Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jul-21-2004
Reported in : AIR2005Ker11; 2004(2)KLT1157
..... . did not agree with this view entirely. in that case the contention was that water system was to be maintained under the punjab municipality act by the municipal committee failed to maintain the system and damage was caused to the plaintiff, the plaintiff was entitled for compensation. it was found that if the ..... 1965 sc 17, and found that act or omission which can claim statutory protection or is alleged to be in pursuance of a statutory command may attract article ..... article 21 has been infringed by arbitrary or capricious action on the part of public functionaries and that the sufferer was a helpless victim of that act. the supreme court was obviously referring to the invoking of powers under articles 226 and 32 of the constitution of india and limiting it to ..... municipal committee did not repair the leaking pipe in time it cannot be said that it is an omission to do an act in pursuance of the act and such an omission would be covered by article 36 of the limitation act and not by article 2.12. ..... no corresponding article in the act and thus they will now be governed by the residuary article 113, for which period of limitation is three years from the date of accrual of cause of action'.the learned judge followed the decision of the supreme court reported in state of punjab v. modern cultivators, air .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Decided on : Dec-17-2004
Reported in : 2005(1)KLT960
..... for such performance are generally directory rather than mandatory.9. in the decision reported in administrator, municipal committee, charkhi dadri v. ramji lal bagla, (1995) 5 scc 272, the question considered by the supreme court was whether section 44-a of the punjab town improvement act, 1922 as amended by the haryana legislature was mandatory or not. that section provided that any ..... . in the decision reported in sivarama pillai v. vice chancellor, kerala university, 1973 klt 769, namboodiripad, j. considered the scope of section 56(2b) of the kerala univeristy act, 1969. the relevant paragraph in the judgment reads as follows:principles of natural justice are essentially rules of procedure thought of in cases where prescribed procedure is not readily available ..... has raised two contentions:(1) the entire disciplinary proceedings and order of punishment are invalid in as much as there is violation of section 60 of the kerala university act. the disciplinary proceedings were not completed within the period of 3 months or within such further period as was allowed by the vice chancellor.(2) there is violation of ..... revision is punitive and could not have been made without an enquiry. the petitioner was directed to be reinstated as principal without prejudice to the right of the management to act in accordance with law.3. subsequently the management issued a show cause notice proposing disciplinary proceedings on 3.11.2001. the petitioner filed objections. thereafter memo of charges .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Decided on : Aug-06-2004
Reported in : 2004(3)KLT1
..... two and a half hours.paper i code of civil procedure, limitation act,specific relief act, court fees and suitsvaluation act, kerala stamp act, keralacivil courts act and kerala small causecourts act.paper ii transfer of property act, contract act,kerala land reforms act, kerala building(lease and rent control) act, panchayat rajact, municipalities act, family courts actand revenue recovery act.paper iii criminal procedure code including framingof charges and granting bail - part a. indianevidence ..... will injure equity and good conscience. even the plea of estoppel cannot be applied in a decision taken in violation of statute as held in decisions reported in state of punjab v. hardyal (air 1985 sc 920), nookala setharamaiah v. kotaiah naidu and ors. (air 1970 sc 1354) and union of india and ors. v. rakesh kumar ((2001) 4 scc 309 ..... of india and ors. (air 1993 sc 477). it is also relevant to note a decision of the apex court reported in ajith singh and ors. v. the state of punjab and ors. (air 1999 sc 3471). in paragraphs 38 of the above decision reads as follows:- '38. it must be noted that whenever a reserved candidate goes for recruitment at ..... were included in the list and out of which only 70 were considered as suitable for appointment. in this context, a decision of the apex court reported in state of punjab and ors. v. manjit singh and ors. (air 2003 sc 4580), can be taken as a guidance in which the apex court held in paragraphs 6 and 7 as follows .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Decided on : Nov-23-2004
Reported in : (2005)IILLJ1073Ker
..... judge considered the entire matter and did not interfere with the matter, exercising the powers under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india. hon'ble apex court in municipal corporation, faridabad v. siri niwas : (2004)iiillj760sc held that interference in the award of the industrial tribunal is not justified unless the same is illegal or irrational. we are ..... was explained by the supreme court in state bank of india v. n. sundara money : (1976)illj478sc and followed in many cases. a constitution bench of the supreme court in punjab land development and reclamation corporation ltd., chandigarh v. presiding officer, labour court, chandigarh and ors. : (1990)iillj70sc affirmed the above view. it is true that retrenchment without complying with ..... , southern railway : (1982)illj330sc is directly applicable in this case and his service cannot be terminated without complying with the provisions of section 25-f of the industrial disputes act.3. oral evidence adduced by the petitioner cannot be ignored in the absence of any contra evidence especially when no documentary evidence or oral evidence was adduced by the employer ..... who have completed 120 days of service, 14 days' notice should be given. denial of employment is also illegal retrenchment as provision of section 25-f of the industrial disputes act was not complied with. several representations were made against the denial of employment. one of the representations is w3, which was sent on october 31, 1985. the above w3 .....Tag this Judgment!