Kerala Court December 2009 Judgments

Ummulqura Secondary School Vs. Islamic Primary School

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT523

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The point that arises for decision in these appeals is whether the Government can grant recognition to a school, which was remaining unrecognised, from day one of its establishment. A few Writ Petitions were filed before this Court by persons, running aided/recognised schools, challenging the decision of the Government and also the follow-up proceedings of the Director of Public Instruction, to grant recognition to certain unrecognised schools, which were functioning for the last few years in Malappuram and Kasaragod Districts. Since the very same point arose for decision in all the Writ Petitions, the learned Single Judge heard and allowed them by a common judgment dated 20.10.2008. Challenging the said judgment, the affected respondents have preferred these appeals. Therefore, they are heard and disposed of by this common judgment.W.A. No. 247 of 20092. This appeal is treated as the main case for the purpose of referring to the facts and documents. The fift...

Rehabilitation Plantations Ltd. Vs. Ansary

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT379

Thomas P. Joseph, J.1. The question that arises for a decision in these appeals is whether Section 23 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, 'the Act') applies to suits ex-contractu governed by Article 55 of that Act.2. Short facts in O.S. No. 116 of 1994 from which A.S. No. 9 of 1999 arose are: Appellant, a Government Company entered into Ext. Al, agreement with the respondents on 7.8.1990 as per which the latter agreed to purchase 25 metric tons of skim crepe rubber at the rate of Rs. 17.27 per kg. Respondents were to pay the price and remove the skim crepe rubber from the factory of appellant at Kulathoopuzha before 25.8.1990. Respondents were given a grace period of 7 days to remove the goods failing which they were to pay ground rent to the appellant at the rate of Rs. 5/- per metric ton per day. Appellant reserved right to extend the period for taking delivery of the goods charging ground rent as above. In case of default on the part of respondents, appellant could re-sel...

Biju Eappen Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT289

ORDERM. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. Petitioner is the first accused and second respondent the de facto complainant in C.C. No. 73/2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Nilambur. By Annexure-A1 judgment, accused 2 and 3, were acquitted and petitioner/first accused was convicted for the offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to simple imprisonment for five months and a fine of Rupees Five thousand. Challenging the conviction and sentence, Crl. A. No. 57/2009 was filed before Sessions Court, Manjeri and it is pending. Meanwhile, entire matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and second respondent, his wife, the de facto complainant, were settled in respect of all the cases pending between them. Consequent to the settlement and in view of the agreement entered into by the petitioner and second respondent, to settle all the disputes, this petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the conviction and sentence now ...

Secretary to Government Vs. Nazar

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLJ737,2010(1)KLT286

ORDERThottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Having been granted leave, the Secretary to Government of Kerala in Local Self Government Department has filed this petition seeking review of the judgment dated 10.6.2009 in W.P.(C) 16046 of 2009, a Writ Petition disposed of as part of a bunch of matters - Nasar v. Malappuram Municipality 2009 (3) KLT 92 : 2009 (3) KHC 35.2. The relief sought for in the Writ Petition filed without the Government on the array, was to quash the Malappuram Municipality's decision refusing building permit on the ground that the land in relation to which building permit was sought, fell within an area identified as wet land and restricted, to be for such user in terms of the master plan approved by the Government. It was noticed that in terms of the judgments issued by this Court in Padmini v. State of Kerala 1999 (3) KLT 465 different judgments were issued by this Court including those placed on record along with the Writ Petition as Exts.P3, P4, P5 etc. The judgment...

Tony Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT922

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The question raised is whether driving of bore-well is civil construction work entitling the petitioner to pay tax at compounded rate at 2% under Section 7(7) of the K.G.S.T. Act. We have heard Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.2. In the definition of 'civil construction work' construction of 'well' was not originally included. However, through a later amendment several items of civil work including construction of well are brought under the scope of 'civil construction work'. This Court in the decision in S.T. Rev. No. 160 of 2002 held that the later amendment is clarificatory in nature and therefore the several items of civil work later brought under the definition Clause should also be treated as 'civil construction work' for periods prior to the amendment also. Relying on this decision, counsel for the petitioner submitted that since construction of well is brought within the meaning of 'civil const...

Babu P. Benedict Vs. Principal, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT445

V. Ramkumar, J.1. The operative directions in the common award of the MACT, Kozhikode impugned in these appeals present a rather disquieting and disturbing feature. Those directions (sic)monstrate the lack of sensitivity on the part of the Tribunal in casting unjustified stigmas against a member of the legal profession.2. The common appellant in these appeals is an Advocate by profession ordinarily practising in the Courts at Kozhikode. In these appeals filed under Section 341 Cr.P.C., the appellant challenges the prosecution ordered against him by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT for short), Kozhikode in O.P. (M.V.) Nos. 442 and 576 of 2004. As per the impugned common award, the Tribunal has ordered prosecution against the claimants and their counsel (the appellant herein) by directing the Sheristhadar of the Tribunal to file separate complaints against the claimants therein as well as their counsel (the appellant herein) before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode. In co...

The Branch Manager, Lic of India, Sulthan Bathery and Another Vs. K.A. ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellants are the opposite parties in the complaint in CC No. 15/2006. The aforesaid complaint was filed by the respondent (complainant) alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in repudiating the insurance claim made by the complainant with respect to the life insurance policy taken by the policy holder late K.V. Abraham. The respondent/complainant is the nominee of the aforesaid policyholder late K.V. Abraham. He is also the son of the policyholder. The complainant submitted the insurance claim, on the death of the policyholder on 09-03-2004. The opposite parties repudiated the insurance claim by the repudiation letter dated 31-12-2004 stating that the life assured K.V. Abraham made incorrect statements and withheld correct information from the insurer of the said policy. It was also stated that the life assured had undergone treatment for liver disease since May 2003 and he was having jaundice and epigastric pain. B...

Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, K.S.E.B. Pattikkadu, Trichur a ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is referred from the order dated 13th September 2006 passed by CDRF, Thrissur in OP No. 1456/04. The complaint therein was filed by the respondent in this appeal against the appellants alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellants in issuing P2 demand notice for Rs. 11,994/- and P1 bill for Rs. 2,183/-. The complainant therein prayed to cancel the aforesaid demand notice and the electricity bill and also to restrain the appellants (KSEB) from issuing bills under tariff LT VII A and to treat the connection under LT-1. The appellants herein filed written version before the Forum below denying the alleged deficiency in service. They contended that the P1 bill and P2 demand notice were issued under Clause 42 of the conditions of supply of electrical energy and that there was no illegality or irregularity in demanding Rs. 11,994/- and the bill amount of Rs. 2,183/-. 2. Before the Forum below, P1 to P4 and R1 to R5 docum...

Ahammed Kunju Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT217

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner in the first among the captioned matters is referred to as the 'operator', and the petitioners in the latter, the 'objectors'.2. The operator, who, even according to the objectors, has a saw mill, later applied for consent to install machinery with motor capacity of 84 HP to run a pealing and plywood manufacturing unit in addition to the existing saw mill and furniture unit. The Panchayat refused it as per decision dated 17.12.2008. The operator appealed against that decision to the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. That was allowed on 20.3.2009, setting aside the decision of the Panchayat and directing the Panchayat to pass fresh proper orders, as per law, by strictly following the procedure prescribed by Section 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, hereinafter referred to as the 'KPR Act', for short.3. The objectors and other local residents had, by that time, placed objections to the grant of licence. The said objection...

Ramachandrana Nair S/O. Narayana Kurupu Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

P.Q. Barkath Ali, J.1. In this appeal the accused in Sessions Case No. 303/2000 of Additional District and Sessions (Adhoc) Judge, Fast Track Court II, Pathanamthitta challenges the judgment in the said case dated July 15, 2004 convicting the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.2. The case of the prosecution as shaped in evidence before the lower court in brief as follows:The accused Sri. Ramachandran Nair is the husband of deceased Mohanakumari. They were residing in house bearing door No. VIII/254 of Pathanamthitta Municipality. At the time of marriage, 20 cents of property was given to him. After selling that property the present property was purchased which is Kanjiramnil kunnathil Veedu. PW1 and CW2 are the daughter and son of accused and deceased.Accused used to ill treat the deceased for the purpose of selling this property. He is a dru...