Kerala Court July 2008 Judgments

Vijayakumar Vs. Safiya

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2008NULL981

ORDERP.R. Raman, J.1. Tenant is the revision petitioner. The respondent landlady sought eviction under Section 11(2), 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short 'the Act'). The Rent Control Court ordered eviction on all costs. The defeated tenant filed an appeal. In appeal, the order passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(3) was confirmed. Challenging the order of eviction passed under Section 11(3) of the Act, the tenant has come up in revision. Therefore, the only question is whether the order passed by the authorities below confirming the order of eviction passed for eviction under Section 11(3) is correct?2. Admittedly, the tenant has taken out the tenanted premises for residential purposes only. He had taken out another premises from the parents of the landlady where he was carrying on a business. Since that building had to be vacated the business conducted therein was sifted to a portion of the residential building presently in ...

Saju George Vs. Thomas and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ67; 2008(4)KLT486

ORDERM. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. Whether a transferee of a judgment debtor subsequent to the decree is a representative of the judgment debtor and whether he is entitled to challenge the court auction sale in execution of the decree, under Section 47 of Code of the Code of Civil Procedure. When the mortgagee decree holder bid the property in court auction sale, if the court failed to fix reserve price as provided under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 72A of Order XXI of Code of Civil Procedure, whether the sale is void. If the judgment debtor files an application under Rule 90 of Order XXI of Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the sale, whether judgment debtor himself or his representative is entitled to file a petition to set aside the sale under Section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure. These are the interesting questions to the decided in these revision petitions.2. First respondent mortgages instituted O.S. 68/1986 a suit on mortgage before Sub Court, Ernakulam against second respondent mortga...

Cholamarakkar Vs. Pathummamma and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ429

Kurian Joseph, J.1. Vagrancy is the fruit of a sin and the sin is capital where the root is the parent. It is this painful thought that lingers in the background while analysing the facts of these cases.2. One of the main questions arising for consideration is whether legitimate or illegitimate child who has attained majority is entitled to maintenance. There cannot be any dispute that the said question can be tackled only under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.To the extent relevant, the provision reads as follows:Section 125: Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents,-(1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain-(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or inj...

Board of Directors, Edava Service Co-op. Bank Vs. the Co-op. Arbitrati ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ267

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The third respondent invoked Section 69(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', for decision of the dispute, between him and his employer, the second petitioner, a co-operative bank, on account of his dismissal from service. The bank raised a preliminary objection that dismissal is not a matter that would fall under Section 69(1) and no question of reinstatement in service can be considered by the Arbitrator. That plea was turned down. This writ petition is filed by the bank and its Board of Directors challenging that decision.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that Sub-section (1) of Section 69 read with Sub-section (2) of that section does not bring a dispute relatable to dismissal and a claim for reinstatement, within the purview of the term 'dispute', for the purpose of that provision. The contention is that Section 69(2)(d) has been couched in such a way that it cannot include a dispute t...

Manager, Alampally Estate Vs. S.M. Rani and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ58

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Heard Counsel for the petitioner and Counsel appearing for the first respondent. The first respondent who was employed from 1987 to 1994 by the petitioner as a permanent worker was denied employment after she got married for the reason that her husband was not willing to serve in petitioner's estate. The Industrial Tribunal after taking evidence came to the conclusion that first respondent was a permanent worker as against the claim of the management that she was only a temporary employee. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the question referred in the industrial dispute by the Government itself was whether petitioner was justified in terminating the first respondent who was a temporary worker. Counsel for the first respondent contended that the reference of the first respondent as temporary worker by the Government in their order will not bind the Industrial Tribunal and the first respondent was free to adduce evidence to prove that she was a perman...

Star Trading Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2008)220CTR(Ker)511

P.R. Raman, J.1. Petitioner is an assessee under the IT Act. It is a wholesale dealer of wheat products. For the asst. yrs. 1988-89 to 1989-90 the petitioner was assessed to tax. Aggrieved by the assessment, he preferred an appeal before the CIT. While the matter was pending before the CIT, the petitioner filed an application before the Settlement Commission, Chennai invoking the provisions contained under Section 245C of the IT Act. The Settlement Commission by order dt. 27th March, 1996 allowed the application to be proceeded with under Section 245D(1) of the Act. While so before passing final orders, a new scheme popularly known as 'Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme' was introduced by Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998. Hence, the petitioner claiming benefit under the scheme approached the designated authority, namely, CIT. The designated authority, after processing the application, passed Ext. P1 order dt. 26th Feb., 1999 under Section 90(1) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 determining the amount p...

Santhoshkumar M.S. Vs. K.G. Mohanan and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ1

ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Which court has territorial jurisdiction to try the accused for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act? Can the complainant present the cheque for collection at any bank anywhere in India and on that ground alone compel the drawer to contest the indictment at such place? Which is the bank referred to as venue No. 2 in Bhaskaran v. Balan 1999(3) KLT 440? Is it the drawee bank only or any bank anywhere in India where the cheque is presented by the payee or the holder in due course for collection? How is the expression 'the bank' appearing in Bhaskaran (Supra) to be understood and interpreted in the light of the decision in Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd. v. Jayaswants Neco Ltd. 2001 (2) KLT 148 (SC)? These interesting questions have been raised for consideration in this case by the learned Counsel for the petitioner though in the petition, transfer has been claimed only to cater to the interests of the convenience of the parties.2. An oppressive pract...

Kunhiraman N. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ56

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners in the connected writ petitions and learned Government Pleader.The petitioners in O.P. Nos. 16493/2000 & 16506/2000 underwent coronary artery by pass surgery in a private hospital, which was recognized by the Directorate of Health Services for Government servants to avail treatments, while working as Constable, District Special Branch, Malappuram and as Superintendent in the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Malappuram respectively.2. The case of the petitioner in OP No. 16493/2000 is that he was given an interest free loan of Rs. 80,000/- for undergoing the surgery. However, when the medical bill for Rs. 1,13,289/- was presented for reimbursement 2nd respondent allowed only Rs. 70,939/ - and directed him to remit Rs. 9,061/- towards the balance amount of advance taken. So far as the case of petitioner in O.P. No. 16506/2000 is concerned, he was given an interest free loan of Rs. 85,000/- for the surgery. Howe...

Moideen Koya T. Vs. the Secretary to Govt. and State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ521

A.K. Basheer, J.1. Can the High Court, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, issue a writ of mandamus to a criminal court not to execute the sentence imposed on an accused pending his application before the Government for communication of sentence under Section 433(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?2. The learned single Judge before whom the writ petition came up for consideration declined the above prayer. Nevertheless, the learned Judge directed the Government to consider the application submitted by the appellant for commutation expeditiously. The above order is under challenge in this writ appeal.3. Relevant facts may be briefly noticed.4. Appellant was tried for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 279 and to undergo simple imprisonment for one year an...

M/S. National Insurance Co.Ltd. and Another Vs. V. Jayadhar and Anothe ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The 1st and 2nd opposite parties in OP.No.535/02 of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram are under orders to pay to the complainant the sum of Rs.1,759/ with 9% interest from the date of complaint till realization along with cost of Rs.1,000/- and it is aggrieved by the above said directions that the present appeal is filed by the said opposite parties wherein we are called upon to decide the correctness of the order dated 8/9/05 passed by of the Forum below. 2. The case of the complainant bereft of unnecessary details before the Forum was that he had purchased a car on 13/6/2001 from one Smt.Nisha and the ownership was transferred on21/8/01. The existing comprehensive insurance policy was also transferred to the name of the complainant on payment of Rs.50/- collected by the 2nd opposite party. It was the specific case of the complainant that at the time of renewal of policy, the opposite parties denied the No Claim Bonus without any reason and collected full pr...