Kerala Court October 2008 Judgments

Kshemanidhi Kuries and Loans (P) Ltd. Vs. Ashokan and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ692

ORDERHarun-Ul-Rashid, J.1. The short, but important questions of law relating to the scope and ambit of the power of review of the civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure and the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to review an order passed by the execution court are involved in these revisions.2. The common order passed by the Principal Munsiff's Court, Irinjalakuda in E.A. Nos. 1843, 1844 and 1857 of 2001 in E.P. No. 1243 of 2000 in O.S. No. 239 of 1997 is under challenge in these revisions. The decree holder in the said suit is the petitioner in the above interlocutory applications and the revision petitioner herein. E.A. No. 1844 of 2001 is an application for review of the order dated 11.9.2001 in E.A. No. 335 of 2001. E.A. No. 1843 of 2001 is an application filed, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to. condone the delay of 8 days in filings E.A. No. 1844 of 2001. E.A. No. 1857 of 2001 is an application to review the order dated 11.9.2001 to set aside th...

Rajan C. Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Defence and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(1)KLJ223

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The W.P.(C) is filed for direction to the respondents to grant disability pension to the petitioner who was released from the Army after he lost two fingers of the left hand in an accident while in service. The petitioner joined Indian Army as a driver on 2-1-1964 and while driving, the Army truck driven by the petitioner from Pathankott to Srinagar capsized leading to injury and amputation of index and middle fingers of the left hand of the petitioner. Even though date of accident is not known, petitioner's case is that the accident was in 1968 and he was treated in the Udhampur Military Hospital. After the accident, petitioner was declared low medical category and was posted in the Army Unit 56 APO where he worked for 9 months. Thereafter petitioner was transferred to Army Supply Core (Records) at Aurangabad which was a unit that was being closed. Petitioner was released from the Army on 15-4-1969 after he completed 5 years, 3 months and 13 days' service ...

Pappachan S. Vs. the State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ736; 2009(2)SLJ171(Kerala)

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The petitioner retired from Government service as Secretary of Budhannor Grama Panchayat on 31 /08/1998. The DCRG due to him was not released, as the liabilities against him, which he incurred while serving in various Grama Panchayats, were not finalized. He had worked as Secretary in Vazhikkadavu. Poruvazhy, Vallikkunnam, Budhannor and Thiruvandoor Grama Panchayats. After the lapse of about 3 years of his retirement, he was served with a notice on 22/10/2001, pointing out certain liabilities of him as per the audit officer's report. He submitted his explanation on 17/06/2002. Later, he was informed by Ext.P1 letter dated 28/11/2002 that all the proceedings initiated to recover the labilities, as per paragraphs 36, 39 & 47 of the audit report, were dropped. It was also informed that for other labilities, action will be taken against him. Later, the Deputy Director of Panchayats, served Ext.P2 notice dated 18/01/2003 on him pointing out that the liability of t...

Salim Vs. the Divisional Manager, M/S. National Insurance and Another

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in OP.526/04 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The Forum dismissed the complaint. The case of the complainant in short is that he is the registered owner of the impugned Ford Ikon car having a policy with the opposite parties. While the car was parked on the roadside on 11.5.03, another vehicle hit it on its left side. The vehicle sustained extensive damages. The offending vehicle was not detected. The matter was intimated at the traffic police station, Kollam. The complainant has spent Rs.45020/- for repairing the vehicle. The ownership was in the name of the son of the complainant. When the policy was availed the ownership was transferred in the name of the complainant on 6.3.03. The change of ownership was effected in the policy on 26.5.03 only. The opposite party repudiated the claim on the ground that the change of ownership was intimated to the opposite party only subsequent to the accident. According to the opp...

Saidali K.H. Vs. V. Saleena

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ637; 2008(4)KLT885

Harun-Ul-Rashid, J.1. Can a Muslim husband exercise his right of divorce indiscreetly? Can he marry more than one upto four at a time - is it an unbrided authority for him? If not, should Muslim women suffer this tyranny for all times? Should their personal law remain so cruel towards these unfortunate wives? These are some of the questions arising for consideration in this case.2. This appeal is directed against the order of the Family Court, Thrissur in O.P. No. 1095 of 2006. The said Original Petition was filed by the respondent/wife under Section 2 (ii), (iv) and (viii)(a)(d) and (f) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 for dissolution of her marriage with the appellant. By the impugned order, the Family Court allowed the Original Petition. Hence, the appeal by the husband. The parties herein are referred to as petitioner and respondent as in the Original Petition.3. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnised on 1.6.2002. Their only child is now a...

Arunraj M.R. and ors. Vs. Kerala Agricultural University and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2009Ker54; 2009(1)KLJ226

A.K. Basheer, J.1. Appellants who are studying in the College of Veterinary and Animal Science under the Kerala Agricultural University were suspended from the college on the charge of ragging junior students. After holding an enquiry, the University imposed certain minor punishments, one of which was that the period of suspension from October 31, 2007 to March 4, 2008 shall be treated as absence for all 'academic programmes of the University'.2. After revocation of suspension, appellants approached the University seeking permission to write the supplementary examinations in some papers which they could not write (luring the period of their suspension. The University did not accede to the above request.3. It was in the above circumstances that appellants had filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of revocation of suspension to the extent it treated the period of suspension as absence for all ac...

Essar Telecom Infracture (P) Ltd. Vs. the Circle Inspector of Police a ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ672

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The petitioners in these writ petitions are companies providing mobile telephone service or companies providing infrastructure to such companies. W.P.(C) No. 18568/2008 is treated as the main Writ Petition for referring to the facts and exhibits.W.P.(C) No. 18568/20082. The petitioner herein is proposing to set up 300 telecommunication towers at various places throughout the State of Kerala for enhancing the network coverage for various mobile telephone operators. It has obtained the necessary building permits from the local authorities concerned and also obtained consent of the Pollution Control Board for operation of diesel generator sets. Ext.P1 is the permit issued to the petitioner by the Taliparamba Municipality for erecting a telecommunication tower at Kolmotta. When steps were taken by the petitioner for construction of the tower, based on Ext.P1 permit, certain residents of the locality under the leadership of the 3rd respondent, obstructed the const...

Babudas N.R. Vs. the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ793

V. Giri, J.1. Similar issues arise for consideration in all these writ petitions. The questions of law that arise are also common. Pleadings are complete in W.P.(C) No. 28386/08 and therefore, it is taken as the leading caseW.P.(C) No. 28386/08:The petitioner is a stage carriage operator, who has been operating on the route Vattappara-Ernakulam Kaloor via Peppathy, Mulamthuruthy, Chottanikkara, Thiruvankulam, Thripunithura, Vyttila & K.K. Road, on the strength of a temporary permit issued in that behalf under the proviso to Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the New Act')2. The route traversed by the petitioner touches Vyttila - Tripunithura - Chottanikara - Mulanthuruthy and Peppathypara, The part of the route from Thripunithura-Thiruvankulam falling within the route of Vattapara-Muvattupuzha overlaps Ernakulam-Muvattupuzha trunk road. Ernakulam-Muvattupuzha road, as such, is a notified route within the meaning of Section (100(3)) of the New Act. This route was or...

Hazzan K.M. and ors. Vs. Hanisabi

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ633

ORDERThomas P. Joseph, J.1. The question raised in this revision is whether the restriction contained in Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Court') on the right of a person to prefer a complaint is applicable to the person who came forward to continue the proceedings on the death of the original complainant. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioners contended that the person willing to continue the proceedings after the death of the original complainant should himself be a 'person aggrieved' while according to the learned Counsel for respondent, the ban under Section 199 of the Code is applicable only in the matter of taking cognisance.2. Though the general rule is that any person whether himself aggrieved or not by the offending act could make a complaint with a view to take action under the Code, Chapter XIV of the Code imposes conditions in the matter of 'taking cognizance' of certain offences. Section 199 of the Code which relates to prosecution for d...

Al-ishan School Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ699

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Certain questions relating to the grant of recognition to schools in Kerala and the conditions and procedure regulating such grant; and a further issue as to the availability or otherwise of any extra-statutory power for the Government to grant recognition to unrecognized schools, without following the prescribed statutory procedure, arise for decision in these writ petitions. They are therefore bunched, heard and hence, this common judgment.2. Having all the beneficiaries of the impugned decisions on its array, WP(C). 18050/ 2008 is treated as the lead case and exhibits are referred to, as numbered therein.Facts Encapsulated3. the Kerala Education Act, 1958 and the Kerala Education Rules, 1959; for short, the 'Act' and the 'KER', respectively; contain provisions regulating grant of recognition, including approval to commence schools, Chapter V in KER deals with recognition.4. Acting on the opinion of a Committee appointed as per a Government Order dat...