Kerala Court October 2007 Judgments

Kerala Govt. Law College Teachers Assn. and ors. Vs. State of Kerala a ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ106

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. We are in this case primarily concerned with the question as to whether the 4th respondent has satisfied the criteria laid down by the University Grants Commission in Ext. PI decision dated 27-11 -1990 which has been accepted by the Government vide Ext. P3 order dated 7-10-1999 for the purpose of counting previous service for the purpose of senior scale/selection grade under the career advancement scheme for lecturers.2. Question as to whether 4th respondent has complied with the conditions laid down in the above mentioned order was ultimately considered by the Government vide Ext. PI 6 order dated 30-3-2002. In paragraph 6 of the order, Government have considered the question as to whether the prior spell of service put in by 4th respondent from 1-1-1986 to 23-8-1989 as Lecturer in the Kerala Law Academy Law College, Thiruvananthapuram can be reckoned as qualifying service for the placement under the UGC Scheme in terms of the criteria prescribed in paragraph ...

State of Kerala and anr. Vs. M.P. Gopalan

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ110

K.S. Radhakrishnan J.1. This appeal has preferred by the State of Kerala and chief Engineer, Irrigation and Administration agreed by the order passed by the learned single judge in C.M.P. No. 15514 of 2003 in O.P. No. 4366 of 1994 clarifying that the leave without allowance granted to the petitioner from 1.5.1986 to 21.2.1991 would be treated as service for the purpose of pension.2. Original Petition was preferred by the respondent herein seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P12 order passed by Government dated 3.11.1993 rejecting the request of the petitioner for treating the period from 1.11.1983 to21.2.1991 as duty and also for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to treat the above mentioned period as duty. Learned single judge disposed of the original petition on 20.12.2002 directing the respondents to treat the period from 31.8.1986 to 21-2-1991 as period of leave without allowance and ordered that pensionary benefits would be settled accordingly. Petitioner then fi...

Mullakkal Bhagavathy Kshethra Kshema Samithi Vs. the Principal Secreta ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ132

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Sree Mullakkal Bhagavathy temple is an ancient temple managed and administered by the Cochin Devaswom Board. While excavations were being done by the Sree Mullakkal Bhagavathy Kshethra Kshema Samithi for the construction of a 'Nadapura' in the temple, 1040 gold coins weighing 406 grams and 7 gold coins were found out and they were found to be of much archaeological importance. Upon getting information of the same Devaswom Officer informed the same to the District Collector and the District Collector directed the Devaswom authorities to hand over the coins to the Circle Inspector of Police, Wadakkancherry to keep them in safe custody in the Wadakkancherry Sub Treasury noticing that it was a 'treasure trove' and therefore would belong to Government as per Section 3 of the Kerala Treasure Trove Act, 1968. Direction of the District Collector was complied with and the coins were handed over to the Circle Inspector after obtaining receipt and they are now kept in the...

The Kerala Vidyalaya Sangathan and ors. Vs. the Kendriya Vidyalaya Non ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2007(3)KLJ717

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The petitioners are the respondents in O.A. No. 854/2005 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The said OA. was filed by the applicants, who are the respondents herein, challenging Annexure A6 amendment, which is produced as Ext. PI in this Writ Petition. By the said amendment, Clause 5(e) of the KVS (Recognition of Service Associations) Regulations, 1995 was amended by adding an explanation to it. After the amendment, the said clause reads as follows:Employees who are in service shall be members or office bearers of the Service Associations.(Explanation: An employee under suspension shall not be eligible to be member or office bearer of the Service Association during the period of suspension).The applicants felt aggrieved by the explanation added, which prohibits a suspended employee from being a member or office bearer of a Service Association. According to them, the said clause infringes their fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(c...

K.G. Premshanker Vs. Inspector of Police, C.B.i. and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2007(3)KLJ721

ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. The facts unravelled by the various stages of the chequered career of this seemingly interminable case, reveal the shockingly disturbing manner in which an investigation ordered by no less a court than the highest Court of this country and the consequent prosecution, have been attempted to be sabotaged by an I.P.S. Officer by grossly abusing the process of various Courts. He was resorting to a tiring out process in which the de facto complainant who had exhibited tremendous courage to fight his case upto the Apex Court had to give up his battle by bidding farewell to this world when the Providential call came in the meanwhile.2. In this Revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. the revision petitioner, K.G. Premshankar, Addl. Director General of Police, Thiruvananfhapuram and who was at the relevant time Superintendent of Police, Kannur challenges Annexure - V order dated 22-2-2007 passed by the Chief Judl. Magistrate, Ernakulam in Crl. M.P. ...

Geetha Bahulayan Vs. M/S Kores (India) Ltd. and Others

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred against from the order dated 21.7.99 passed by CDRF, Ernakulam in OP.No.497/94. The complaint in the said OP.497/94 was filed by the appellant herein as complainant against respondents 1 to 3 herein as opposite parties 1 to 3 claiming refund of Rs.95000/- towards the price and installation charges of the defective Automatic copier machine which was purchased by the complainant from the opposite parties. 2. The facts of the case can be narrated as follows:- The complainant purchased an automatic plain paper copier from the opposite parties on a sale consideration of Rs.91000/- with installation charge of Rs.4000/-. The said copier was installed at the premises of the complainant on 6.11.93. It is alleged by the complainant that from the date of installation, the said copier developed so many defects and problems and the matter was informed to the opposite parties then and there. Eventhough the opposite parties attempte...

K.T. Thomas S/O. K.M. Thomas Vs. P. Sreedhara Varma

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ125

ORDERHarun-Ul-Rashid, J.1. These two revision petitions are filed by the tenant against the common judgment dated 25.5.2002 passed in RCA Nos. 195/2001 and 53/02 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam. Both the appeals arise from the jdgment dated 12.10.2001 in RCP 26/1998. The respondent is the landlod. The parties are hereafter referred to as the landlord and the tenant.2. The Rent Control Court had directed the tenant to surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule building to the landlord under Section 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereafter referred to as the Act). The claim for eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act was not considered and was rejected. The landlord preferred RCA 53/2002 against the rejection of the claim for eviction under Section 11(3) and the tenant preferred RCA 195/2001 against the order of eviction under Section 11(8). The Appellate Authority by the impugned judgment allowed RCA 53/2002 filed by ...

Bharathi and ors. Vs. Vinod S. Sivasudha

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2008Ker125

J.B. Koshy, J.1. Opining that the dicta laid down in Parthakumar v. Ajith Viswanathan 2006 (2) KLT 250 : 2006 AIHCC 2161 (FB) and in Narayan Murti v. Thankamma Sebastian 2005 (3) KLT 102 (DB) are manifestly at variance regarding interpretation of second proviso to Section 11(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (Act 2 of 1965) for short 'the Act' a Division Bench of this Court referred this matter to the Full Bench. Section 11(1) and second proviso to Section 11(1) of the Act reads as follows:11. Eviction of tenants:--(1) Notwlth-standing anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract a tenant shall not be evicted, whether in execution of a decree or otherwise, except in accordance with the provisions of this Act:xx xx xx xxProvided further that where the tenant denies the title of the landlord or claims right of permanent tenancy, the Rent Control Court shall decide whether the denial or claim is bona fide and if it records a finding to that e...

Shaju Vs. Babu and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008ACJ1228; AIR2008Ker79

J.B. Koshy, J.1. All these appeals are filed by the claimants from a common award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Appellant suffered personal injuries while travelling by the bus bearing registration No. KLS 1629 on 7.6.1995. The vehicle was proceeding along the Puthur-Marottichal public road from west to east. When the bus reached in front of the High School, Puthur, a group of people armed with dangerous weapons like sword, sticks and country bombs blocked the bus (sic road) and they attacked the passengers of the bus. They threw country bombs into the bus and in the blast the bus was damaged and petitioners who were sitting inside the bus were injured. They were hospitalised and now they are permanently disabled. According to the petitioners, the incident took place due to negligence of the respondent No. 2, who was driving the bus. It is alleged in the petition that even prior to the incident, the driver was aware that the incident would take place. It is further alleged in...

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. C.i. Abraham

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009ACJ492

J.B. Koshy and K. Hema, JJ.1. This appeal is filed by the insurance company against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta. Respondent No. 1-claimant was travelling in a tractor sitting on the mudguard. The tractor was used to bring bricks for his house construction. When the tractor overturned into a deep ditch, the claimant sustained injuries. Contention of the appellant is that travelling on the mudguard is prohibited. Therefore, the accident occurred only due to negligence of the claimant. The tractor was covered by the insurance policy. On going through the policy also we are of the opinion that passengers cannot travel in the tractor as per the policy conditions. Even if he is covered, we are of the opinion that since the accident occurred due to negligence of the claimant by travelling by sitting on the mudguard, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation. Hence, we allow the appeal and hold that the appellant insurance company is not liable to pay compe...