Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.36 seconds)
Documents citing Sunil.C vs Mohammed Maheen Pillai on 3 January, 2014

Sojan Joseph vs The State Of Kerala on 15 January, 2021

In response to the afore submissions of the petitioner, as made by his learned counsel Sri.Sunil V. Mohammed, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent - Shri.Noushad Thottathil, submitted that a counter affidavit has been filed on record, wherein the following averments have been made which would WP(C).No.16391 OF 2020 4 limpidly establish that a comparative assessment of the merit of both the petitioner and the 4th respondent was made by the Manager, before the latter was appointed as the Headmaster.
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - D Ramachandran - Full Document

Chirakkal Thiyya Samudaya Smashana ... vs State Of Kerala on 17 January, 2023

2. I have heard the submissions of Senior Advocate Mr.P.N.K.Achan on behalf of the petitioner, Mr.Sunil V. Mohammed, counsel for the 6th respondent and Mr.K.J. Mohammed Anzar, learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 in extenso on the prayer for interim relief. The materials available before me including Ext.P3 order of the Government will show that though unauthorisedly and without licence the dead bodies of persons owing allegiance to the petitioner-Committee were being burnt on the property in question. That is why the Government itself under Ext.P3 (see its penultimate paragraph) found that the cemetery has been in existence on the property having an extent of 1.37 Acres of Government puramboke land in R.S.No.60/1 and ordered assignment of 25 cents of land elsewhere in favour of the petitioner-Committee. In Ext.P8 order of the District Collector which is impugned in this Writ Petition it will be seen that the Collector's decision turns on what according to him was the status quo obtaining as on 23.1.2007. According to the District Collector, in Ext.P8 the status quo obtaining as on that date was that the dead bodies were not being buried or burned in the properties in question. I do not think that the District Collector is right in his view as to what was the status quo as on 23.1.2007. The Writ Petition will stand admitted. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to file counter affidavits answering the grounds raised in the Writ Petition. The first respondent in its counter affidavit will state as to whether the 25 cents of land indicated in Ext.P3 has been identified for assignment to the petitioner-Committee. Post after two months W.P.(C) Nos. 34570 of 2006, 2674 of 2007, 3867 of 2008, 25028 of 2011 & 33455 of 2022 16 along with W.P.C.Nos.34570/06 & 2674/07. In the meanwhile the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner-Committee to maintain status quo regarding burning of dead bodies on condition that all precautionary measures will be taken by the petitioner- Committee to avoid any room for complaint from any quarter on grounds of pollution or otherwise. Before taking up burning of any dead body pursuant to this order, intimation will be given by the petitioner to additional respondents 7 and 8 and they will ensure that burning of dead bodies by the petitioner-Committee does not cause room for any compliant from any quarter in the context of pollution related problems."
Kerala High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - P V Kunhikrishnan - Full Document

Muhammed Shabeen K.P vs Shana Ashraf K.P on 29 September, 2025

3. Sri.Sunil V. Mohammed - learned counsel for the petitioner, explained that the I.As were filed in such fashion only because, all the three matters are being disposed of together through a joint trial. Even this is not convincing because, it is the first principle that applications have to be filed in the case in which reliefs are sought whether it is being tried jointly or otherwise.
Kerala High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - D Ramachandran - Full Document

Fathimathul Nabila Noushad vs Mohammed Aslam on 13 August, 2021

Sri.Sunil V. Mohammed, learned Counsel appearing for the wife fairly submits that the wife is willing to permit the paternal grandparents to interact with the child from 11.00 a.m to 4.00 p.m on either the 17th or 18th of this month. It is also submitted that the child being of tender age, it has to be assured that the grandparents are Covid negative by taking an RTPCR or antigen test of 72 hours prior to the date of interaction. The further submission is that the interaction with the child should be at Thalassery, near to the tharavadu house of the wife.
Kerala High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - V G Arun - Full Document

Mohammed Aslam vs Fathimathul Nabila Noushad on 13 August, 2021

Sri.Sunil V. Mohammed, learned Counsel appearing for the wife fairly submits that the wife is willing to permit the paternal grandparents to interact with the child from 11.00 a.m to 4.00 p.m on either the 17th or 18th of this month. It is also submitted that the child being of tender age, it has to be assured that the grandparents are Covid negative by taking an RTPCR or antigen test of 72 hours prior to the date of interaction. The further submission is that the interaction with the child should be at Thalassery, near to the tharavadu house of the wife.
Kerala High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - V G Arun - Full Document
1   2 Next