Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.26 seconds)
Documents citing Prabha Alias Swayamprabha And Ors. vs State Of Kerala on 10 November, 1992

Santhosh Madhavan @ Amrutha Chaithanya vs Circle Inspector Of Police on 21 July, 2008

1725, Prabha v. State of Kerala (1992(2) KLT 892) and Aman Kumar and another v. State of Haryana (2004 SCC (Cri) 1266) ) were also cited and the relevant extracts were read out to argue that even partial penetration would suffice to constitute rape. It was argued that non- rupture of hymen, absence of injury on victim's private part etc. do not belie the testimony of the victim, in the absence of her statement that she bled per vagina etc.
Kerala High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 7 - K Hema - Full Document

Nisha Renjan vs State Of Kerala on 5 August, 2020

6. As pointed out above, the factual finding with respect to the challenge of the order by the manager was recorded by this court on the basis of the the finding contained in Exhibit P15 that the order of the Deputy Director is set aside and the manger is permitted to withdraw the proposal for appointment of the review petitioner by finalising the revision petition submitted by the manager. Therefore, In my considered opinion, the said finding is on the basis of the the findings contained in Exhibit P15 order passed by the Government. Curiously enough, such a finding made by the Government was not challenged at all in the writ petition by taking any specific ground. That apart, the judgment in Swayamprabha (supra) has no bearing to the facts of the case in the writ petition in question and it was accordingly that it was not taken into account while disposing of the writ petition. Thinking so, the relief sought on the basis of that precedent can only be deemed to be declined under law.
Kerala High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - S P Chaly - Full Document

Faseela.K.P vs State Of Kerala Represented By Its on 15 July, 2006

8. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent had relied on a decision of this court in Swayamprabha v State of Kerala [1981 KLT SN 93(Case No.166)] wherein it is held that any approval granted for a period for which no appointment order was issued by the Manager, is illegal. It is further contended that the 5th respondent was duly appointed against the vacancy in question, which arose consequent to death of Smt.Shamla Beevi and that the Government have approved such appointment. According to the 4th respondent, the claim W.P.(C)No.2763 of 2010 12 of the petitioner under Rule 51 A for appointment against the vacancy would have existed only if the original appointment was approved. Since there was no appointment made, the petitioner could not raise any such claim. Hence it is contended that Ext.P11 order of the Government does not suffer from any infirmity. Counsel appearing for respondents 5 and 6 have also raised identical contentions, supported through their counter affidavit containing similar averments.
Kerala High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1