Kerala Court November 2008 Judgments

Sreedharan T. and ors. Vs. Sub Inspector of Police and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009CriLJ1249; 2009(1)KLJ96

ORDERK. Hema, J.1. An application for anticipatory bail filed before this Court, on reference, was disposed of ('closed') by the Lok Adalat organised by the High Court Legal Services Committee. Petitioner, therefore, filed another application for anticipatory bail.2. Hence, mainly three important questions arise for consideration in these cases:i) Can an application for anticipatory bail be disposed of by the Lok Adalat?ii) Can the court refer an anticipatory bail application to the Lok Adalat?iii) Can a case involving non-bailable offence be referred to the Lok Adalat?3. Section 19(5) of Legal Services Authorities Act ('the Act', for short) deals with jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat. It reads as follows:Section 19. Organisation of Lok Adalats(1) xxxxxxxxx(2) xxxxxxxxx(3) xxxxxxxxx(4) xxxxxxxxx(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of:(i) any case pending before; or(ii) any matter whic...

Valsalan Vs. Aravindan

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2009)IILLJ127Ker

ORDERS. Siri Jagan, J.1. This contempt case is filed by a workman involved in an industrial dispute, the award in which was under challenge in the writ petition in which an order under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act was passed by me on August 8, 2006, directing the respondents herein to pay wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act to the workman involved in the industrial dispute, till the disposal of the writ petition. The allegation raised by the petitioner in the contempt case against the respondents is that, earlier, when Cont. Case (C) No. 1441/2006 for non-payment of arrears of 17B wages was filed, the respondents paid the amount when the Court was about to frame charges. But, thereafter, they did not continue to pay wages as directed in Section 17-B order. The petitioner therefore seeks initiation of proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act for punishing the respondents for violation of the direction in Annexure A order.2. The respondents oppose t...

Dr. T.K.R. Unnithan and Others Vs. Smt. Sussamma Samuel and Others

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

COMMON JUDGMENT: SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER These three appeals are preferred from the order dated:28th day of August 2001 passed by the CDRF, Alappuzha in OP:No:A-527/96. The complaint in the said original petition was filed by the 1st respondent in these appeals as complainant against the opposite parties 1 to 3 therein claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with reasonable interest and cost, on the ground of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3. The 1st opposite party is the V.S.M.Hospital Mavelikkara, the 2nd opposite party is Dr.N.Rajamma, the Gynecologist and Medical Superintendent of the 1st opposite party, V.S.M.Hospital and the 3rd opposite party is the general surgeon attached to the 1st opposite party hospital. It was alleged that there occurred medical negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 2 and 3 as doctors who conducted hysterectomy and colostomy operations on the complainant. Hence the compensati...

Ajith Kumar M.R. Vs. Vasanthi Devi and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(1)KLJ67

V. Ramkumar, J.1. The claim petitioners in E.A. Nos. 731 and 842 of 2006 in E.P. No. 95 of l982 in O.S. No. 339/1969 on the file of the II Addl. Munsiff, Neyyattinkara, are the appellants in these Execution Second Appeals filed under Section 100 read with Order 42 Rule 1 and Order 21 Rule 103 C.P.C.2. At the time of hearing on admission of these Second Appeals, the respondents/decree holders who had lodged caveats were also heard. These Second Appeals were heard on the following questions of law:i) Were the courts below justified in holding that while dealing with a petition under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. the executing court is not entitled to go behind the decree to record a finding as to whether the plaintiff/decree holder is entitled to delivery of possession as against a stranger obstructor?ii) The proceedings under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. whether the courts below were justified in taking the view that where the delivery is obstructed by a stranger claiming a right independent of th...

Mohammed P.V. Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2009)26VST512(Ker)

ORDERH.L. Dattu, C.J.1. This revision petition is filed against the orders passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Palakkad in T.A. No. 721 of 2004 dated February 10, 2005.2. The relevant assessment year is 2001-02.3. The assessee is a dealer, registered under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 ('the Act', for short). He is a dealer in ball pens.4. The assessing authority has completed the assessment. Thereafter, finding that the assessee has not accounted five inter-State purchases, the assessing authority has issued a pre-assessment notice under Section 19 of the Act, proposing to reopen the assessment. The assessee could not object to the proposal made, due to his illness and, therefore, the assessing authority has completed the reassessments under Section 19 of the Act.5. The orders so passed by the assessing authority was the subject-matter of appeal before the first appellate authority in S.T.A. No. 103 of 2004.6. Before the first appel...

The Area Manager, Lic Housing Finance Ltd. Thiruvananthapuram and Anot ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT Matter settled as per the compromise petition filed. Appeal closed....

Kseb, Vaidyuthi Bhavanam and Others Vs. Biju Joseph

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC.231/06 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The Forum below has cancelled the impugned bill for the period from 1/03 to 5/05. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he was remitting current charges at the rate of Rs.385/- per month for the faulty period. Subsequently after replacing of the meter after 2 years the meter reading subsequent to the installation of the new meter for three months was taken and the bill was issued for the period from 1/2003 to 5/05 relying on Section 33 (2) of Conditions of Supply 2005. As per Section 33(2) it is also provided that if the Board is unable to raise the bill on meter reading due to non recording or malfunctioning it shall issue the bill based on the previous six months average consumption and in such cases the meter shall be replaced within one month. It is also provided that if the average consumption for the previous six months cannot be taken due to the meter...

New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sabharathnam @ Sabha Rathinam,

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2009Ker71; 2009(1)KLT153

V. Giri, J.1. The New India Assurance Company challenges the awards passed by the Permanent Lok Adalath for Public Utility Services essentially on the ground that the said body had acted without jurisdiction in proceeding to decide a claim petition filed by the injured in a motor accident case, for compensation. Since the contentions raised in these two writ petitions are common, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. I will refer to WPC. No. 30059/2008, taken as the leading case.2. The first respondent met with an accident on 26.11.2005 when he was walking along the road and a car owned by the second respondent and driven by the third respondent hit him. He sustained serious injuries and he claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 6 lakhs. He filed OP. No. 465/2007 before the 4th respondent which is the Permanent Lok Adalath for Public Utility Services. On receipt of summons from the Permanent Lok Adalath the petitioner entered appearance and d...

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs. N. Najeeb

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/Insurance Company that has challenged the order of the Forum in OP.411/01 in the file of CDRF, Malappuram. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- with interest at 12% per annum with effect from 6.9.01 and cost of Rs.1000/-. It is the case of the complainant that his Hero Honda Motor cycle insured by the opposite party, was hit by a tempo van KL 10-A 4808 when the motorcycle was parked on the side of the Jubilee road, Perinthalmanna on 17.5.01. According to him he contacted the Perinthalmanna Police Station and was told that FIR is not required as no injuries were sustained by him. The matter was reported to the opposite party and a surveyor was appointed. The surveyor suggested a sum of Rs.12,000/- . The wreck was sold at Rs.23,000/- in the presence of the surveyor. The claim was repudiated. It is the case of the appellant that the story of the accident is a cooked up one. The claim is repud...

Construction Matelial Movers Assn. and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and or ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ868

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The petitioners have approached this Court alleging, inter alia, harassment or police, when they transport ordinary earth used for land filling. The 1st petitioner is Construction Material Movers Association. The petitioners 2 to 11 are the members of the 1 st petitioner. They are owners/operators of goods carriages, which are mainly used for carrying construction materials. When they are transporting red earth used for filling plots, where constructions are proposed to be undertaken, the revenue and police officials are interfering and restraining their vehicles. They say, for excavation and transporting of red earth, Government sanction is not necessary. They rely on Ext.P5 judgment of this Court, in support of that submission. They submit, the vehicles are seized by the revenue and police officials and thereafter released, imposing a fine upto Rs. 40,000/-. Ext.P6 is a receipt issued by the Tahsildar, Thrissur, levying a fine of Rs. 40,000/- and Ext.P7 is ...