Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rationale Court: kerala Year: 1994 Page 1 of about 7 results (0.039 seconds)

Oct 28 1994 (HC)

P.K. Poulose Vs. the State of Kerala and ors.

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Oct-28-1994

Reported in : AIR1995Ker234

..... conformity with article 19(1)(g), and the policies of the new motor vehicles act is one of the liberalisation with regard to grant of permits. one cannot understand the rationale of the notification sro no. 364/94, which has the effect of restricting the grant of permits for stage carriage permit holders who want to operate express and fast passenger .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 01 1994 (HC)

A.M. Shaila and anr. Vs. Chairman, CochIn Port Trust and ors.

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Jul-01-1994

Reported in : (1995)IILLJ1193Ker

orderg.h. guttal, j.1. the question for consideration is whether the policy of the cochin port trust to exclude women from employment as shed clerks due to the hazardous nature of the duty, is violative of articles 14 and 15 of the constitution of india.2. the cochin prot trust and its officers are respondents 1, 2 and 3. the respondent nos.4 and 5 are respectively the divisional employment officer and the director, employment exchanges, trivandrum. the ministry of shipping and surface transport and the law society of india are respondents 6 and 7, respectively.3. the cochin port trust, the respondent no. 1 herein in 'state' within the meaning of article 12 of the constitution of india. it employs over 50% women in various departments, such as the hospitals, telephone exchanges, offices and so on. the established policy of the cochin port trust, hereinafter referred to as 'the port trust' which was never departed from in the past, is to exclude women from employment as shed clerks. the petitioners are women registered for employment with the employment exchanges. they urge that the policy of the port trust to exclude women from employment as shed clerks is violative of articles 14 and 15 of the constitution of india. they seek a direction that the petitioners be invited for appointment and appointed as shed clerks.4. the port trust deny that the policy is discriminatory and urge that women have been excluded from appointment as shed clerks (a) with the object of protecting .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 21 1994 (HC)

In Re: Temples in the Erstwhile Malabar Area

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Jul-21-1994

Reported in : AIR1995Ker172

balanarayana marar, j. 1. malabar, that part of the west coast between mala (hill) and bar (sea), was a neglected area while it was part of the erstwhile state of madras. after the formation of the kerala state, malabar merged in that state. from thereafter the neglect continued. the temples in malabar and their employees are no exception. though reasonable remuneration is received by the temple employees in the erstwhile travancore and cochin areas of the state, the temple employees in malabar are getting only a pittance. the plight of the employees was highlighted in a news item which appeared in the hindu daily dt. 27-12-1991 under the caption 'a raw deal for temple staff.2. a division bench of this court treated this news item as a public interest litigation and by order dt. 3-1-1992 this court directed notice to be issued to the state of kerala represented by the chief secretary and the commissioner, hindu religious endowments commission, to show cause why the above matter should not be taken as a public interest litigation and appropriate orders passed thereon as remedial measures. the matter was directed to be numbered as a original petition.3. the pitiable and pathetic state of affairs existing in the temples in the erstwhile malabar area and also the poor living conditions of the employees in those temples were highlighted in the above mentioned news item. since the grievances voiced in the news item are incorporated in the order dt. 3-1-1992, it is only appropriate .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 20 1994 (HC)

K.M. Pareeth Labba Vs. Kerala Livestock Development Board Ltd. and ors ...

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Jan-20-1994

Reported in : AIR1994Ker286

orderk.g. balakrishnan, j. 1. the first respondent, the kerala livestock development board ltd.invited tenders for the disposal of trees in block nos. i, iv and v of their farm at mattupetti. it was stipulated that separate documents should have been submitted for each block of trees. the estimated value of the trees in block nos. i, iv and v were rs. 10.02 lakhs, rs. 5,03 lakhs and rs. 7.40 lakhs respectively. petitioner submitted tenders in respect of block no. i. petitioner quoted an amount of rs. 10,47,101/-. in respect of block no. iv, the petitioner quoted rupees 5,17,250/- and in respect of block no. v, petitioner quoted rs. 7,59,500/-. according to the petitioner the amount offered by the petitioner is higher than the estimated value of the trees and so the bidding of auction by the petitioner is legally valid but the 2nd respondent issued ext. p1 notice to conduct fresh auction for block nos. i, iv and v without assigning any reason. petitioner challenges ext. p1 order.2. a detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 and 2. the first respondent is a government company and in 1991 the first respondent took action to dispose of the standing eucayptus trees in block nos. i, ii and iii by sealed quotations. trees from block nos. ii and iii were disposed of. in respect of block no. i there were 11 tendersand one aliyar offered highest amount of rs. 13,01,101/-. there was a past offer from m/s. wood traders, kozhikode for rs. 14.4 lakhs. aliyar was asked to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 14 1994 (HC)

Narayanan Vs. B.P.L. Systems (P) Ltd.

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Feb-14-1994

Reported in : [1994(68)FLR1067]; (1995)ILLJ43Ker

jagannadha rao, c.j.1. writ petitioners are the appellants. they are employees of the first respondent, the b.p.l. systems and projects. ltd. on the ground of charges of misconduct amounting to causing bodily injury to officers of the management, these two employees were dismissed from service, after holding a domestic enquiry. thereafter the matter came up before the industrial tribunal, calicut in i.d. no. 6 of 1987. the said i.d. ended against the workmen on july 22, 1988 in a reasoned award. the award has been challenged in the o.p. by the workmen and the o.p. was dismissed by the learned single judge by his judgment dated july 11, 1993. this appeal is preferred against the said judgment by the workmen.2. relying mainly on the decision of the supreme court in glaxo laboratories (india) ltd. v. presiding officer, meerut, (1984-i-llj-16), it was contended for the workmen that the incident of assault on the officers of the management took place outside the factory premises and, therefore, the dismissal was bad. this contention was raised before the learned single judge and the same was rejected. in this appeal also, learned counsel for the workmen relies upon the supreme court decision in glaxo laboratories (i) ltd's case, (supra).3. before adverting to the contention of the appellants, we shall refer to the facts. the charge, as set out in the award, is as follows:'while sri. k.p.r. nambiar, the managing director, sri b. narayanan, general manager (engineering), sri k.p. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 03 1994 (HC)

K.M. Mathew Vs. M. Murukanandan and ors.

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Oct-03-1994

Reported in : 1995ACJ971; AIR1995Ker150

kamat, j. 1. section 166 of the motor vehicles act 1988 prescribes the period of six months and imposes restiction on the entertainment of an application if not made within the said period of six months. this is with a proviso that the tribunal may entertain after the said period of expiry of six months but at any rate not later than 12 months and that too on the satisfaction that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time. 2. the present appeal is against the impugned order dated september 17, 1993 of the tribunal throwing out the application itself holding that it was not filed within a period of 12 months, either within the period of limitation or within the extra period provided by the proviso. the short and relevant facts are that the accident occurred on march 18, 1992 and as held by the tribunal 'the petition for compensation along with the application for condonation of delay was filed on march 19, 1993 as per the endorsement on the application. by the impugned order, the tribunal held that even excluding the date of accident the filing of petition on march 19, 1993 would not be covered by the proviso to section 166(3) of the motorvehicles act, 1988. the petition for condonation of delay is dismissed and as a consequence thereto the application for compensation is also thrown out. 3. we have to consider as to whether the application could be stated to have been filed on march 19, 1993 or on the earlier day on march 18, 1993. if .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 14 1994 (HC)

Law Society of India Vs. Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. and ...

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Feb-14-1994

Reported in : AIR1994Ker308

varghese kalliath, j. 1. this isa public interest litigation. petitioner is a society registered under the travancore-cochin charitable, literary and scientific societies act. it claims that it is involved in legal research legal literacy and espousing public interest causes before courts.2. in this petition the petitioner wants to spearhead and underscore the high potency danger involved in allowing to continue the operation by the first respondent a 10,000 tonne ammonia storage tank in willingdon islandin port area.3. the first respondent the fertilizers and chemicals travancore ltd., udyogamandal is a public sector undertaking. it is engaged in the production of fertilisers. o. 27% of the shares in the company is held by the public, the balance being held by the government of india, the government of kerala, the government of tamil nadu and the government of andhra pradesh. its manufacturing units for production of chemical fertilisers are cochin division at ambalamedu and udyogamandal division at eloor.4. from the counter affidavit of the first respondent it is seen that the company is producing 4.24% of the total fertiliser production of the country. it is stated in the counter affidavit that it has a capital investment of rs. 520 crores and a staff strength of 8527.5. ammonia is a chemical and is used as the raw material for the production of fertilisers like urea, np 20 : 20 : 0, dap 18 : 46 : 0, ammonium sulphate, ammonium chloride and petro chemicals like caprolactam .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //