Disposed

The Managing Director v. J. Alexander

Kerala HC13 Oct 2014RP/768/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an order disposing of review petitions challenging two observations in a prior judgment of the same Court. The Court agreed to delete a factually incorrect sentence and clarified another observation regarding the timeline of Rule enforcement, extending implementation time by six weeks.

What did the court decide?

The review petition is disposed of with a direction to delete the first sentence in paragraph 16 of the impugned judgment and to extend six weeks for implementation of this order.

The Managing Director Vs J. Alexander — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶4

MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/21ST ASWINA, 1936

¶5

RP.No. 768 of 2014 () IN WP(C).29529/2012

¶6

THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.29529/2012 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 03.09.2014

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

¶8

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶9

KERALA STATE BACKWARD CLASSES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.JAYAPRADEEP. V, SC, KSBCDC

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1. SRI. J. ALEXANDER TC 9/26, SION, JAWAHAR NAGAR P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695011.

¶13

2. SRI. SANTHOSH KUMAR R.

¶14

TC 31/732, VILAYIL VILAKAM, MOONNAMMMANAKKAL PETTAH P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004

¶15

3. SMT. MEERA KRISHNA

¶16

TC 19/179(2), VATTAVILA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695012

¶17

4. KUMARI VIJAYAM

¶18

LEKSHMI NIVAS, ANYARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695020

¶19

5. SMT. SREEKALA P.

¶20

INDIRA VIHAR, TC 5/671, PERRORKADA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695009

¶21

6. SMT. SASIKALA P.

¶22

NIRANJANA, TC 1963/1, SRA NO. 156 ELOPPOIDE, VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695010

¶23

7. SRI. SAJEEVAN K.K.

¶24

TRIVENI, PULIYILA, NALLILA P.O. KOILAM-691110

¶25

8. SRI. SURESH P.

¶26

LASHALAYAM, KANNAMANGALAM (S), CETTIKKULANGARA P.O. MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA-688114

¶27

RP.No. 768 of 2014

¶28

9. SMT. VIJAYALEKSHMI PUTHENTHARAYIL (RV NIVAS), KANNANALLOOR (S) PO ALAPPUZHA-688114.

¶29

10.SRI. UNNIKRISHNAN N.S. KRISHNA NIVAS, VADAKKUMPURAM, NORTH PARAVUR ERNAKULAM-682104

¶30

11.SRI. SANAL P.S. ASWATHY, EDAPPALLY P.O., AKG ROAD ERNAKULAM-682031

¶31

12.SRI. DIMPLE JOSEPH NO. 28/2542, AKT ROAD, TAGORE NAGAR KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM-682024

¶32

13.SRI. AJITH K.S. KOLAMDAMKALTHIL HOUSE, EDATHURUTHI, THRISSUR-680102

¶33

14.SRI. GOKULAN D. GOKULAM, CHOWAYOOR P.O., KOZHIKODE-673013.

¶34

15.SMT.MANJU RAJAN, FLAT NO.37, MANOR, JAWAHAR NAGAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695011.

¶35

16.SMT.S.SUNIL, PANCHIKKAD VEEDU, KARICHAL, KAZHAVOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695119. BY DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.) BY SRI. ANOOP V. NAIR

¶36

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-10-2014 ALONG WITH RP NO.769/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶37

RP.No. 768 of 2014

¶38

APPENDIX

¶39

PETITIONER'(S) ANNEXURES:

¶40

ANNEXURE A: THE SPECIAL RULES, 1977 OF THE REVIEW PETITIONER.

¶41

RESPONDENT'(S) EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

bka/-

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

¶46

R.P. No. 768/2014 in W.P.(C) No.29529/2012 & R.P. No. 769/2014 in W.P.(C) No.8618/2009

¶47

-------------------------------------------------Dated this the 13^th day of October, 2014

¶48

O R D E R

¶49

The petitioner in the writ petitions has come up with these review petitions aggrieved by two observations in the judgment of this Court.

¶50

Firstly, it was pointed out that in para 16 of the judgment, it is stated that the allegations made mention of in para 15 were not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It was pointed out that the said observation is factually incorrect as the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently opposed the allegations made mention of in the writ petition. I see force in the said submission; and, therefore, I am of the view that the first sentence in para 16 has to be deleted.

¶51

The second objection is regarding the second sentence in para 21, which reads as, “Only long after the appointment of the party respondents, the Rules came into

¶52

..2..

¶53

R.P. Nos. 768 & 769 of 2014

¶54

force.” It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the review petitioner that the Rules came into force in 1996. What was meant by the words, “long after”, is that the Rules came into force not within a week or two. In fact, it came into force only after two years. The said observation does not cause any damage to the review petitioner.

¶55

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the review petitions are disposed of deleting the first sentence in para 16 of the impugned judgment.

¶56

The learned counsel for the review petitioner sought further time to implement the order. Though this was stoutly opposed by the learned senior counsel for the counter petitioners/respondents, the time for implementing the order is extended for a further period of six weeks from today.

¶57

Sd/- A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE

¶58

bka/-

¶59

//True copy//

¶60

PA to Judge

The Managing Director v. J. Alexander

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. J. Alexander

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Siju Mathew Vs Sinny Sebastian

A.R.Balakrishnan Nair Vs Prasannakumari

A.G.Vijayakumar Vs Pazhayannur Block Panchayat

Chellamma Vs P.C.G.M. Govt. U.P. School

Rajamony Vs Nadira Beevi

N.E.Sarada Vs K.v.Govindan Nair