Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.47 seconds)
Documents citing Usman Kurikkal O.V vs State Of Kerala on 14 June, 2011

Karthikeyan vs State Of Kerala on 17 December, 2014

4. It is also urged by the appellant that the court below has failed to state the grounds of satisfaction to the effect that bond has been forfeited and the court below has failed to follow the procedure mentioned in Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles laid down by this Court in the case Usman Vs State of Kerala reported in 200594) KLT 348.
Kerala High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - A Thomas - Full Document

Karthikeyan vs State Of Kerala on 17 December, 2014

4. It is also urged by the appellant that the court below has failed to state the grounds of satisfaction to the effect that bond has been forfeited and the court below has failed to follow the procedure mentioned in Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles laid down by this Court in the case Usman Vs State of Kerala reported in 200594) KLT 348.
Kerala High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - A Thomas - Full Document

K.V.M.S Educational Society vs State Of Kerala on 26 May, 2025

26. When all the above aspects are carefully scrutinised, the only conclusion possible is that there are ample materials to arrive at a prima facie case that the application submitted by the petitioners is to be allowed by the authorities concerned. Going by the nature of the conditions contained in Section 14 of the Kerala Education Act, which provides for the circumstances under which the management of the school can be taken over, it can be seen that the same has to be exercised in exceptional circumstances where the conditions mentioned therein are clearly established. As held in Usman's case (supra), mere existence of dispute between the members of the Educational agency by itself cannot be a reason to exercise its jurisdiction. As far as the obligations and duties of the Educational agencies are concerned when considering 2025:KER:35459 WP(C)No.14709/2024 22 the approval of appointment of the Manager, the proper course to be adopted is to find out the best person to manage the affairs of the school by keeping view of the welfare of the students of the institution. As far as the dispute between the members of the Educational agency is concerned, a final decision has to be taken by a competent civil court. In this case, as observed above, there is already a finding in favour of the 2 nd petitioner by a competent civil court with respect to the election conducted in the year, 2017. With respect to the election conducted on 26.2.2023 also, there are findings by the competent civil courts, even though prima facie in nature. Therefore, the proper course that was available before the 1st and 2nd respondents was to follow the findings of the competent civil courts and to approve the appointment of the 2nd petitioner based on such findings. The Educational authorities should not have simply refrained themselves from exercising their jurisdiction in considering the said application merely because of the pendency of the dispute, particularly when, there are findings entered into by the competent civil court in favour of the person who is seeking such approval. Therefore, I do not find any justification on the part of the 1st respondent and other Educational authorities in taking a decision not to consider the application of the petitioners for 2025:KER:35459 WP(C)No.14709/2024 23 approval of the appointment of the 2 nd petitioner as the Manager. The petitioners could establish a strong prima facie case in their favour through Exts. P13,P14 and P15. For those reasons, some interference is required in the matter.
Kerala High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Haridasan vs State Of Kerala on 21 March, 2016

5. It is an admitted fact that the present appellants stood as sureties for releasing one of the accused in S.C.No.1052 of 2014 on bail before the committal court when the case was committed to the sessions court under section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is also an admitted fact that the accused for whom the appellants stood as sureties did not appear in spite of warrant issued. Though notice has been issued to the petitioners, they could not produce the accused as well. So the court below was perfectly justified in forfeiting the bond and initiating proceedings against the appellants under section 446(1) of the Code. The dictum laid down in the decision reported in Usman v. State of Kerala (2005 (4) KLT 345) is no longer good in law in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in Thundichi v. State of Kerala (2009 (4) KLT 67). The Division Bench has held that once the accused did not appear on the date on which he was directed to appear, then the bond executed by the Crl.A.No.432 of 2016 3 sureties for that purpose automatically stand forfeited and they can be proceeded against for realization of the amount mentioned in the bond under section 446(1) of the Code. In this case, though the appellants appeared, they could not produce the accused.
Kerala High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - K Ramakrishnan - Full Document
1