Kerala Court March 2009 Judgments

The University of Calicut Vs. the Director, Amala Institute of Medical ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(1)KLJ820

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The University of Calicut, the 1st respondent in the writ petition is the appellant. The 1st respondent herein was the writ petitioner.2. The brief of the case are the following: The 1st respondent is managing a Self Financing Medical College established under the jurisdiction of the University of Calicut The college started functioning during the academic year 2003-04 with the approval of the Government of India, which was granted on the recommendation of the Medical Council of India (for short 'MCI'). As per Ext. P1 order dated 25-10-2003, the appellant University granted provisional affiliation to the college for the year 2003-04. It was followed by Ext. P2 order dated 16-3-2005, granting provisional affiliation to the college for the academic year 2004-05. For the following year 2005-06 also, affiliation was granted provisionally as per Ext. P3 order dated 18-6-2005. All these orders contained a condition that students shall be admitted from the list publ...

Kerala Public Service Commission Vs. Vivina V.V. and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(1)KLJ924; 2009(2)KLT161

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. These Writ Appeals are filed against the common judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) Nos. 20771,21783,24150 and 28075/2008 dated 15-12-2008, interfering with the decision of the Public Service Commission dated 12-5-2008, to treat M.Sc. Home Science as sufficient qualification for appointment to the post of Vocational Instructor in Clothing and Embroidery in the Vocational Higher Secondary Schools under the Kerala State.2. The brief facts of the case are the following: W. A. No. 444/2009 filed by the Public Service Commission (in short 'PSC') against the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 21783/ 2008 is treated as the main case, for the purpose of referring to the parties and exhibits. The writ petitioner is a member of the Scheduled Caste. She has passed Vocational Higher Secondary Course in Clothing and Embroidery with first class. Ext. PI is the V.H.S.C. certificate issued to her. She has passed B.Sc. Home Science with first class for the optional subjects,...

Princy and ors. Vs. Jose

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2010Ker1; 2009(2)KLJ335

Thomas P. Joseph, J.1. The substantial questions of law raised for a decision are as to the character and enforceability of a covenant by the assignee of the covenantee.2. Short facts necessary for a decision of these second appeals are: The building, portions of which are involved in these appeals together with the land whereon it was situated originally belonged to Cherchi (hereinafter called 'the covenantee'). She, as per Ext.A1, assignment deed No. 2449/1968 dated 13-8-1968 sold the southern half of the building and land to Enasu with a covenant which is as follows:.though one half of the northern wall of the building in the schedule property is included in this (deed), in case of reconstruction of the said building (in the portion assigned under Ext.Al)., separate wall shall be constructed in such a way as not to cause damage to the northern wall and leaving a space of 12 fingers towards south from the said wall....On the same day the northern portion of the building and the land ...

Balanoor Plantation Industries Ltd. Vs. Secretary, Plantation Labour U ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2009)IIILLJ302Ker

S. Siri Jagan, J.1. In this original petition, the management in I.D. No. 79/1994 before the Labour Court, Kozhikode is challenging Exhibit P-11 award passed by the Labour Court in that I.D. The issue referred for adjudication was the justifiability of retrenchment of 15 workers. The workers were retrenched on the ground that on account of re-plantation of the rubber estate in which the workers were working, there was reduction in work as a result of which the workers have been retrenched. According to workers, there was no reduction of work despite the re-plantation. The Labour Court considered the issue and found that the retrenchment was unjustifiable and directed reinstatement of the workers without backwages, but with compensation of Rs. 2000/- to each worker. That award is under challenge before me.2. Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Labour Court, after coming to the finding that as per the permits issued by the Rubber Board, the management had obtained permit fo...

Gopinathan Vs. Area Manager, Food Corporation of India

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2009)IIILLJ522Ker

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The dispute in the writ petition is regarding the non disbursement of balance amount of Rs. 18,209/- towards DCRG. Petitioner is a retired Manager (Depot), Food Corporation of India, District Office, Thiruvananthapuram. He retired from service on attaining superannuation on October 31, 2007. While he was working as Manager (Depot), he was posted as Honarary Secretary in the Department Staff Canteen, Valiyathura, Thiruvananthapuram and worked as such for the period from September 2000 to June 2001 and from May 24, 2004 to June 3, 2005.2. While the petitioner was in service, a complaint arose regarding the non-remittance of the EPF contribution in respect of some of the employees of the canteen. Various proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner and the 1 other office bearers of the canteen. Even though, initially an amount of Rs. 59, 162/- was withheld from the retirement benefits due to the petitioner, an amount of Rs. 41,853/- was released on A...

M/S. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Repd. by Its Ceo and Others Vs. P.R ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/New India Assurance Company Ltd. that has challenged the order of the Forum in OP:124/04 in the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta. The Forum has ordered the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest at 10% from the date of complaint and compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.2,500/-. It is also ordered that the amounts are to be paid within one month from the date of receipt of the order and in default to pay interest at the rate of 12%. 2. The case of the complainants who are the legal heirs of the deceased Purushothaman is that, late Purushothaman had taken a Janatha Personal Accident Insurance Policy with the opposite party for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. Purushothaman died in a train accident during the policy period, but the claim was repudiated by the appellant. The policy coverage is Rs.3,00,000/-. The complainants had claimed the above amount with interest and compensation of Rs.25,000/-. 3. The...

Jesudasan G. Vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (G)

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(1)KLJ888; 2009(2)KLT86

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner describing himself as the President of the Board of Directors of the second respondent co-operative bank, challenges Ext. P9 by which the committee led by him has been superseded in exercise of authority under Section 32 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'.2. The impugned decision is challenged in the writ petition as one passed in total violation of the statutory provisions and disregarding the observations contained in Ext. P5 judgment of the Division Bench in the writ appeal filed by the petitioner and others against Ext. P4 judgment in an earlier writ petition filed by them challenging the issuance of notice under Section 32(1) which, ultimately, has now led to the impugned proceedings.3. Ext. P9 is challenged oh the specific ground that the said order has been issued by a person who was not the one who heard the petitioner and the other members of the superseded committee. It is conte...

M.K. Thaha Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009[15]STR145; [2009]22STT456

K.M. Joseph, J.1. Petitioner challenges Exts. P2, P4 and P6 notices. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:2. Petitioner is a facilitator for Hajj pilgrims in respect of the quota allotted by Government of India each year. Ext. P2 is the notice issued by the Superintendent calling up on the petitioner to provide certain details with supporting documents, copy of audited balance sheet etc. It is stated in Ext. P2 that it is understood that the petitioner is operating outbound tours/pilgrimages and petitioner is not paying service tax. According to the petitioner, he is not a tour operator. The relevant statutory provision is Section 65(105)(n). As per the section 'taxable service' means any service provided or to be provided to any person by a tour operator in relation to a tour. According to the petitioner, petitioner is only a facilitator for Hajj and Umrah pilgrims to perform obligatory Hajj and Umrah in the Holy cities of Mecca and Medina and also at Mina, Arafa, Muz...

K.P. Krishnan Vs. Joseph John and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2009Ker171

ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. The order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Rule 90 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure is under challenge in this Writ Petition. The Registry noted a defect that the order impugned is appealable and therefore Writ Petition is not maintainable.2. The contention taken by the petitioner is that though the application under Rule 90 of Order XXI was dismissed, there was no order confirming the sale and, therefore, it does not fall within the purview of Rule 92 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure. Order XLIII, Rule 1(j) says that an appeal shall lie from an order under Rule 72 or Rule 92 of Order XXI setting aside or refusing to set aside a sale. Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for an application for setting aside the sale on the ground of irregularity or fraud. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 92 of Order XXI provides that where no application is made under Rule 89, Rule 90 or Rule 91 or where such application is...

The Assistant Executive Engineer, K.S.E.B and Another Vs. Anjamma John ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/KSEB in CC.230/06 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The bill issued by the appellant for a sum of Rs.8888/- stands cancelled as per the order of the Forum. 2. It is the case of the petitioners/respondents herein that the electricity meter installed in their premises became faulty in January 2003 itself. The same was brought to the notice of the appellant on 22.2.2003 and also subsequently. Much later an additional bill for a sum of Rs.8888/- was issued directing to remit the amount on or before 25.11.06. It is seen from the bill that by taking the average consumption of 9/05,11/05 and 1/06 ie; after the installation of new meter, were taken for calculating average consumption. During the above period there was high consumption because of the marriage of petitioners son and daughter. 3. The opposite party/appellant had contended that the meter was defective and was not showing any consumption from March 2001 onwards...