Kerala Court December 2010 Judgments

Joseph, and ors. Vs. State of KeralA.

Court: Kerala

1. Petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.471 of 2010 of Nedumkandam Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 464, 465, 468 & 471 read with Section 34 I.P.C., seek anticipatory bail. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. 3. After evaluating the factors and parameters which are to be taken into consideration in the light of paragraph 122 of the verdict dated 2-12-2010 of the Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others (Crl.Appeal No. 2271 of 2010), I am of the view that anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a case of this nature, since the investigating officer has not had the advantage of interrogating the petitioners. But at the same time, I am inclined to permit the petitioners to surrender before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of interrogation and then to have their application for bail allowed by the Magistrate or the Court having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioners shall surr...

V.K.Gopi. Vs. the Kerala State Electricity Board.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker971

1. The petitioners in these three writ petitions were employees of the Kerala State Electricity Board. After retirement, the scales of pay of employees of the Board were revised retrospectively with effect from a date prior to the date of retirement of the petitioners. Consequently, their pay had been revised. The grievance of the petitioners in these writ petitions is that they were not given consequent arrears of commuted value of pension due to them, which they are legally entitled to. 2. I have heard the learned standing counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board also. 3. A learned Single Judge of this Court has, in W.P. (C).No. 26661/2009 and connected cases, upheld the right of similarly placed persons for arrears of commuted value of pension on the basis of the revised pay. Therefore, the petitioners are also entitled to the benefits prayed for in these writ petitions. Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to disburse to the pe...

Vijayalakshmi. Vs. Sub Inspector of Police.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker344

1. The petitioner has approached this court complaining of harassment by police officer, interfering in a civil dispute. 2. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits as follows. One Krishnadas, a relative of the second respondent filed a complaint that petitioner and her husband are obstructing the respondent in the use of the pathway. Police enquired and found that the dispute is of a civil nature and it is submitted that they do not intend to interfere in the matter. We record the same and close the writ petition....

Niya Joy. Vs. State of KeralA.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker143

1. Petitioner participated in the item, 'Light Music' in the Sub District Kerala School Kalolsavam held during 2010-11. She got only second prize and 'A' Grade. Though appeal was filed by her that was rejected by Ext.P2 order. It is challenging the same; this writ petition has been filed. 2. The contention of the counsel is that, among the three judges, the first two judges had given higher marks and the third judge awarded lower marks. It is stated that, it is because of the partiality shown by the third judge that the petitioner happened to lose the first prize. 3. The learned Government pleader on instruction submitted that, the first prize winner got 258 marks and that the three judges awarded 86, 85 and 87 marks respectively. It is in so far as the petitioner is concerned, it is stated that she got 251 marks and that the marks awarded were 85, 80 and 86 respectively. Thus it is obvious that, the third judge did not show any partiality against the petitioner as alleged by her. In t...

The Secretary, Corporation Office, Kozhikode and Another Vs. K. Sethum ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in OP No. 161/2005 in the file of CDRF, Kozhikode. The appellants are under orders to refund Rs. 1,76,400/- with interest at 9% from 26-05-2005 and compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and costs of Rs. 500/-. It is the case of the complainant that he had taken in auction two shop rooms at Stadium Shopping Complex Building, Kozhikode on 15-03-2004 and remitted Rs. 1,76,400/- as advance on 17-03-2004. It is his case that the rooms were not handed over and was used as cement godowns till October 2005. Thereafter there was no electric connection and his application to refund the amount was not allowed. He has sought for refund of the amount deposited. In the version filed it is contended that the contractor with respect to the building works of the shop rooms suddenly stopped the balance work and the work had to be re-tendered. It is stated that the complainant was asked to take over the rooms vide letter dated 12-10-2...

M/S. Narendran Sons Kadappakkada, Kollam and Others Vs. National Insur ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

COMMON JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants in A.166/09 are the complainants in OP.267/05 in the file of CDRF, Kollam and the appellants in A.210/09 are the opposite parties 1 and 2/insurance company. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are under orders to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.6,02,775/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 1/6/2005 and also to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as cost. 2. It is the case of the complainants that in response to a purchase order from Teknor-Apex USA with respect to 800 numbers of Hercules mats at the rate of US$ 13.5 and 1300 members of ramp mats at the rate of US$ 9 for a total value of US$ 22,420/- the mats were despatched in 2 containers on 27/5/2004 from the complainants factory at Kollam to be forwarded by ship from Kochi. The agent of the buyer, Mr.Mohindar Satpal (PW5) stationed at New Delhi had visited the complainants factory and verified the export quality of the rubber mats on 19th ...

K.V. Rajan, an ors. Vs. Eliyamma, and ors.

Court: Kerala

1. Under challenge in this revision filed under Section 20 is the judgment of the rent control appellate authority, Thrissur confirming the order of eviction passed by the rent control court under Section 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965. The need projected by the respondents is that the first respondent, the landlady, requires the petition schedule building, so that she can use a portion of the building for doing embroidery work, cutting and stitching etc. and the other portion can be utilised as a shop room for the sale of Maxi, Churidar, etc. It was averred in the rent control petition itself that the respondents do not have any other building in their possession suitable for satisfying the need projected. The bona fides of the need was disputed by the revision petitioners who also contended that they are entitled for the protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. 2. The rent control court conducted enquiry and in the enquiry the evidence consisted of the oral evidence...

B.Lathikumari. Vs. the Commissioner Civil Supplies, and ors.

Court: Kerala

1. The orders passed by the statutory authorities confirming the order passed by the Government disposing of the revision petitions under the Kerala Rationing Order are under challenge herein. The petitioners in both the Writ Petitions were applicants for appointment as wholesale dealer, but became unsuccessful. 2. The notification in question is for appointment of an Authorised Wholesale Dealer for Depot No.II in Kunnathoor Taluk. The 6th respondent in W.P. (C) No.13038/09 is the successful candidate. For convenience, the Exhibits produced in W.P. (C) No.13038/09 are referred to herein. Exhibit P1 is the order passed by the District Collector, wherein the 6th respondent was appointed, against which an appeal was filed and wherein the matter was remanded by the 2nd respondent and again the District Collector by Exhibit P2 after reconsideration appointed the 6th respondent. She was found as the better claimant. This was challenged before the Commissioner of Civil Supplies and the appeal...

Rajeev.T.Joseph. Vs. State of KeralA.

Court: Kerala

1. Petitioner, who is the sole accused in Crime No.750 of 2010 of Kanjar Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C., seeks anticipatory bail. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. 3. After evaluating the factors and parameters which are to be taken into consideration in the light of paragraph 122 of the verdict dated 2-12-2010 of the Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others (Crl.Appeal No. 2271 of 2010), I am of the view that anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a case of this nature, since the investigating officer has not had the advantage of interrogating the petitioner. But at the same time, I am inclined to permit the petitioner to surrender before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of interrogation and then to have his application for bail allowed by the Magistrate or the Court having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer on 20/12/2010 or o...

State of KeralA. Vs. PathummA.

Court: Kerala

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Ottapalam in O.S.42/91. The suit is one for realisation of the amount under a contract or work. The brief facts would reveal that the plaintiff has undertaken to do the original work under the Lift Irrigation Scheme Karalmanna. The original plaintiff has completed the work and it has been inspected and measured by the defendants. He could not do the road work for the reason the land was not made available and therefore as directed by the Department he carried out extra work. Though the Department had taken the check measurement etc. they had not settled the final bill. But since the plaintiff has satisfactorily completed the work the security amount has been paid back and therefore the plaintiff prays for a decree as claimed in the plaint. 2. The defendants on the other hand would contend that there has been an inordinate delay in doing the work by the first plaintiff. He had not done it proper...