Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: kerala Page 7 of about 42,813 results (0.301 seconds)

Mar 09 2016 (HC)

Dr. P. Suresh Babu Vs. Union Of India Represented By The Secretary To ...

Court : Kerala

Asha, J. 1. The question to be considered in this Original Petition is whether the period of training undergone by the petitioner, who was advised by the Kerala Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the `PSC for short) for appointment as Deputy Collector, can be reckoned as service for the purpose of consideration of his case for appointment by promotion to All India Service. The Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the `C.A.T ) dismissed his O.A rejecting his claim. 2. The facts leading to the impugned order are as follows: The Kerala Public Service Commission, as per letter No.R1A(2) 1414/05/GW dated 15.01.2005, advised the petitioner for appointment as Deputy Collector on Rs.7800-12975/- (revised) in the Land Revenue Department by direct recruitment as envisaged in Rule 2 of the Special Rules for the Kerala Civil Service (Executive). As per Annexure A5 order dated 9.8.2005, the Government accorded sanction for creation of one supernumerary post...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 08 2016 (HC)

C. Remadevi Vs. Secretary to Government Food and Civil Supplies, Gover ...

Court : Kerala

Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 25.06.2015 by which W.P(C) No.23931 of 2014 filed by the appellant challenging the orders cancelling her ARD licence and order dismissing her appeal, has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this Writ Appeal are: Petitioner was a licensee of ARD No.563 in Neyyattinkara Taluk, Thiruvananthapuram District. Vigilance Officer, Commissionerate of Civil Supplies inspected the shop on 09.08.2012 and sent report regarding certain irregularities. The Controller of Rationing issued a show cause notice dated 07.09.2012 to the petitioner asking her to show cause with regard to five charges mentioned in the notice. By order dated 07.11.2012 the authorisation given to the petitioner was temporarily suspended. The Taluk Supply Officer also sent reports to the Director of Civil Supplies. The memo of charges dated 29.05.2013 was issued in which apart from the allegations mentioned in the show cause notice, severa...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 08 2016 (HC)

Lonankutty Antony @ T.L. Antony Vs. The Joint Registrar of Co-operativ ...

Court : Kerala

1. The petitioner, a member of the third respondent Co-operative Bank, availed himself of a loan after mortgaging a piece of property and later cleared it. When he sought the return of the title deeds of the property after clearing the loan, the respondent Bank refused. The refusal seems to be on the premise that the petitioner's wife also secured a loan, and the petitioner's title deeds are deemed to have been kept as security for the realisation of the said debt, too. In other words, the third respondent Bank has exercised its general lien. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has nothing to do with the loan obtained by his wife. He has further submitted that the petitioner is not a guarantor to the loan. Nor has he offered his property as security. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank has, on the other hand, strenuously contended that the petitioner has all along known abo...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 03 2016 (HC)

Biji and Another Vs. Vijil (Died) and Others

Court : Kerala

Shaji P. Chaly, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the respondent/wife against the judgment in G.O.P No.1293 of 2012 of the Family Court, Irinjalakuda, dated 06.02.2016. By the impugned judgment the Family Court has declined permanent custody of the minor child to 2nd and 3rd respondents who are the parents of the 1st respondent husband, but granted visitation rights. It is challenging the visitation rights permitted to respondents 2 and 3, this appeal is preferred. The 1st respondent husband is no more. 2. Brief facts required for the disposal of the appeal are that; the 1st respondent has filed the Original Petition seeking an order of permanent custody of the minor child, Anushka, aged 3 years. When the trial was in progress, the 1st respondent died in a motor accident and thereupon the 2nd and 3rd respondents herein, who are his parents, were impleaded as additional petitioners and the trial continued with them in the array of petitioners. The child was only 11 months old when the O...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 03 2016 (HC)

Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Aff ...

Court : Kerala

Ashok Bushan, C.J. 1. The writ appeal has been filed by the Union of India and other respondents who were respondents 1 to 5 in W.P(C) No.16338/ 2011 filed by Sri.V.Parameswaran, the 1st respondent in the writ appeal. The Cont. Case (C) No.1536/2010 has been filed by another applicant viz., Sri.K.Gopalan complaining disobedience of the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 14.3.2000 in O.P No.1642/1996 (V.K.Subramanian and others v. Government of India and others). The applicant was the 5th petitioner therein. 2. The writ petitioner V.Parameswaran relied on the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 14.3.2000 in O.P No.1642/1996. Hence, both the writ appeal and the contempt case are heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. W.A No.1418/2015 3. The parties are referred as described in the writ petition. 4. The writ petitioner was an erstwhile employee of the Government of India, Ministry of Food under the Regional Director, Southern Region, Madras ...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 03 2016 (HC)

Jayachandran and Another Vs. Valsala and Others

Court : Kerala

Hariprasad, J. 1. This appeal is boarded before us by way of a reference. In the reference order, the learned Single Judge has observed that the ratio in Shyamalavalli Amma v. Kavalam Jisha (2007 (3) KLT 270) is irreconcilable with that in Narayani v. Aravindakshan (2005 (4) KLT 1) because the learned Single Judge, while disposing of Shyamalavalli Amma's case, did not advert to the judgment in Narayani's case. Learned Single Judge doubted the pronouncement in Shyamalavalli Amma's case, by placing reliance on the decision by the Supreme Court in Kalliani Amma v. K.Devi (1996 (2) KLT 42) too. 2. The defendants in O.S.No.916 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Thrissur are the appellants and the plaintiffs are the respondents. 3. We shall narrate the facts, in nut shell, for a clear understanding of the disputes. The suit is one for partition. There are 32 items of immovable properties scheduled to the plaint. It is averred in the plaint that the properties belonged to Vaikkat...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 02 2016 (HC)

Yousaf and Others Vs. The Kerala Co-operative Milk Marketing Federatio ...

Court : Kerala

1. The petitioners in all the four writ petitions are similarly situated, having a common grievance as regards the security of their service in the Kerala Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation ('the Federation'). This Court, therefore, decides to dispose of all the writ petitions through a common judgment. 2. Originally, 9 petitioners filed the writ petition; pending the writ petition, petitioners 5 and 6 have left the Organisation. Now, all the remaining seven petitioners are working as technicians. 3. Out of four petitioners, pending the writ petition, petitioners 1 and 4 left. The remaining two petitioners are working as technicians. 4. Out of nine petitioners, petitioners 1, 6 and 9 left the service pending the writ petition. All the remaining six petitioners are working as technicians. 5. It is pertinent to observe that the petitioners in these three writ petitions possessed the qualification required to hold the post of technician: ITI Certificate with a basic qualification of S...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 02 2016 (HC)

Ramapuram Grama Panchayat represented by its Secretary Vs. St. Basil I ...

Court : Kerala

Shaffique, J. 1. These appeals have been filed challenging the judgment dated 17/11/2015 in WP(C) No. 19503/2015. Writ Appeal No.2760/15 is filed by the Ramapuram Grama Panchayat, the 1st respondent in the writ petition and WA No. 78/2016 has been filed by respondent Nos.2 to 4 in the writ petition. 2. The writ petition has been filed by the 1st respondent in these appeals challenging Exts.P6 and P7 and for a direction to the respondent Panchayat to grant licence in favour of the petitioner's quarry. The parties are referred to as shown in the writ petition. 3. The short facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that the petitioner, a Private Limited Company, had obtained quarrying lease from Government of Kerala for quarrying granite building stones from a property having an extent of 4.1341 hectares which is situated in Ramapuram Grama Panchayat. Petitioner obtained Environmental Clearance from the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (for short SEIAA) as per procee...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 01 2016 (HC)

The Angadi Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Nissamu Kutty and Others

Court : Kerala

1. The petitioner, a primary Co-operative society, a juristic person, as has been rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, has been never affected by the impugned order in the first place. For whatever reason, it has chosen through its Secretary to challenge Ext.P7 order. As this Court is usually avers to non-suiting a party on a technicality, it has felt it desirable to entertain the writ petition. And it did entertain. 2. The facts in brief are that respondents 1 and 2 filed an Election Petition before the 16th respondent, the Co-operative Arbitration Court, assailing the election of respondents 5 to 14. In ARC No. 79 of 2012, respondents 1 and 2 filed I.A. No. 36 of 2015 for a direction to open the election records and examine the Secretary of the Bank with respect to its contents. The Arbitration Court eventually passed Ext.P7 order to the following effect: However, nothing preclude this Court to examine and verify the documents produced by the Counter Petitione...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 01 2016 (HC)

V. Ramachandran and Another Vs. Narendra Sinh and Others

Court : Kerala

Anil K. Narendran, J. 1. The appellants are the claimants in O.P.(MV)No.1177/2000 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad, a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation on account of the death of one Venkiteswaran, in a motor accident which occurred on 2.6.2000 at about 6.30 pm, at a place called Padalodemedu in Kuzhalmannam, on the National Highway-47. The appellants are the parents of the deceased who was aged 27 years. The deceased who was working as a Sales Executive in Bharat Shell Ltd. was driving his Maruti 800 car bearing Registration No.KL-13/E-7463 from Kochi to Erode. While the deceased was trying to overtake a bus, the car hit on a lorry bearing Registration No.GJ-3/V-8666 owned, driven and insured by respondents 1 to 3, which came in the opposite direction. It is alleged in the claim petition that, due to darkness all around, all the vehicles plying on the road have switched on the headlights,...

Tag this Judgment!


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