Kerala Court December 2007 Judgments

The Asst. Ex. Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, P.H.Section, Kollam Vs ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is directed against the order dated:20th October 2003 of the CDRF, Kollam in OP:251/02 which was filed by the respondent as complainant against the appellant as opposite party seeking the relief for cancellation of the water bill issued in the month of June 2002 for a sum of Rs.26,030/- and also for compensation on the ground of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party disputed the case pleaded by the complainant and thereby contended that the water charge bill was issued on the basis of the meter readings taken in June 1997; that the said bill amount is demanded towards the water charges for the water actually consumed by the complainant. But the lower forum did not accept the case of the opposite party and thereby the complaint is allowed quashing the P1 demand notice dated:16..7..2002 issued by the opposite party demanding a sum of Rs.26,030/- towards the additional charges for the period fro...

Bini Vs. Sundaran

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2008Ker84; 2008(1)KLJ162; 2008(1)KLT331

Kurian Joseph, J.1. The need for and role of conciliation for reconciliation and settlement in disputes relating to marriage and family affairs pending before the Family Courts is the crux of the subject matter arising in this appeal. In the process, a noval question to be decided is, whether conciliation is mandatory after the introduction of the Family Courts Act in a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act even on the excepted grounds of conversion to another religion, renunciation of the world, mental disorder, venereal diseases and leprosy.2. The respondent-husband approached the Family Court, Thrissur under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking a decree of divorce on the ground that the appellant-wife had ceased to be Hindu by conversion to another religion. On appearance of the appellant and on the mere admission of such fact, the Family Court granted a decree of divorce. Aggrieved, the appeal at the instance of the wife contending mainly that by convers...

A.P. Varghese and Etc. Etc. Vs. the Kerala State Co-operative Bank Ltd ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2008Ker91; III(2008)BC626

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Are the Kerala State Co-operative Bank, the District Co-operative Banks and the Urban Co-operative Banks entitled to invoke the provisions of the Central Act 54/2002, hereinafter referred to as the 'SARFAESI Act'? This is the issue involved in these writ petitions.2. Section 13(1) of the SARFAESI Act authorizes a secured creditor to enforce a security interest, without the intervention of the Court or Tribunal, in accordance with the provisions of that Act. The different Clauses of Section 2(1), forming the interpretation Clause of that Act are relevant in this context. Clause (zf) defines 'security interest'. Clause (zd) defines a 'security creditor' to mean any bank or financial institution or any consortium or group of banks or financial Institutions in whose favour security interest is created for due repayment, by any borrower, of any financial assistance and includes the different entities enumerated in Sub-clauses (i) to (iii) thereof. Clause (c...

Prakashan Vs. State Bank of Travancore

Court: Kerala

Reported in: IV(2008)BC245

ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. The question involved in these Revisions is whether the Court auction sale of the property belonging to two persons held in execution of a money decree could be set aside by invoking Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, at the instance of the legal representatives of one of them, who died even before filing the Execution Petition and whose legal representatives were not made parties to the Execution Petition.2. The parties are referred to as per their rank in C.R.P. No. 346 of 2004. The third respondent partnership firm of which respondents 4 to 7 are partners, availed a loan from the second respondent, the State Bank of Travancore. The suit filed by the Bank for realisation of the amount was decreed on 3.9.1986. For realisation of the decree amount, Bank filed E.P. No. 375 of 1994. In that Execution Petition, the property jointly owned by judgment debtors 6 and 7, and which was mortgaged in favour of the Bank, was sought to be sold. The sale was to be he...

Sukumaran Vs. State of Kerala and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008CriLJ2297; 2008(1)KLJ535; 2008(1)KLT732

ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J.1. Whether an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code', for short) claiming the benefit under Section 427 of the Code is maintainable, is the question to be considered in this case.Section 427(1) of the Code reads as follows:427. Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence. (1) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence:Provided that where a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment by an order under Section 122 in default of furnishing security is, whilst undergoing such sentence, sentenced to imprisonment for an offence committed prior to the making of such order, the latter ...

A.S. Thrivikraman Namboothiri and anr. Vs. Secretary, CochIn Devaswom ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2008Ker105

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The question that has come up for consideration in this case is whether the Poojari of a temple managed and administered by the Board can directly deal with the devotees and receive money for performing vazhipadu.2. Santhies of the temples have to perform generally various poojas and vazhipadus at the request of the devotees like Reksha Pooja, Thakidu Poo] a, Guruthi Pooja etc. and to discharge various duties. One of the most important vazhipadu at Chottanikara Temple is providing Takidu, Elas etc. Petitioners submit that this vazhipadu can only be performed by the Melsanthi because the sand has to be collected from the side of the deity. Sand which accumulates inside the temple has to be cleared periodically, which is treated as a precious prasadam of the deity. Petitioners submit, ever since the Board was allowing the Melsanthles of the temple to perform such duties since the same could be performed only by Melsanthi. Further it is also stated that the sand i...

Dhileep and ors. Etc. Vs. Debt Recovery Tribunal and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2008Ker141

ORDERThottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. What, if any, is the Court fee payable on an appeal to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, against an order of its Recovery Officer, deciding a claim or objection to attachment or saleW.P. (C) No. 14165 of 20062. On the basis of different recovery certificates issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, for short, the 'Tribunal', constituted under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, hereinafter referred to as the 'RDB Act', proceedings were initiated against the properties involved in those cases. Petitioners who are not the debtors in terms of the recovery certificates, asserted independent title and filed claim petitions invoking Rule 11(4) of the IInd Schedule of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the 'Schedule Rules'. The Recovery Officer dismissed those petitions. Petitioners filed appeals under Section 30(1) of the RDB Act. The Tribunal's Registry overruled the petitioners' answer ...

The Branch Manager, Canara Bank Vs. K.P.Varghese

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 22nd January, 2004 passed by CDRF, Ernakulam in OP.991/2002. The complaint in OP.991/2002 was filed by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellant herein as opposite party claiming the relief of getting the gold ornament pledged with the Bank. It is contended that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in retaining gold ornaments pledged with the Bank. The opposite party Bank denied the case of deficiency in service and contended that the complainant is not a consumer coming within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act and that the opposite party Bank had the right to retain the gold ornament pledged on the ground of the Banks general lien. The lower Forum accepted the case of the complainant and thereby directed the opposite party to release the gold ornament pledged by the complainant, on getting the gold loan settled by the complainant. Aggrieved by the...

G. Raman Nair Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2008Ker96; 2008(2)KLT416

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions (Amendment) Ordinance, 2007 which later became an Act are under challenge in these writ petitions.2. Constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 was the subject matter of a decision of a Full Bench of this Court in P.M. Bramadathan Nambooripad v. Cochin Devaswom Board AIR 1956 Trav-Co. 19. Contention was raised before the Full Bench that Sections 63 and 64 of the Act would amount to interference with the right of the Hindus to manage their own affairs in the matter of religion. Challenge against these provisions was repelled by the Full Bench and held that the restrictions imposed by Sections 63 and 64 in the choice of the members of the Cochin Devaswom Board did not violate Articles 14, 15(1), 19(1)(f) and (g) and 26 of the Constitution of India. Court also held that the classification of institut...

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [2008(117)FLR266]

S. Siri Jagan, J.1. The petitioner in both the above writ petitions is the chief manager of BSNL, Trivandrum who is the management in I.D. No. 35/2003 before the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam. In W.P. (C) No. 14625/2004, he is challenging Exhibit P-4 order passed by the Tribunal in C.M.P. No. 14/2003, in the said ID. When that dispute was raised before the conciliation officer, the workmen were represented by 3 unions. Later on, when the management was renamed as Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., these three unions decided to function as one union named as BSNL Mazdoor Sangh. This union filed the said C.M.P. In the said I.D., seeking permission to represent the workmen in the dispute, which was opposed by the petitioner management on the ground that the union is not recognised by the management. Overruling the objection, the Tribunal allowed the petition by the order impugned in the Writ Petition. The petitioner management is challenging that order. The contention raised by the petitioner is th...