Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S.
S. Rajendran, son of s. Shanmughavel – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala Represented By Its Additional Chief Secretary – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. review petition filed under cpc. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments presented by the petitioner. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. counsel engagement in review petition. (Para 5) |
| 4. grounds for review under cpc. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 5. criteria for maintainability of review. (Para 9 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. limitations of review jurisdiction. (Para 10 , 11 , 14) |
| 7. legal tests of possession under kdh act. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 8. assessment of arguments on property vesting. (Para 17 , 19 , 20) |
| 9. exemptions in kdh act. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 10. assignment under the kdh act. (Para 23 , 24) |
| 11. conclusion on review petition dismissal. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
ORDER :
1 The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.14525 of 2023 filed this review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’ for short), pleading that there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment dated 17.03.2025 passed by this Court in that writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents, who are in possession of Annexure A document now produced by the petitioner along with this review petition, purposefully did not produce the same in the writ petition. If Annexure A docum
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
