Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (1.23 seconds)
Documents citing Raveendran And Anr. vs State Of Kerala on 22 October, 1993

Pazhani vs Stateof Kerala on 5 April, 2005

717) = 2013 (4) KLT SN 135 case No.144). However, we do not approve the view taken in paragraph 12 of the judgment in Raveendran v. State of Kerala (2014 (4) KLT 382) that the appeal is liable to be dismissed as abated in case the near relatives do not come forward to challenge the sentence of fine. At the same time, we do not approve the view that the appellate Court is bound to dispose of the appeal on the merits, even after the death of the appellant and even if no near relative applies to the appellate Court to come on record to challenge the sentence of fine. Such a disposal on the merits without the affected party being heard is not contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Moreover, hearing of an unwanted Criminal Appeal would amount sheer waste of judicial time.
Kerala High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 53 - K T Sankaran - Full Document

K.V. Joseph And Sons vs Surya Constructions on 15 December, 2004

"In the tender notice for pre-qualification and award of work (Annexure A1) under the "conditions" it was specifically stated that the pre-qualification documents and the tender should be sent by registered post so as to reach in the office of the Superintending Engineer before 3 p.m., on the date fixed for last date of receipt. It was specifically stated that courier would not be accepted. It was also stated that the pre-qualification documents and tender documents received after the time notified would not be considered under any circumstances and that the tenders received after the stipulated date and time due to postal delays or any other reasons would not be considered....................Though learned counsel for the first respondent brought to our notice the decision of this Court in Raveendran v. State of Kerala, 2003 (1) KLT 1006, there is nothing to indicate in the said judgment that in that case there was a specific condition in the tender notice that tenders through courier/directly will not be accepted. At any rate, in the said judgment this Court did not consider or take into account the effect of such a condition prohibiting the submission of tenders through courier service. Therefore, prima facie, the fact situation is different in the present ease".
Kerala High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

Pratheesh Vaman vs The State Of Kerala on 9 February, 2008

8. I heard Sri.P.K.Manoj Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.D.Somasundaram, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2, Sri.K.Ravikumar, learned standing counsel appearing for the third respondent and Sri.George Poonthottam, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. Sri.P.K.Manoj Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended relying on the decision of this Court in Prakasini v. Joint Registrar, 2006 (1) KLT 199 and the decision of the Division Bench in Raveendran v. State of Kerala, 2007 (3) KLT 558 that in view of section 69(2)(d) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, on and with effect from 2.1.2003 any dispute arising in connection with the employment of officers and servants of different classes of societies can be resolved only by the Co-operative Arbitration Court established under section 70A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and not by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies or any authority and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside on that short ground. The learned counsel for the W.P(C).Nos.12395 & 12575 of 2011 -:6:- petitioner also contended that in view of regulation 18 of the Staff Regulations the authority can make appointments by direct recruitment of full time or part time contingent employees, after publishing the notice in the notice board of the bank and therefore, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies could not have invalidated the selection and appointment on the ground that the procedure prescribed in the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, the Rules framed thereunder and the circulars issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies from time to time were not followed.
Kerala High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - P N Ravindran - Full Document

Benny Daniel vs M/S. Gold Galaxy on 9 February, 2007

Thus it was held that direction issued by the learned Single Judge in Raveendran 's case (supra) to present the memorandum of appeal along with application for special leave filed under Sec.378(4) of the Cr.P.C cannot be sustained and it is only the applicant, who has obtained special leave, who is entitled to present the appeal separately within the period of limitation prescribed under Limitation Act, 1963.
Kerala High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Panu Swain And Ors vs State Of Odisha .... Opp. Party on 17 December, 2025

Owing to the hurried cremation of the body, no medical evidence could be adduced to conclusively determine the cause of death; however, the surrounding circumstances clearly establish the corpus delicti, namely, that the deceased died an unnatural death within the confines of her matrimonial home. Once the factum of an unnatural death is established, even in the absence of direct medical evidence, the Court is legally justified in proceeding to examine the remaining evidence to ascertain the agency responsible for such death. In such circumstances, the case necessarily falls to be examined on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Reference may be made to Raveendran and Anr. vs. State of Kerala, reported in 1994 Cri LJ 3562, on proof of corpus delicti in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, as follows:
Orissa High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - C Dash - Full Document

Anil Kumar T. Aged 44 Years vs The Wayanad District Co-Operative Bank ... on 27 July, 1998

13. These recommendations or opinion expressed by the Registrar or Joint Registrar may not have any relevance as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent as the issue has to be decided in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Reference is made to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Raveendran v. State of Kerala [2007(3) KLT 558], Prakasini v. Joint Registrar [2006(1) KLT 199], F.A.C.T.Service Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Balakrishna Menon and others [2007 (3) ILR Kerala 483] wherein this Court had opined that if any dispute arises in connection with employment of officers and servants of the different classes of societies specified in sub Section (1) of Section 80 including their promotion and inter se seniority the same will be decided by the Arbitration Court as provided under Section 69(2)(d) of the Act. No W.P.C.No.26451/2012 20 doubt, if there is any violation of the Rules as such, it may be open for this Court to interfere if the action is apparently illegal or void. But the fact remains that, in this case the petitioner relied upon the inter office communications between the Registrar and Joint Registrar who apparently did not have jurisdiction in the matter. Arbitration Court alone will have jurisdiction in the matter.
Kerala High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next