Kerala Court September 2009 Judgments

Radhakrishnan Vs. Priya S. and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(3)KLJ549

ORDERS.S. Satheesachandran, J.1. The revision is directed against the order dated 20-12-2008 in O.S. No. 120 of 2002 passed by the Principal Munsiff, Trivandrum over Issue No. 4 raised in the suit as to whether the court is having Jurisdiction to try the suit. The learned Munsiff has held, after hearing both sides, that the court has jurisdiction to try the suit, negativing the contentions raised by the defendants that in view of the agreement between the parties the suit can be filed only before the courts at Kochi and not in Trivandrum. Propriety and correctness of the finding entered on jurisdiction by the learned Munsiff is challenged in the revision by the first defendant in the suit.2. I heard the counsel on both sides. Learned Counsel for the petitioner/Ist defendant contended that as per Clause 19 of the agreement entered by the parties only the court at Kochi has got jurisdiction to entertain by the parties only the court at Kochi has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit, an...

R. Kunjukrishnan Vs. Sri. Sivadasan Jayakumar and Another

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 25th January 07 passed by CDRF, Kollam in CC.No.316/06. The Complaint therein was filed by the appellant herein as complainant against the respondents 1 and 2 as opposite parties 1 and 2 respectively alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Inspite of service of notice on the opposite parties 1 and 2 there was no representation on behalf of the opposite parties and thereby the Forum below declared them ex-parte and they remained so. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. P1and P2 documents were produced from the side of the complainant. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below found the first opposite party as deficient in service. Thereby, passed the impugned order directing the first opposite party to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation with 9% interest and cost of Rs.500/-. No order has been passed against the second opposite party.The complainan...

Jacsons Veneers and Panels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State Bank of Travancore and ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(3)KLJ517

P. Bhavadasan, J.1. These two appeals arise from a common order and hence they are being disposed of together.2. The plaintiffs had filed IA 3085 of 2008 in O.S. 436 of 2008 seeking an interim injunction and an ex-parte order of injunction was granted. On appearance by the respondents, the second respondent filed IA. 4011 of 2008 for vacating the ex-parte interim order. Both the petitions were heard together and disposed of by a common order. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner in LA. 3085 of 2008 has filed F.A.O. 283 of 2008 and F.A.O. 287 of 2008 against the order in IA 4011 of 2008.3. Facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of these appeals alone are being referred to. The parties and facts are hereinafter referred to as they are available before the court below.4. The appellant instituted O.S. 446 of 2008 before the Sub Court, Ernakulam seeking a declaration and prohibitory injunction. The plaintiff is a registered Company and is engaged in the manufacture and supply of...

The Special Tahsildar (La) Vs. P.K. Muraleekrishnan

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(3)KLJ456

C.K. Abdul Rehim, J.1. Both the appeals arise out of a common judgment in LAR. Nos. 118/96 and 254/96 of the Subordinate Judges Court, Kozhikode. In LAA. No. 896/2005 arising out of LAR. No. 118/96 an extent of 1729 sq. ft. (3.96 cents) of land was acquired for widening of Sub Jail Road in Kozhikode city. Section 3(1) notification was issued on 19.4.1966 and possession of the land was taken over on 2.2.1993. The land acquisition officer fixed value at Rs. 375/ - percent, as per award dated 15.9.1980. The reference court, by its judgment dated 18.2.1988, refixed the compensation at Rs. 75,000/- per cent. In LAA. No. 1094/2005 arising out of LAR. No. 254/96 an extent of 738.84 sq. meters (18.25 cents) of property was acquired for widening of Pavamani Road in Kozhikode City. Section 4(1) notification was published on 25.5.1981 and possession of the land was taken over on 16.3.1993. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation @ Rs. 4095/-per cent through award dated 19.9.1986. The Re...

The Manager, Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. Vs. K. Balan and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(3)KLJ525

V. Giri, J.1. Almost identical contentions have been raised in these writ petitions. They involve a common question as to whether an employer has the right to forfeit the gratuity payable to an employee under the Payment of Gratuity Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') either in whole or in part. I will refer to the facts in WP.(C). 17700/2009 and disposal of the same would govern the other writ petitions also.2. 1st respondent filed an application before the Controlling Authority under the Act. He contended that he joined services of the petitioner on 1.5.1968 and retired from service on 1.9.2005. He had put in 38 years of service and claimed an amount of Rs. 76,730/- towards gratuity.3. The Management in its counter statement inter alia contended that the claimant is in possession of 50 cents of land, which was allotted to him for the purpose of cultivation. He has not handed over the land to the petitioner even after retirement and that the Company has sustained a loss of Rs. ...

Abdulkhader A.P. Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(3)KLJ506

ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. In this petition filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C., the petitioner who is the appellant in the above appeal, seeks an order suspending the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner in C.C. No. 40 of 2002 on the file of the court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode pending the above criminal appeal.2. As per the impugned judgment dated 17.08.2009, the petitioner who is an anesthetist working as Assistant Surgeon, Government Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Sulthan Bathery has been convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and six months with a sentence of fine.3. According to the petitioner, if the conviction recorded against the petitioner is not suspended pending appeal, he will be removed from service forthwith and the serious prejudice which he will suffer cannot be undone at a later stage.4. This application is opposed by the ...

Madhavan H. Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(3)KLJ418

V. Ramkumar, J.1. The appellant namely H. Madhavan, who was prosecuted by the Station House Officer, Rajapuram Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 55(b) and 55 (g) of the Abkari Act, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him by the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-I), Kasaragod for the offence punishable under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act.2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows:On 19.3.1999 at about 8.15 a.m., in the kitchen of his residential house at Chendhalam bearing building No. KB-X/70 of Kodom Belur Panchayat in Kasaragod District the accused was found in possession of 10 litres of wash kept for the preparation of arrack by illicit distillation. The accused has thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 55(b) and 55(g) of the Abkari Act.3. On the appellant pleading not guilty to the charge framed against him by the court below for the aforementioned offences, the prosecution was permitted to adduce ev...

Devdhan Lottery Services (Dls) Vs. the State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(3)KLJ479

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner seeks to quash Exts,P2 and P6 and seek a direction that the respondents shall not interfere with the functioning of the JYOTHIS project of the petitioner firm.2. Heard senior Adv. M.K. Damodaran for the petitioner and Adv., V.G. Govindan Nair, Director General of Prosecution.3. On 3,7,2007, the Commissioner of Police, Kochi City issued Ext.P2 notice to two persons, who, the petitioners, a firm, states, are its partners. The contents of Ext,P2 notice refer to certain activities of a scheme called JYOTHIS project It is stated therein that on preliminary enquiry, the said scheme is found to he similar to the 'LIS' scheme and that the activity of JYOTHIS project would tantamount to infraction of the provisions of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978, Section 420 IPC and Section 45 of the Reserve Bank of India Act. The said notice apparently makes a comparison to state that the activity of JYOTHIS project is virtua...

Kelukutty C. Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(3)KLJ391

V. Ramkumar, J.1. The appellant was prosecuted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Vythiri for an offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act.2. The case of the prosecution as unravelled through the oral and documentary evidence is the following:On 15-11-1997 at about 8 a.m. the appellant was found in possession of 6 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL for short) by name 'Western Doctors Brandy' consisting of 3 bottles each of 750 ml. capacity and 10 bottles each of 375 ml. capacity in MO4 bag carried by him in the varandha of a shop at the Pozhuthana-Vythiri junction. The detection of the appellant was by the Circle Inspector of Police, Vythiri during patrol duty at 8 a.m. The appellant was arrested and two samples of 180 ml. each were taken from one of the 10 bottles of 375 ml. capacity. The sample bottles were sealed and packed, and seized along with the rest of the bottles under ExtP2 seizure mahazar prepared by PW5 from the spot The accused was arrested and taken a...

The Managing Director, Kerala State Construction Corporation Ltd. Vs. ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(3)KLJ450

ORDERC.T. Ravikumar, J.1. The petitioner is the accused in C.C. No. 697 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Thoppumpady. The petitioner is indicted therein alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter for brevity 'I.D. Act' only). The allegation is that the petitioner had failed to implement Annexure-III award in I.D. No. 71 of 2002 dated 5.11.2005 of the Industrial Tribunal, Alappuzha. The Crl.M.C. is filed with a prayer to quash Annexure-I complaint and all further proceedings pursuant thereto pending in C.C. No. 697 of 2008.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondents.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that a conjoint reading of Annexure-I complaint and Annexure-III award would reveal the unsustainability of the allegation raised against the petitioner. It is further contended that such a reading wo...