Kerala Court June 2008 Judgments

Sesu Naika Vs. the Paivalike Panchayath and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(2)KarLJ853

ORDERHarun-Ul-Rashid, J.1. The decree holder in E.P. 108/2003 in O.S. 632/1992 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kasargode is the revision petitioner. The Execution petition was filed praying for an order directing the respondents/judgment debtors to comply with the terms of the compromise decree passed in the suit and in failure to do so, to proceed against them.2. The decree in this case is based on a compromise. The compromise decree directs the respondents/judgment debtors to construct a regular fence within a period of six months and also to construct a sufficient and necessary drainage on the northern side of the road to avoid flow of rain water across the road and to the properties of the revision petitioner. Thus the parties agreed to a future mode of conduct to do a specific act and obtain a decree in those terms, the question posed in this revision petition is as to whether the decree passed in terms of the compromisers a decree for mandatory injunction or is at a simple comp...

Sathya Raj Vs. Jayaprakash

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ630

M. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. Whether the civil court can direct a party to undergo DNA test? This is the question to be settled in this writ petition. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. 529 of 2004 on the file of Munsiff Court, Alappuzha and respondent, the defendant. Suit is filed for declaring that respondent is the father of the petitioner. Respondent denied that case. Petitioner filed I.A. 3449 of 2007 for a direction to the petitioner and respondent to undergo DNA test. Under Ext.P2 order, learned Munsiff dismissed the petition. It is challenged in this petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India.2. Learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and respondent were heard. Learned Counsel appearing for petitioner argued that learned Munsiff relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal : 1993CriLJ3233 , without taking note of the subsequent Full Bench decision where the decision in Goutam's case was clarified. Learned Counsel, relying on t...

Proprietor, Vijaya Engineering Company Vs. M. Nishad

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER The above appeal is preferred against the order dated.25.6.02 passed by the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in OP.No.661/99. The complaint in the aforesaid OP was filed by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellant as opposite party whereby the complaint was allowed and the opposite party was directed to pay a sum of Rs.12,153.65Ps with interest at 14.5% along with Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as costs. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal is preferred by the opposite party. 2. The facts of the case are that the complainant wanted to purchase a Kirloskar Pump for irrigation purpose. But Kirloskar Pump was not available with the opposite party and the complainant was persuaded by the opposite party to buy Greaves pump. But the pump was not working properly and the complainant approached the opposite party and he replaced it. That replaced pump also became defective within a short period. The complainant requested the op...

Usha Chandran Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2008Ker230

ORDERC.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The issue involved in all these cases pertain to selection of Authorised Wholesale Dealer for distribution of ration articles to the retail dealers in the Trichur Taluk. The competent authority to make selection namely, the District Collector, Trichur, issued notification on 10.8.2004 for appointment of a wholesale dealer for the distribution of ration articles. Ten persons made application for selection. The District Collector considered the relative claims of all the applicants and by Ext.P6 order dated 9.6.2005 produced in W.P. 26481/2006, selected the petitioner in that W.P. for appointment. Out of the nine other contestants, 7 persons who are arrayed as respondents 6 to 12 in W.P. 26481/2006 filed appeals against Ext.P6 order before the Civil Supplies Commissioner under clause 51(10)(2) of the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966. Since relative claims of the appellants over the grantee were to be considered and the findings of the District Collector were...

Suseela Amma Vs. the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Asra ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in OP:232/2000 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The complainant had sought for a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and cost alleging that the opposite parties failed to honour the commitment to disburse the loan amount of Rs.1,80,000/-. The 1st opposite party is the General Manager of District Industries Centre and the 2nd opposite party, the Central Bank of India. The Forum has directed the 2nd opposite party/Bank to disburse the loan amount to the complainant on production of necessary documents as required by the bank and directed the 1st opposite party to realize advance amount from the complainant after 3 months if the 2nd opposite party failed to disburse the loan amount for the reason that the complainant failed to produce sufficient documents. The order of the Forum is dated:21..12..2001. It is the case of the appellant/complainant that receipt of the loan amount after a lapse of more than two years would not se...

Prasannakumari Vs. Kausalya and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(2)KLJ602

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The point that arises for decision in this case is whether the petitioner is entitled to get police projection from this Court for enforcing the interim order of a civil court. This is one of those several cases filed before this Court, complaining that the police did not take any remedial action, though violation of the injunction order passed by the civil court was brought to their notice.2. The petitioner has approached this Court, seeking the following reliefs:(i) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 4th respondent to comply with Exhibit P2 order and (the) order on Exhibit P4 and accordingly give protection to the petitioner to take yield from her own property.(ii) To allow the petitioner to pluck coconuts and to take other yields from her property.The petitioner is the owner of about 5 Ares of land in Survey No. 1126 of Cheruvaickal Village, purchased as per sale deed No. 3433/82 of Pattom Sub Regist...

Palraj @ Appukuttan Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008CriLJ4086; 2008(2)KLJ561

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The appellant challenge the conviction and the sentence imposed on him by the Additional Sessions Judge (Past Track Court I), Thinrvananthapuram in SC No. 97/99.2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows: The first accused is the husband of Valsala, the deceased. Their marriage was solemnised as per the customary rites on 14-11-1996. PW1, the mother of the deceased had given her an amount of Rs. 75,000/- as dowry, but it was deposited in the bank in the name of the first accused arid the deceased on 03-03-1997. There was persistent demand from the part of the first accused and also the second accused, who is the father of the first accused, for withdrawing the said amount from the bank. The deceased was not agreeing for the same. Further, Al and A2 were harbouring doubts regarding the chastity of the deceased Valsala. They suspected that she was having illicit relationship with PW 12 and also with other young men of the locality. On that ground also, A1 a...

Gopalakrishna Pillai T. Vs. the District Superintendent of Police and ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(2)KLJ604

R. Basant, J.1. Can a court refuse to receive a petition filed by a party or counsel? Under what law and on what justification can such a course be followed? What is the remedy that is available to a party or counsel in that unfortunate situation? Is not such a party or counsel entitled to know and have a reasoned order as to why his application is not being received, entertained and disposed of on merits?2. These questions appear to me to be preposterous and puerile as answers for the basic questions are virtually impossible. But I am forced to consider and answer them as I note, sitting in this jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C., that such complaints are increasing. Time has come, I do feel, for this Court to send the message loud and clear that such a situation cannot occur. A fearless Bar has to assert itself if such a malady prevails in any part of the system.3. To the facts first: A complaint filed by the petitioner has been referred to the police by the learned Magistrate u...

State of Kerala and ors. Vs. Premavalsan and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(2)KarLJ801

J.B. Koshy, J.1. The writ petitioners in these cases are working as Police Drivers (Head Constables) in the armed reserve camp, Kannur. By Ext.P5 order, the Government excluded the training period from the service. The learned single Judge based on an executive order dated 23-4-2003 issued by the Director General of Police set aside Ext.P5. The executive order dated 23-4-2004 read as follows:In the above circumstances the period of inservice training (imparted soon after recruitment) will have to be counted as 'Service' to rail purposes (except of probation). Therefore it is now clarified that the period of training of directly recruited drivers will be counted for the purpose of increment and higher grade.Cases of those Drivers whose increments and higher grades were revised in accordance with PHQ letter dated 8-5-2000 (referred 2nd above) will be refixed as ordered above. Meanwhile the Govt. is being addressed to amend para 8 of the Rules in respect of probation.Relying on that, the ...

Thomson Paper Products Vs. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2009)19VST359(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The only issue arising in all the three cases filed by the same assessee pertains to the tax liability on the assessee's product, 'white oats', under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. On application filed under Section 94 of the Act, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, vide annexure A order produced in O.T.A. No. 1/2006, clarified that 'white oats' falls under the residual entry taxable at 12.5 per cent. While the petitioner is challenging the clarification in the O. T. A, in the connected two cases, challenge is against assessments at the higher rate of tax at 12.5 per cent.2. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the assessee and learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.3. The first question to be considered is whether 'white oats' sold by the assessee under the name 'Shantis' is exempted from tax under original entry 9 renumbered as 12 of the First Schedule to the Act and if not, the appropriate rate applicable to the product u...