Kerala Court July 2008 Judgments

Santhosh Madhavan @ Amrutha Chaithanya Vs. C.i. of Police and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008CriLJ4246; 2008(2)KarLJ826; 2008(3)KLT558

ORDERK. Hema, J.1. A girl aged 14 years is the alleged victim in this case. She belongs to a financially poor family. When she failed in VIIIth standard, she could not pursue her studies. On knowing that the petitioner is running a hostel for such children by giving all financial aid, affording boarding facilities also, she joined petitioner's hostel and continued the studies, under his care and protection. After the results were out, she was residing with her parents and she was called by the petitioner to his flat. She was taken to the residential flat of the petitioner by his driver, from there, she was allegedly raped by the petitioner at the age of 14 years. She was procured for that purpose by the second accused who was his driver.2. The first incident occurred in May 2006. She was again taken to the flat and rape was committed on her by the petitioner on about six occasions totally. The rape scenes were videographed and video cassettes were seized from the locker of the petition...

Ambatt Asokan Vs. Oachira Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(2)KLJ967; 2008(3)KLT645

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner challenges rejection of his nomination as a candidate for the election to the committee of the first respondent Co-operative Bank. He became a member of that Bank on 18-8-1979 It is stated that he had been a member of its committee repeatedly, at least on three occasions. The rejection of his nomination for the ensuing election is on the ground that he holds dual membership in as much as, from 12-12-1997, he had been a member of the Klappana Service Co-operative Bank, a society of the same type as that of the first respondent. These facts are not in dispute.2. The petitioner contends that in terms of Rules 16 and 44 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, the 'Rules', for short, and in terms of Section 28(2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, for short, the 'Act', dual membership is not a disqualification and the only action that could be taken against the petitioner is his removal from membership in terms of Rule ...

University Grants Commission Vs. Rajesh R. and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ119; 2008(4)KLT223

P.N. Ravindran, J.1. The University Grants Commission, the respondent in W.P.(C) No. 6157 of 2005, is the appellant in this Writ Appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the Writ Petition. The brief facts of the case are as follows:2. By a notification dated 29.7.1999 published in the Kerala Kaumudi, Mathrubhoomi, Indian Express and the Hindu Dailies, the Manager, Sree Narayana Colleges invited applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Computer Science. The number of vacancies notified was 5. Though the notification is not produced by any of the parties, the newspapers in which the notification was published are available in File No. Acf III/1/006197/2000 006197/2000 produced by the Kerala University. The notification states that the qualifications are as per University Grants Commission/University norms. The qualifications in detail, were however not set out. The files disclose that the Academic Coun...

Kerala State Electricity Board, Represented by Its Secretary, K.S.E.B. ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The opposite parties in OP No.403/02 of CDRF, Kottayam for come up in this appeal against the order dated 8/12/2004 whereby they are under orders to cancel Ext.A5 demand notice for Rs.69,492/- and issue a fresh bill for the period from 14/1/02 to 25/4/02 with cost of Rs.750/-. The case of the complainant before the Forum was that he was a consumer of the opposite parties bearing Consumer No.6174 wherein he was running a business concern called Galaxy. It is his case that he was served with an additional bill for Rs.69,492/- on 27/4/02 alleged to have been issued for the unauthorized additional load of 5 KW. He has submitted before the Forum that he had paid all the bills issued by the opposite parties and the penal bill issued on 27/4/02 was without any basis as there was a generator of 30 KVA installed in his premises and material purposes were served through the said generator. It was also submitted by him that the business was started only in Janua...

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others Vs. Roshan

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER This appeal is preferred by the opposite parties in OP No.22/01 of CDFR, Pathanamthitta who are under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 3,70,000/ with 9% interest from the date of petition till the date of realization to the complainant. 2. The grievances of the complainant voiced in the petition are that the complainant had insured his vehicle worth Rs. 4,92,938/-. With the opposite parties and while the policy was inforce, the vehicle was stolen on 24/7/99. It is his case that though the case was registered with police and the police had failed in detecting the vehicle and though the claim was lodged before the opposite parties, the opposite parties committed deficiency of service and unfair trade practice by disallowing the claim of the complainant. Alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, the complaint was filed for directions to the opposite parties to provide a new Tata Sumo deluxe vehicle and to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs....

Satheesan M. Vs. the High Court of Kerala and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(2)KLJ960

V. Giri, J.1. Similar issues are involved in these writ petitions. Therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 13749/08 is a Junior Superintendent presently working in the Munsiff's Court, Hosdurg. Pursuant to the notification issued by the High Court of Kerala on 15.2.2007 inviting applications from qualified candidates for appointment to the post of Munsiff-Magistrate in the Judicial Service, petitioner applied for recruitment by transfer. As per the notification, there is a written examination and vive-voce (oral examination). The written examination carried a maximum of 900 marks and vive-voce carries 100 marks. The cut off marks for the main written examination is 40% in each paper for general candidates with an overall minimum of 45% in the written examination. There is relaxation provided in favour of candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe.3. Only those candidates who secure the pres...

Ravindran K. Vs. Mahatma Gandhi University and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ262

K.T. Sankaran, J.1. The petitioner is working as Electrician in the Engineering Unit of Mahatma Gandhi University (hereinafter referred to as 'University'). The third respondent is working as Overseer Grade II (Electrical) in the Engineering Unit of the University.2. The dispute involved in this Writ Petition centres round the method by which the promotion to the post of Overseer Grade I (Electrical) should be made. As per Ext.P 1 order dated 5.6.1999 issued by the University, ratio of 1:1 was provided for promotion from among Oversees Grade II (Electrical) and Electricians. The relevant portion of Ext.P1 order reads as follows:This office consequent to the decision of the Syndicate vide paper (1) read above, created 3 posts of Grade I Overseers (Electrical) to be filled by promotion from among Oversees Grade II (Electrical) and Electricians in the ratio of 1:1 on the basis of seniority.3. It is an admitted case that in the year 1999, for the purpose of filling up the three posts of Ov...

Benz Automobiles Ltd. Vs. P.D. Thomas and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009ACJ1423; 2008(3)KLJ175

J.B. Koshy, J.1. The appellant was the owner of a motor cycle bearing Reg. No. KCF 322. The first respondent, a Field Officer of the appellant company was provided with the above motor vehicle for carrying out the work in connection with die employment. He sustained injuries in an accident while driving the above motor vehicle during the course of employment. He applied for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Workmen's Compensation Commissioner allowed the claim and directed the Insurance Company which insured the motor cycle to pay the amount. The Insurance Company filed an appeal and the matter was remanded. The contention of the Insurance Company is that the liability of the Insurance Company is excluded in view of Clause 3(b) of General Exceptions, wherein it is stated the company has no liability if the motor cycle is driven by any person other than 'a driver'. According to the Insurance Company, the conditions of the party make it clear that only if the vehicle is ...

indulekha Joseph Vs. Vice Chancellor, M.G. University

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ23

A.K. Basheer, J.1. 'Sword of Satyagraha', Mahatma Gandhi said, 'is far superior to the steel sword. Truth and justice provide its point; divine help is the hilt that adorns it. One who has the use of this sword has no cause to fear defeat'.2. The 19 years old appellant who is a first year B.A. (English) student in St. George's College, Erattupetta in Kottayam, deluded herself as a Satyagrahi and believed that 'peaceful resistance' was the best means to fight for the cause of her family. She staged a Satyagraha in front of the office of the Principal with a placard in her hand while all her college mates were attending classes.Appellant was dismissed from the college. She unsuccessfully challenged the above order of dismissal before the learned single Judge. Hence this appeal.3. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the dismissal of the appellant is illegal, arbitrary and vitiated.4. While answering the above question in the negative, the learned Judge held that Sa...

Aseena Vs. Sub-divisional Magistrate and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2009Ker1

J.B. Koshy, J.1. The second respondent bank and third respondent authorized officer approached the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, for assistance in taking possession of the secured assets owned by the writ petitioner, Section 14 of the above Act reads as follows:14. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate to assist secured creditor in taking possession of secured asset.- (1) Where the possession of any secured asset is required to be taken by the secured creditor or if any of the secured asset is required to be sold or transferred by the secured creditor under the provisions of this Act, the secured creditor may, for the purpose of taking possession or control of any such secured asset, request, in writing, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate within whose jurisdiction any such secured asset or other documents relating thereto may be situat...