Kerala Court November 2010 Judgments

Seema K.B.,d/O.Babu K.M. Vs. Prakash K.V.,s/O.Late Kunjambu

Court: Kerala

R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.O.P.(F.C) No.853 of 2010Dated this the 24th day of November 20101. The petitioner, who has initiated proceedings for divorce before the Family Court against the respondent - her husband, by filing O.P.No.2013 of 2009, prays that her petition may be disposed of expeditiously and out of turn. She has enumerated the reasons for claiming such early out of turn disposal of the petition. 2. Did the petitioner move the court below? What, if any, is the order passed by the court? Why is it that the petitioner has chosen to rush to this Court without and before moving the trial court for an early out of turn expeditious disposal? No satisfactory answers are forthcoming for these queries. 3. We must frown upon the threat to our time by such petitions filed by the parties. It is for the petitioner to move the Family Court for an early out of turn expeditious disposal of her petition filed in 2009 showing all the reasons. The Family Court, needless to say, must cons...

M/S.Maha Rashtra Apex Corporation Ltd. Vs. Cibymon George, Edayathu Ho ...

Court: Kerala

M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, J.Crl.A. No. 1310 of 2004Dated this the 24th day of November, 20101. This appeal is filed by the complainant in C.C.No. 349 of 2002 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam. The first respondent herein was the accused in that case, which was filed by the complainant alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 2. The case of the complainant is briefly as follows. The complainant is a financial institution registered under the Companies Act. In partial discharge of the existing liabilities the accused issued a cheque dt. 17.6.1999 in favour of the complainant drawn on the Vysya Bank Ltd., Baker Junction, Kottayam, for a sum of Rs.36,933/- The complainant presented the cheque in the bank for encashment, but it was dishonoured stating that there is no sufficient funds in the account of the accused. Hence the complainant issued a registered lawyer notice to the accused informing him about the dishonour of the cheque a...

T.R. Prasad Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, J.Crl.A. No. 1193 of 2004Dated this the 24th day of November, 20101. This appeal is filed by the complainant in C.C. No. 3247 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate - I, Muvattupuzha, against the order of acquittal of the second respondent herein for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act involving a cheque for Rs.50,000/- On 29.3.2004 the complainant and his counsel were absent and the accused was acquitted under Section 256 Cr.P.C. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the second respondent are continuously absent even after the posting of the case on several occasions. Heard learned Public Prosecutor and perused the records. 3. In the appeal memorandum it is stated that the complaint was filed before the court below on 11.11.2003. The complaint was taken on file on 13.11.2003 and it was adjourned to 29.3.2004. In the appeal memorandum it is further stated that the complainant and his counsel co...

Bhaskaran A.R.,s/O.Raman Vs. the Geologist, Department of Minign and o ...

Court: Kerala

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.W.P.(C). No.4844/2010-EDated this the 24th day of November, 2010J U D G M E N T1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P18 communication issued by the District Collector directing him to move the Local Level Monitoring Committee under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. 2. The petitioner is the co-owner of 18.41 ares of property comprised in Survey No.128/16 of Kulasekharamangalam Village along with two others namely, Mohanachandran and Ashraff. This was purchased as per Ext.P1 sale deed. The petitioner's contention is that the property is remaining as a purayidom and is being cultivated with Coconut and other cultivations even though in the Village records it is noted as a paddy land. Ext.P3 photographs have been produced to show that various types of permanent cultivations including Coconut trees are there. 3. For mining sand from 10 cents out of the entire extent, the petitioner along with others filed an a...

K.V.Poulose Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board

Court: Kerala

K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.W.A.No.1988 of 2010Dated this the 24th day of November 2010J U D G M E N T1. The appellant is before us feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The appellant is the writ petitioner in that petition. He had approached this Court challenging Ext.P7 order passed by the 3rd respondent. The appellant objected to the drawal of a 220 KV electric line from the 440 KV Power Grid Substation at Pallikkara to Brahmapuram through his property. The matter was referred to the 3rd respondent under the Telegraph Act. According to the appellant, there are alternate routes. He further had a case that instead of having two towers, there need be only one tower in his property. He has a case that there are lines already drawn across his property otherwise. The appellant is doing paddy cultivation and he will be put to great injury if the lines are drawn through his property, it is stated. 2. The learned Single Judge, taking note of the fact that K.S.E.B ...

Sunil Mathew Vs. State

Court: Kerala

M.N. KRISHNAN, J.A.S. NO. 333 OF 2001Dated this the 24th day of November , 2010.J U D G M E N T1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Kottayam in O.S.138/96. The suit is one for declaration, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction. The trial court did not find in favour of the plaintiffs and therefore they have preferred the appeal. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are stated as follows. The plaint schedule property is a part of a larger extent of property and there was a division between the first plaintiff's father Varghese Thomas and his brothers and it was set apart to the share as per an oral partition and each one of them were in possession of respective shares. The plaintiff got the property from his father by virtue of a sale deed in 1971. The plaintiffs were in possession of the property out of which 72 cents had been given to strangers and kudikidappukars leaving behind 28 cents of property....

P.K.Shanavaz,s/O.Mohammed Vs. the Assistant Secretary

Court: Kerala

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.W.P.(C) No. 34646 of 2010 EDated this the 24th day of November, 2010J U D G M E N T1. Heard both sides.2. Petitioner is the licensee of the Rubber Board. By Ext.P8, the licences issued to the petitioner was suspended by the first respondent on the allegations mentioned therein. Immediately on receipt of Ext.P8, petitioner has filed Ext.P9 explanation and in this writ petition, the challenge is against Ext.P8. 3. Having regard to the provisions contained in Rule 27 of the Rubber Rules framed under the provisions of the Rubber Act, 1947, it cannot be said that Ext.P8 is without jurisdiction. Therefore, it is for the disciplinary authority to finalise the proceedings. 4. Taking note of the fact that immediately on receipt of Ext.P8 order, petitioner has already filed Ext.P9 explanation, I direct the first respondent to hear the petitioner and pass final orders on Ext.P8, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two weeks from the date of production of a copy of ...

V.P.Louzy Vs. the Assistant Executive Enginer

Court: Kerala

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.W.P.(C) No. 35257 of 2010 FDated this the 24th day of November, 2010J U D G M E N T1. Petitioner challenges Exts.P1 and P9. Ext.P1 is an additional bill and Ext.P9 is an order passed rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner. 2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner is a consumer of the first respondent. According to the petitioner, although payments were made in time, by Ext.P1, additional amount of Rs.24,978/- was demanded. He filed appeal that was rejected by Ext.P9. It is these orders are under challenge in this writ petition. 3. A reading of Ext.P9 shows that the meter installed in the premises of the petitioner was faulty and was replaced in October, 2007. It is stated that, since then, the consumption of the petitioner was found to be much higher and it was therefore that the additional bill was served on the petitioner. Ext.P9 shows that the explanation given by the Assistant Executive Engineer of the Kerala Water Authority during the course of hearing ...

N.P.Mathappan. Vs. the Chief Conservator of Forests.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker146

1. Petitioners in these writ petitions are conducting saw mills. According to them, they have obtained valid licences also. 2. In these writ petitions, they contend that although both of them had made applications for renewal of their NOCs and while orders are awaited, they have been issued stop memos requiring shutting down their industrial units. It is in the above circumstances, this writ petition has been filed. 3. In so far as W.P.(C) No.34505/2010 is concerned, learned Government Pleader confirms that the application for renewal dated 14-06-2010 has been received from the petitioner. According to the learned Government Pleader, applications which have received prior to 13-11-2010 have already been considered. 4. In so far as W.P. (C) No.34697/2010 is concerned, Ext.P6 is the application made by the petitioner. It is dated 01-11-2010. It is averred in paragraph 3 of the writ petition that subsequent to the filing of the application, the stop memo was served on the petitioner on 13...

Hosdurg Taluk Consumer Co-operative Society Lyd. and Another Vs. C.V.N ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The petitioners are the opposite parties in CC.67/10 in the file of CDRF, Kasaragod. The petitioners have sought for getting the case transferred to CDRF, Kannur on the ground that in a connected matter ie OS.110/07 in the file of Subordinate Judges Court, Hosdurg the respondent/complainant was represented by Advocate Remadevi, who is at present a Member of the CDRF, Kasaragod. 2. Respondent/complainant was served. There is no appearance for the respondent. In the circumstances the application is allowed. CC.67/10 in the file of CDRF, Kasaragod shall stand transferred to CDRF, Kannur. CDRF, Kasaragod will forward the case records to CDRF, Kannur. On receipt of the records, CDRF, Kannur shall issue notice to both sides and dispose of the matter on merits. Office will forward copy of this order to both the Forums urgently....