Kerala Court December 2009 Judgments

Vijayalekshmi Amma Vs. Bindu

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT79

ORDERM. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. Second respondent in M.C. 36/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram, a petition filed under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, (hereinafter referred to as the Act,) is the petitioner. Respondents 1 and 2 are the petitioners before the Magistrate. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings as against her contending that the allegations in Annexure A complaint do not disclose or prove any domestic violence as defined under Section 3 of the Act, and first respondent has no right over the property of the petitioner and it is not a shared household. It is contended that petitioner being a female person is not a respondent as defined under Section 2(q) of the Act and therefore proceedings under the Act as against the petitioner is not maintainable and is to be quashed.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard.3. T...

M.M. Philip Vs. Kerala State,

Court: Kerala

K.T. Sankaran, J.1. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 16th June 2004 in A.S. No. 58 of 1996, Additional District (Adhoc) Court I, Pathanamthitta, the plaintiff- appellant filed F.A. O. No. 216 of 2004 before this Court. The FAO was disposed of by the judgment dated 9th December 2005. The Appeal was dismissed without prejudice to the right of the appellant to approach the appellate court for necessary relief's. The appellant had raised a contention that he had not made any concession before the lower appellate court for remanding the case to the trial court. After disposal of the FAO, the appellant filed I.A. No. 109 of 2006 to review the judgment of the lower appellate Court. That application was dismissed, which is under challenge in this Appeal.2. The appellant filed O.S. No. 224 of 1990 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Pathanamthitta against the State of Kerala, the Tahsildar and the Divisional Forest Officer for a decree declaring that the plaintiff is not liable ...

Rajan Alias Rajan Gopinathan Vs. Dr. D. Jayashree Nayar and Leela D/O. ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT142

K.T. Sankaran, J.1. The question of law involved in this appeal is the following: While disposing of an application under Order XXXVIII Rule 8 read with Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is it obligatory to determine the question whether the transfer made by the judgment debtor is a fraudulent transfer within the meaning of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act2. Rajan, the appellant, instituted the suit, O.S. No. 78 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Mavelikkara, against the second respondent Leela, for realisation of a sum of Rs. 8,69,000/- on the basis of the promissory note allegedly executed by Leela in favour of Rajan for Rs. 6,60,000/-. The suit was filed on 4.4.2006. I.A. No. 522 of 2006 was filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure for attachment before judgment of an extent of 8.083 cents of land situated in Elamkulam Village in Ernakulam. The court below passed an order of attachment dated ...

Sidhik Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT113

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the action taken by the Public Service Commission in altering his rank from 39 to 43 A in Ext.P1 rank list, that too based on the result of the rechecking of the answer papers done at his instance.2. The ranked list in question is for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Arabic. The ranked list came into force on 3.12.2008.54 candidates have been included in the ranked list. The petitioner was originally included as rank No. 39. In the Writ Petition, the complaint raised by the petitioner was that the petitioner's ranking has been changed without any justification and without any intimation to him. The Writ Petition was amended later to declare that the appointment of respondents 4 and 5 as Lecturers in Arabic is erroneous. They are rank Nos. 41 and 42 in the list. Therefore, the substantial contention raised by the petitioner is that the changing of the rank based on the result of the rechecking of th...

M.K. Abdul Salim Vs. the State of Kerala and Sri Aboobacker Chengattu, ...

Court: Kerala

A.K. Basheer, J.1. This Writ Petition is professedly filed in Public Interest praying for the following reliefs:i. issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction or order compelling the 1st respondent to take immediate steps to fill up the post of the Secretary of the Advisory Board under Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act from among the qualified and competent hands; ii. issue a writ of prohibition, any other writ or direction prohibiting the first respondent from giving extension of period to the second respondent to act as Secretary of the Advisory Board under Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, on completion of the present tenure on 2/11/2009; iii. issue a writ of mandamus, any other writ, direction or order directing the first respondent to terminate the services of the second respondent as the Secretary of the Advisory Board under Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, on completion of the present tenure on 2/11/2009;2. It is taci...

The Kerala State Road Transport Vs. Sri N.R. Babudas S/O Raman Nair,

Court: Kerala

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'K.S.R.T.C.') is the appellant in all these cases. W.A. No. 1270/2009 is treated as the main case for the purpose of referring to exhibits and parties. The 1st respondent applied for a temporary permit on the route Vattappara- Ernakulam-Kaloor via Peppathy, Mulanthuruthy, Chottanikkara, Thiruvankulam, Thripunithura, Vyttila and Kaloor Kadavanthra road. It is submitted that he was operating on the route for quite some time. But, when he applied for re-issue of the temporary permit, taking into account the objection raised by the K.S.R.T.C., the application for temporary permit was rejected by Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam, by issuing Ext.P5 decision dated 19.7.2008. The said order reads as follows:Heard. The application is for temporary permit for one year Under Section 104. of the MV Act lays down that 'since the scheme is published Under Section 100(3) in respect of any route the RTA shall not ...

K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT65

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. These Writ Petitions are filed by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, which is a statutory Corporation, formed under the Road Transport Corporations Act. These Writ Petitions are filed by it, mainly challenging Section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (Act No. 27/2006), (herein after referred to as 'the Act').W.P.(C) No. 10950/20092. This Writ Petition is treated as the main case for the purpose of referring to the parties and exhibits. The Kerala Road Transport Corporation (for short 'KSRTC') issued Ext.P1 purchase order Sated 5.2.1994 to the second respondent for the supply of tread rubber for retreading tyres in its three major workshops. Ext.P2 dated 10.2.94 is one of the agreements executed by the KSRTC with the second respondent for supply of tread rubber. According to the KSRTC, since the goods supplied did not conform to the specifications, it suffered loss. 90% of the amount payable under the purchase agree...

Mathai Vs. Thressiamma

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT37

ORDERP.R. Raman, J.1. The cross appellant is the plaintiff in the suit, and the respondent herein is the defendant. The suit was one for breach of contract and damages, which was decreed with cost, and the counter claim filed by the defendant was also dismissed. The plaintiff was allowed to realise a sum of Rs. 8 lakhs with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of the suit till the date of decree, and thereafter, at the rate of 6% till its realisation. The advance amount paid by the defendant was held as forfeitable, and so the counter claim was dismissed.2. After paying one-third of the court fee, as contemplated under Section 22 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Court Fees Act' for short), defendant preferred an appeal, R.F.A. No. 868 of 2008. The appeal was admitted on 19.12.2008. Notice was sent on 6.1.2009 with hearing date on 27.1.2009. The respondent-plaintiff, on being served with the notice, filed Cross Objection N...

Kappil Shoukath Ali Vs. Perinthalmanna Co-operative Agrl. and Rural De ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT22

S. Siri Jagan, J.1. The petitioner availed of a loan from the Perinthalmanna Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. As security for repayment of the same, the petitioner mortgaged certain properties belonging to the petitioner. Since the petitioner committed default in repayment, that property was brought to sale. The property was sold. Sale certificate was issued. Thereafter, the petitioner moved the authorities under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act for return of the property to the petitioner. The petitioner paid the entire amount and discharged the liability. The sale was set aside by the competent authority. In the meanwhile, the sale certificate had already been submitted before the Sub Registrar for registration under the Indian Registration Act. The Registrar passed Ext. P5 order holding that deficient stamp duty has to be paid on the document. It is under the above circumstances the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:(i) Issu...

Tower Vision India (P) Limited Vs. the Superintendent of Police and or ...

Court: Kerala

Kurian Joseph, J.1. These writ petitions are filed at the instance of service providers/infra-structure service providers, who have been issued licence by the Department of Telecommunications for the erection of mobile towers and for their operation. It is also seen that the local authority concerned had issued building permit for the construction of the tower. In some of the cases, it appears, after the issuance of the building permit, the local authority concerned itself had issued a stop memo. Some of the people at the locality entertained an apprehension with regard to the hazards to their health and they physically obstructed the petitioners from taking up the construction of the tower though the same was permitted by the local authority concerned and though they had the licence. When the writ petitions came up before this Court, it is seen that this Court had issued a direction to the Police to render necessary police protection for the construction of the tower, in case there is...