. 3. Thereafter, CW2 in the case filed Annexure-C C.M.P.No.945/2012 before the court below seeking a further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.in the matter by arraigning the petitioner herein along with another person as A35 and A34 respectively. In the ca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
K. Ramakrishnan, J. 1. The tenant in R.C.(OP) No.26 of 2000 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kottayam is the revision petitioner herein. The petition was filed by the respondents herein for eviction of the petition schedule building from the possession of the revision petitioner on the ground of arrears of rent, sub lease and subsequent acquisition of building by the tenant, under sections 11(2)(b), 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short. The case of the landlord in the petition was that the petition schedule building was let out to the revision petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.50/-. The rent of the building has been kept in arrears from August 1980. He had sub let the building to M/s. V.M. Joseph and V.M. Michael, contrary to the tenancy agreement and without consent and permission of the landlords. He has constructed a two storied building near the petition schedule building and he is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. The petitioners are A10 and A11 in C.C.No.45 of 2010 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thrissur, for the offence under Section 500 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. 2. The 1st respondent herein was working as the Senior Manager at the Regional Office of the South Indian Bank Ltd. at Mumbai. While working so, serious allegations of financial misappropriation and misconduct were raised against him by the Bank and he was issued with memo dated 21.08.2004, alleging that he had defrauded and cheated a customer of the Bank at Mumbai, Bandra Branch for an amount of 3.20 lakhs by misusing his official position, and further that without submitting necessary TA bills pertaining to the journeys undertaken by him, he had drawn an amount of 74,586/- from the Bank, thereby defrauding the Bank. A domestic enquiry was conducted and the 1st respondent was found guilty in the domestic enquiry, and consequently he was dismissed from service. 3. The aforesaid facts are admitted. At the same time, a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. This appeal is preferred by the complainant against the acquittal of the accused in S.T.No.3148/2000 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ottapalam under section 256 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) . The above complaint was filed against the accused u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On 22.9.2004 the complainant was absent and his counsel applied for leave and sought for an adjournment, which was rejected by the learned Magistrate, since there was a specific direction to produce the complainant for evidence. On that day the accused was absent, his application was allowed, however the accused was acquitted by the learned Magistrate. Being aggrieved by that complainant preferred this appeal. 2. The main contention put forward by the appellant is that he was hospitalized and he could not appear before Court, therefore court should have adjourned this case to another day for giving an opportunity to prove the allegation. 3. There was no app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. for himself and for A.M. Shaffique, J. 1. This Full Bench has been constituted on a reference made by a Division Bench vide order dated 13.08.2015. 2. Brief facts need to be noted for answering the reference and deciding the issues raised in this appeal are: An extent of 0.2042 hectare of land comprised in R.S.No.193/4 and O.0400 hectare of land comprised in Sy. No.277/8 and some other plots of land belonging to the appellant and her mother were acquired for the establishment of 'Naval Academy'. The Land Acquisition Officer gave an award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) at the rate of Rs.1,15,200/- per hectare (Rs.466.40 per cent). The appellant did not seek a reference under Section 18 of the Act. However, certain other land owners whose lands were acquired by the same Notification had made application for reference under Section 18 of the Act. Land Acquisition reference No.124 of 1987 was decided on 26.07.198...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. The above writ petitions are intrinsically connected and therefore I propose to dispose of the same through a common judgment. The facts leading to the cause of action in the above writ petitions are substantially similar, and hence I propose to narrate the facts contained in W.P.(C) No.17148 of 2014. 2. The writ petitions are filed basically challenging the decision of the 2nd respondent to select a place called 'Pannaikadavu' for location of intake well cum pumping station in order to supply water in accordance with the Alappuzha Water Supply Scheme to the people living within the area of Alappuzha Municipality and eight adjoining Panchayats and seeking other related reliefs. 3. Necessary facts for the disposal of the writ petitions are as follows: 4. The petitioner and his family members are the joint owners of 101 cents of property in Resurvey No.51/13 of Niranom Village, Thiruvalla Taluk, Pathanamthitta District. The 2nd respondent viz. Kerala Water Authority initially selected...
Tag this Judgment!