Kerala Court December 2009 Judgments

Siji Antony Vs. Saji John

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT387

ORDERS.S. Satheesachandran, J.1. The above petition is filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transfer of a matrimonial proceeding pending on the file of the Family Court, Alappuzha to the Family Court, Kozhikode. Petitioner is the wife, and respondent, the husband. On appearance of the respondent/husband, counsel on both sides submitting that there is a fair chance of settlement requested for reference of the petition to the Lok Adalat to thrash out a compromise. Conceding to the request the transfer petition was referred to the Lok Adalat.2. The Lok Adalat organised by the Kerala High Court Legal Service Committee on such reference has passed an award declaring the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent as null and void. The award passed by the Lok Adalat reads thus:When this matter came up before the Adalat the respondent-Saji John filed a petition under Section 18 of the Divorce Act praying that his marriage may be declared null and void on the ground that...

Usman Vs. Corporation of Calicut

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT367

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.Is the Secretary of a Municipality empowered to issue permission, transferring a development permit or a building permit in part and allowing the commencement or continuation of the work following such transfer1. The petitioner obtained a development and building permit. Later, respondents 2 and 3 purchased a portion of the land involved in that permit and the semi-finished structures standing thereon, with the right to continue to build that portion. The Secretary of the first respondent Corporation issued Ext.P8 taking the view that the permit cannot be transferred in part. Hence, this Writ Petition.2. Rule 21 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999, hereinafter referred to as the 'KMBR', deals with intimation regarding transfer of plots. Sub-rule (1) thereof provides that every person holding development or building permit shall, unless the work has been executed in full and development or occupancy certificate obtained, inform the Secretary, e...

Valsamma Kurian Vs. St. Rapheal Church

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT314

ORDERS.S. Satheesachandran, J.1. The order challenged in the revision arises from an application moved by the judgment debtors in E.P. No. 404 of 2004 in O.S. No. 897 of 1995 passed by the learned Principal Munsiff, Ernakulam. Pursuant to the execution of the decree passed in the above suit for eviction, the judgment debtors were evicted from a Mill situate in the plaint schedule property. Delivery was effected in the absence of the judgment debtors and, then, extensive damages were caused to their properties and machineries was the case of the judgment debtors to claim compensation of Rs. 2,40,000/- from the decree holders by filing an application before the execution court. Machineries removed from the Mill situate in the plaint schedule property had been entrusted by the Amin to the decree holders and since the judgment debtors failed to take delivery of the articles, an application was moved by them for issuing direction to the judgment debtors to receive such articles, and in defa...

K.S. Dilip Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and the Presiding Officer, Debts

Court: Kerala

A.K. Basheer, J.1. The primary prayer in this writ petition, filed by a practising lawyer of this Court, is to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other appropriate writ, order or direction to respondent No. 1 to appoint Chairperson to the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. It is beyond controversy that the post of Chairperson in the Appellate Tribunal is lying vacant since May 31, 2009.2. It is brought to our notice that respondent No. 2 is holding additional charge of the Chennai Bench now. But no regular sittings are being held, with the result that, in cases where urgent orders are necessary, parties are put to untold sufferings.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has brought to our notice the difficulties now being faced by the litigants and lawyers because of the inaction on the part of respondent No. 1 in making the appointment to the post of Chairperson.4. It is not very difficult to comprehend the possible difficulties which the litigants and legal fratern...

Mony @ Suresh Kumar S/O. Appu Nair, Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT245

V. Ramkumar, J.1. In this appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. by accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 in Sessions Case No. 150 of 1998 on the file of the Court of the Sessions Judge, Wayanad, Kalpetta challenge the conviction entered and the sentence passed against them for an offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C.2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows:The marriage between Sunitha aged 18 years and Suresh Kumar (the first accused) aged 23 years was on 9-2-1996. While Sunitha was residing in her matrimonial home at Kaniyampatta in Vythiri Taluk of Wayanad District, on account of the harassment and ill-treatment meeted out to her by A1 to A4 namely, husband, mother-in-law and two sisters-in-law of Sunitha in connection with their demand for further dowry, Sunitha committed suicide at about 4 p.m. on 26-4-1996 by consuming poison. The accused persons have thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B read with Section 34 I.P.C.3. On the accused per...

Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. and Another Vs. Dr.K.J. Mat ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 7th January 2003 passed by CDRF, Kottayam in OP.No.784/99. The complaint therein was filed by the respondent herein against the appellants/opposite parties alleging deficiency in service on their part in repudiating insurance claim putforward by the complainant under A1 medi claim policy. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version and justified their action in repudiating the medi claim policy. They contended that hospital in which the complainant had undergone treatment for his illness was not having the required registration certificate issued from by the concerned local authority and that the said hospital was not well equipped as stated in clause 2.1(b) of the A1 policy. 2. Before the forum below complainant was examined as PW1 and the doctor from the hospital was examined as PW2. Exts. A1 to A15 documents were also produced and marked on the side of the complainant. Fr...

Soofia Madani Vs. Varghese

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT154

ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. Soofia Madani, accused No. 10 in Crime No. 469 of 2005 of Kalamassery Police Station has filed this Bail Application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail.2. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections l20-B, 121-A, 436, 364, 323 and 506 (ii) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 4 of the PDPP Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act.3. The prosecution case is that as a result of the criminal conspiracy hatched by the accused to commit an offence, on 9.9.2005, some of the accused persons boarded a bus owned by the Tamil Nadu Government Road Transport Corporation bearing registration No. TN-01 N 6725 from the K.S.R.T.C. bus stand at Ernakulam and some others followed on motor bikes and when the bus reached in front of the Kalamassery Municipal office, the accused persons hijacked the bus, threatening the driver under knife and gun point. There were 32 passengers in the bus. The bus was taken to an is...

Babu Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT132; JT2010(8)SC560

R. Basant, J.1. Is a second order of detention possible and permissible when an earlier order of detention remains contumaciously unexecuted?ii) Are Exts.P1 and P2 separate orders of detention or are they to be reckoned as a composite order of detention - the latter representing only application of mind on the question whether the former deserves to be executed under the new situation and changed circumstancesThese interesting questions are canvassed ably by the learned Counsel in this Writ Petition.2. The petitioner, claiming to be a friend of one Anil Kumar @ Keppan Ani (hereinafter referred to as 'the detenu'), has filed this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to direct production and release of the detenu, who is under detention under Section 3 of the Kerala Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 'KAAPA') as per Ext.P1 and P2 orders dated 19.1.2009 and 27.8.2009 passed by the 2nd respondent.3. The said order Ext.P1 was passed on 19....

State of Kerala Vs. Panamoottil Investments

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT557

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. These appeals are filed by the writ petitioners, feeling aggrieved by the omission of the learned Single Judge, to declare that Sub-rule (ii) and the second proviso to Sub-rule (iv) of Rule 19 of the Foreign Liquor Rules, are ultra vires and unauthorised. By the Judgment under appeal, certain directions were issued in favour of the writ petitioners. The State has filed Writ Appeals against those directions. But, in these appeals, we are concerned, only with the correctness of the Judgment, to the extent, it is impugned by the appellants.W.A. No. 1637/092. This Writ Appeal is treated as the main case for the purpose of referring to the parties and exhibits. The brief facts of the case are the following:The appellant is a partnership firm, which is having an FL-3 licence. One of the partners of the firm Shri. A.V. Paul wanted to retire from the partnership firm. So, the partnership firm decided to modify the partnership deed, to give effect to his retirement. B...

Chandrika Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT223

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P30 order by which the application for correction of date of birth in the SSLC book has been disallowed. Mainly it is pointed out in Ext.P30 that, if the request is allowed, the petitioner would become an under-aged student at the time of admission in Standard I, i.e., having only 4 years, 4 months and 18 days of age, which is strictly against the provisions contained in Rule 5 of Chap. VI K.E.R.2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri A.N. Rajan Babu and learned Government Pleader Shri Sandesh Raja who appeared for the respondents.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the approach made by the respondents in the matter is in violation of the directions issued by this Court in Exts.P 17 and P28 judgments. As per the above judgments, this Court had directed the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for correction of date of birth, in the light of the material evidence produced by the peti...