Kerala Court December 2010 Judgments

Maria Thomas. Vs.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker467

1. The petitioner had availed a business loan from the 2nd respondent Bank during the year 1999 to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-. According to the petitioner, due to set back experienced in the business activities there occurred default in re-payment on a regular basis. Meanwhile, revenue recovery steps were also initiated for realising arrears of sales tax due with respect to the year 2000-01. It is stated that the property which was mortgaged for securing the loan was attached by the 1st respondent under the revenue recovery proceedings. 2. It is pointed out that, on the basis of approach made by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent had permitted settlement of the loan account on remitting a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- on or before 25.12.2010. Exts.P2 and P3 is the letters issued by the 2nd respondent Bank in this regard. According to the petitioner she had taken effective steps to wipe off the liability by arranging sale of the property. It is stated that she had already found out a probable b...

Smt.Sumi George. Vs. the Director of Public Instruction.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker467

1. The petitioner is working as H.S.A.(Maths) in MAHS, Kakkanad. It is stated that she has regular approved service from 5.6.2000. As per Ext.P7 staff fixation order for the academic year 2010-11, it was provided thus: "The excess H.S.A. (Maths) Smt.Sumi George (Service from 5.6.2000) is retrenched w.e.f.15.7.10." 2. Aggrieved by Ext.P7 staff fixation order, the petitioner filed Ext.P9 revision dated 11.11.2010 before the Director of Public Instruction. On 11.11.2010, the District Educational Officer issued Ext.P10 notice to the petitioner, the Manager and the Headmistress proposing to conduct a hearing on the petition submitted by the petitioner. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel appearing for the respondents that the hearing contemplated as per Ext.P10 is not very relevant in view of Ext.P7 staff fixation order and in view of the pendency of Ext.P9 revision. 3. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following: "(i) to issue a writ o...

Binu Kumar, Manager, Siva Hospital. Vs. State of KeralA.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker729

1. aPetitioner, who is the sole accused in Crime No.905/2010 of Vanchiyoor Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 417 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 (2010(4) KLT 930), 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 considered by the Magistrate or the Court having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer on 30.12.2010 or o...

Abraham. Vs. Sajana George.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker467

1. This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P.(MV)1159/06. The claimant who sustained injuries in a road accident has been awarded a compensation of Rs.11,000/- and the insurance company is directed to pay the amount and get it reimbursed from the owner cum driver, R1. Aggrieved by the same the owner has come up in appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both the sides. The Tribunal found that as per the charge sheet the two wheeler licence was valid only up to 22-9-03 and as the accident had taken place on 28.2.04 it was held that the driver did not have a valid licence and therefore directed reimbursement of the amount. Along with the memorandum of appeal the appellant has produced driving licence particulars. The licence to drive a motorcycle with gear was granted to him on 24.10.91. In the reverse page there is an endorsement regarding renewal wherein it is stated that there had been a regular renewal of the licence. But that...

M.G.Sudheer. Vs. State of KeralA.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker971

1. The issue raised in this writ petition is covered by the judgment in WP(C) No.37565/10 where upholding the competence of the District Collector to issue an order in the nature of Ext.P3, the writ petition was dismissed....

M/S.Radhakrishna Trading Company Vs. the Commissioner of Customs

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker911

1. Petitioners are importers of betel nuts. In this writ petition, they seek provisional release of the goods mentioned in Ext.P1, which lists out 21 consignments. 2. I heard the counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Both sides submit that in respect of consignments at serial Nos.1 to 9, imported by petitioners 1 to 3, notices under Rule 12(1) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 have already been issued. It is also submitted that in so far as the consignments at serial Nos.10 to 21 are concerned, customs examination is going on and that, on production of the Bill of Entry, Rule 12(1) notice will be issued in respect of the said consignment also. 3. Taking note of the above and also having regard to the directions issued by the Division Bench in Ext.P14 judgment, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:- (1) In respect of the consignments mentioned at serial ...

The Asst. Engineer, Kseb Electrical Section and Another Vs. HaneefA.M. ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:PRESIDENT Appellants are the opposite parties in CC.263/2008 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The appellants are under orders to restrict the back assessment to 30/5/2008. 2. The complainant, Secretary of the Jamath has disputed the penal bill issued for Rs.36,000/- for the alleged unauthorized extension of electric connection to the nearby quarters of the Imam. It is the case of the complainant that the Imam and his wife started residing in the adjacent quarters on 30/5/2008 and that as the wife of the Imam was pregnant and after getting oral consent from the opposite parties 2 lights were used in the quarters by plugging current from the adjacent building. 3. The opposite parties/appellants have disputed the case of the complainant and relied on sec.126 (2) in support of the bill issued for the previous 6 months from the date of inspection. 4. Evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, PW2, Exts.A1 to A4 and Exts. B1 to B3. 5. The Forum has relie...

United India Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Radhakrishnan

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/insurance company in CC.80/07 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.1.lakh the assured amount and Rs.6000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost. 2. It is the case of the complainant that the complainants daughter had purchased a Hero Honda Motor Cycle and obtained a package policy from the opposite party which included the personal accident cover. The complainants daughter was pillion rider at the time of accident on 17/6/2006. It was her brother who was driving the vehicle and he had valid driving license but the claim was repudiated. 3. It is the case of the opposite parties that the coverage is confined to owner-driver ie the owner cum driver and that in the instant case the owner was not driving the vehicle. 4. The evidence adduced consists of Exts.A1 to A5 and Ext.B1. 5. It was not disputed that the deceased was not having the driving license. The opposite...

K.Sivarama Pillai. Vs. C.V.George.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker467

1. This contempt case is filed by the petitioner complaining of non- compliance with Annexure A1 judgment, which was passed as early as on 23.9.2005. More than five years have passed by after the judgment. I passed an order on 3.11.2010 as follows; "Learned Assistant Solicitor General submits that the respondents are taking steps to give the benefits of Annexure A1 judgment to the petitioner. Learned Assistant Solicitor General seeks three weeks' time. In any event, Annexure A1 judgment is dated 23.9.2005. Five years are too long period for implementing a judgment. Only because the learned Assistant Solicitor General assures this Court that the judgment would be complied with within three weeks, I adjourn this case by three weeks. Post on 29.11.2010. If Annexure A1 judgment is not fully complied with by then, the respondents shall appear in person on that day." 2. The same itself was passed after issuing notice on 19.6.2009. Today, the learned Assistant Solicitor General submits that o...

P.D.George. Vs. State of KeralA.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker467

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh one. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh one....