Kerala Court January 2010 Judgments

Ayyappadas Vs. Sajeev S/O. Sukumaran,

Court: Kerala

R. Basant, J.1. The injured/claimant is the appellant. He suffered injuries in a motor accident which took place on 22-8-1999. He was employed as a Superintendent of Central Excise. He suffered compound fracture of the neck and shaft of the right femur in addition to other injuries. The injury to spleen was suffered and splenectomy had to be done. He was an inpatient for a period of 49 days. He allegedly suffered permanent disability. Two Doctors of different specialities assessed the permanent disability suffered by him at 13% (Ext.A10) and 8% (Ext.A14). The Tribunal on a consideration of all the relevant inputs awarded a total amount of Rs. 1,67,000/- as compensation as per the details shown below.1) pain and suffering : Rs. 15,000/-2)Transportation charges : Rs. 2,000/-3)Damage to clothing : Rs. 250/-4)Extra nourishment : Rs. 2,000/-5)Bystanders expenses : Rs. 3,000/-6) Medical and miscellaneousexpenses : Rs. 21,300/-7)Loss of earning(cash equivalent to leave loss) : Rs. 91,542/-8) ...

Sree Narayana College Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT691

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Is an aided college in the State of Kerala 'a public authority' as defined in Section 2(h)(d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, for short, the 'RTI Act'? This has been answered in the affirmative as per the impugned judgment Ed. Note reported in 2007 (3) KLT 486 (Varghese v. M.G. University). Hence, these Writ Appeals.2. Adverting to the preamble to the RTI Act, the learned Judge held that it is abundantly clear that the scope of the Act is much wider in its applicability than getting confined to Governments and their instrumentalities and that the Act is intended to harmonise the conflict between the right of the citizens to secure access to information and the necessity to preserve confidentiality of sensitive information. Noticing that even the preamble states that the Act is intended to provide the practical regime of right to information in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, it has been ...

Johnson Vs. Sebastian

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT498

ORDERA.K. Basheer, J.1. This case has come up for consideration before us on a reference made by a learned single Judge who doubted the correctness of the decision in Raveendran v. State of Kerala and Ors. (2008 (3) KLT 650.2. In Raveendran (supra) a learned single Judge of this Court held that all Special Leave Petitions filed under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 'must be accompanied by the appeal which is proposed to be filed against the impugned judgment of acquittal. The grounds of appeal must be stated clearly in such proposed appeal and the application for leave can incorporate the contentions by reference and it is not essential or necessary that such grounds must be repeated in the application for leave'.3. The learned Judge directed the Registry that henceforth viz., starting from September 1, 2008 grant of leave by the court 'shall be reckoned as equivalent to admission of appeal if filed, and if such appeal is otherwise proper'. Registry was further directe...

Allahabad Bank Vs. Ley Bros.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT765

P. Bhavadasan, J.1. In this appeal filed by the plaintiff Bank, a very short question arises for consideration. The issue turns upon the question whether Exts.A7 and A8 documents create equitable mortgage or they are only documents, evidencing deposit of title deeds made earlier. If it is found that by Exts.A7 and A8, an equitable mortgage is created, then, necessarily, those documents will have to be registered. It is admitted case that Exts.A7 and A8 are not registered documents. Therefore, in case it is found that an equitable mortgage is created by those documents, then, the judgment and decree of the Court below are only to be upheld.2. The first defendant is a proprietary concern of the second defendant. The said concern availed a cash credit facility of Rs. I lakh, which was later enhanced to Rs. 1,50,000/-, after executing necessary documents like letter of hypothecation, hypothecating all the stock-in-trade of the first defendant. Defendants 3 and 4 stood as guarantors and the...

Abdul Jabbar Vs. K.S.E.B.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT586

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The second petitioner is the appellant. Respondents 1 and 2 herein were the respondents in the Writ Petition. The point that arises for decision in this appeal is whether a teacher of an Aided School, who later joined the Kerala State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the K.S.E.B.), can count his past service in the school as teacher, 'for the purpose of pensionary benefits, on his retirement from the K.S.E.B.2. The skeletal facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are the following: The appellant had worked as a Lower Primary School Assistant in an Aided School from 17.8.1972 to 30.6.1977. The said service was approved by the Educational Officer concerned. Later, on 1.7.1977, he joined the K.S.E.B. as Cashier and retired from service as Senior Assistant on 31.10.2004. He filed a representation before the K.S.E.B., praying that his past service in the Aided School may also be reckoned for the purpose of granting pensionary benefits. But, th...

Aravinda RajA. Vs. Aditya RanA.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker699

1. The appellant herein is the petitioner in Tr.P(C) No.83 of 2009 on the file of this Court. Respondents 1 and 2 herein are the respondents 1 and 2 in that petition. 2. The appellant filed Transfer petition No. 83 of 2009 seeking transfer of two suits, viz. O.S. No. 222 of 2009 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Trivandrum and O.S.No. 40 of 2009 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Paravur, Kollam District, in which he is the defendant, to Ernakulam Sub court, to be tried along with O.S. No. 1065 of 2007 filed by the appellant, in which the respondents are the defendants. 3. The respondents filed counter contending that the transfer sought for is not allowable as it lacks bonafides. The matter involved in all the suits, according to the respondents, is either within the Munsiff Court, Paravur or the Munsiff Court, Trivandrum. After the death of the former husband, the second respondent has remarried and her present husband is at present in Gulf and she, along with the minor child, is re...

Assistant Engineer, Kseb, Irikkur Section, Irikkur Vs. O.K. Mammad

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/KSEB in OP:433/03 in the file of CDRF, Kannur. The appellant is under orders to replace the defective meter and to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- and cost of Rs.1000/-. 2. The case of the complainant is that he noticed that the electric meter is running at a high speed and hence he filed an application for replacement of the meter on 22..9..2003. Opposite parties did nothing to replace the meter. Subsequently a spot bill was issued for a sum of Rs.4484/-. According to him he has paying a sum less than Rs.200/- per month towards the electric charges. He has sought for a compensation of Rs.25,000/- and for setting aside the bill. 3. According to the opposite parties on receiving the complaint meter was verified by the Lineman on 3..10..2003 and reported with the meter is running properly. Since the meter was running properly it was not replaced. According to the opposite parties, subsequently also it is seen ...

The Manager,kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited, Thaliparamba B ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/KSFE, Thaliparamba in OP.332/2000 in the file of CDRF, Kannur. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- towards cost. 2. The case of the complainant is that he was a subscriber in the chitty No.2/96 as chital No.33 of the opposite party. Sala of the chitty was 2,00,000/- and the monthly installment is Rs.1500/- and the complainant had remitted 56 instalments. As there was provision for availing loan from the chitty the complainant availed loan of 96,000/- on 13.1.1997. The interest rate on the loan amount was 21%. At the time of availing the loan the complainant and his wife mortgaged their property worth more than rupees 4 lakhs. The chitty was prized on 5.9.99 and the prize amount was Rs.1,40,000/-. The complainant had requested to adjust the chitty amount towards the loan account. Subsequently a lawyer notice dated 9.2.2000 was also sent in this regard. The con...

George Muthoot Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT399

S.R. Bannurmath, C.J.1. The role of a victim, including his family members, of a heinous crime, during investigation and trial in the present criminal justice delivery system and incidentally, the role of higher/superior courts in respect of investigation at the initial stage of filing of final report by the investigating agency are the subject matter of this Writ Petition.2. The writ petitioner, unfortunate father of deceased Paul in homicidal attack and death, has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction for investigation in Cr. No. 197/09 of Nedumudi Police Station, Alappuzha by an independent investigating agency like Central Bureau of Investigation.3. Taking into consideration the fact that investigation in this case is complete and final report (charge sheet) is filed by the investigation before the Magistrate, the brief and necessary facts as per prosecution, for our purpose, are as follows:4. The petitioner, M.G. George Muthoot al...

Kalesh Vs. Sudheer

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT537

ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. The appeal is admitted. Issue notice to the respondents. Call for the records. Put up after service is complete and records are received, for hearing and disposal in the usual course.2. While admitting this appeal, after going through the impugned award, we feel compellingly persuaded to make certain general observations and issue directions.3. Our experience in this jurisdiction reveals that the Tribunals, before concluding the awards, do not summarise the heads of claim, amounts claimed under each head, amounts awarded and the basis. This leads to the Tribunals committing the indiscretion of omitting to consider claims raised under certain heads as also claims, which though not specifically raised, do arise for consideration. Such omissions can be avoided effectively if Tribunals follow the thumb rule of summarising the claims staked and the claims awarded in a tabular form at the end of the award.4. We do also often c...