Kerala Court February 2010 Judgments

Dineshan Vs. Government of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT941

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The appellant was the writ petitioner. The respondents herein were the respondents in the Writ Petition. This appeal throws up a legal conundrum as to whether a person appointed after three years from the date of advice by the Public Service Commission (for short 'P.S.C.'), for the reason that he was facing disciplinary proceedings, could claim seniority with effect from the date of advice, as provided under Rule 27(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (for short 'K.S. & S.S.R.').2. The brief facts of the case are the following:The appellant was working as a Lecturer in Surgery in the Medical College, Kozhikode. He applied for leave without allowance from 26.7.1994 to 21.11.1994. Later, he applied for leave without allowance for 119 days from 23.11.1994. But the leave was not granted. According to the appellant, he resigned from service on 2.11.1994 which was to take effect from 23.11.1994. Later, he sent a reminder on 26.10.1995, requesting ...

Narmada Design Centre Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Antony Dominic, J.1. The controversy raised in this writ petition concerns the claim of the petitioner for compensation in respect of a portion of the property covered by Exts.P8 to P10 which were issued in relation to the acquisition of the property mentioned therein. According to the petitioner, and as is seen from Ext.P14, the 4th respondent has title only in respect of 0.12 Are out of 0.30 Are acquired. It is also the case of the petitioner that even Ext.P17 Award notes itself proves that the property acquired jointly belongs to the petitioner and the 4th respondent. Complaint of the petitioner is that, in spite of all the above facts, it was without giving notice of acquisition to them that the entire acquisition proceedings have been completed and the property is acquired. On this basis, the petitioner submits that the respondents may be directed to complete the acquisition proceedings issuing notice to the petitioner and allowing them to participate in the enquiry and other proc...

Gopalakrishna Pillai Vs. Devaswom Trust

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT669

M.N. Krishnan, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order of the Sub Court, Chengannur in I.A. No. 393 of 2009 in O.S. No. 54 of 2009. It was an application for appointment of a receiver which has been dismissed by the court below and aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs in the suit have come up in appeal.2. Before entering into the facts of the case, the first objection raised by the learned Counsel for the contesting respondents in the appeal deserve consideration. Learned Counsel would submit that the appeal herein is valued for the purpose of jurisdiction as below Rs. 1 lakh. He would contend that the suit has been instituted in the Sub Court and when the jurisdictional value does not exceed Rs. 2 lakhs under the provisions of the Civil Courts Act, the jurisdiction to file an appeal is the District Court and not the High Court and so the appeal is not maintainable and therefore it has to be returned.3. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the appellants would submit before me t...

Thomas John Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT705

S. Siri Jagan, J.1. The petitioner has a building within the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent -Kayamkulam Municipality. The first floor of that building has been let out to the State Bank of Travancore. The property tax payable for the first floor of the building is the bone of contention between the parties in this Original Petition. Originally, from 1994-95 onwards, the property tax for the building was fixed as Rs. 34,680/- as per the provisions of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1960 and Rules made thereunder. Pursuant to a revision filed by the petitioner before the 3rd respondent, the same was reduced to Rs. 17, 918/-. Although the petitioner filed an appeal against the same, the same did not succeed and the petitioner was paying property tax in respect of that building at the rate of Rs. 17,918/- per year. By Ext. P1 notice, objections were invited from the petitioner as to why the property tax of the building should not be enhanced to Rs. 70,094/- with retrospective effect fro...

C.J. Development Foundation Vs. the State of Kerala,

Court: Kerala

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. On 5.1.2008, the Additional Secretary to Government of Kerala in the Disaster Management (TRP-Cell) Department issued Ext.P10 issuing Government sanction to distribute fishing boats to fishermen societies having maximum number of fishermen registered before Tsunami, now functioning and who have lost boats in Tsunami. The first priority was directed to be given to societies who lost their fishing vessels in Tsunami and yet to be compensated. The remaining boats were directed to be distributed to the fishermen societies following transparent process. The said decision of the Government was preceded by fixation of norms for selection of beneficiaries following the Cabinet Sub Committee decision on 14.11.2007 to allot the boats in district-wise manner identifying fishermen groups. Much prior to that, on 8.2.2007, the Government issued GO(Rt). No. 62/07/F & PD whereby Fisheries and Ports Department had issued guidelines for the distribution of 20 numbers of...

A.Raman Menon Vs. K.P. Raveendran and Others

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The IA 233/09 is filed by the appellant/petitioner who was the second opposite party in CC.1279/05 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The opposite parties including the appellant are under orders to pay the decree amount and to pay Rs.8,000/- as compensation and Rs.1500/- as costs with respect to a chitty allegedly prized by the complainant. 2. The appellant was arrayed as the Chairman of the Finance Company. It is the case of the appellant/petitioner that at the time he was not the Chairman and that he had resigned from the above post on 23.3.03. The claim is with respect to the kuri that terminated on 20.10.2004. According to him he has no liability in the matter and that he was not the Chairman at the time. He became aware of the case only when notice in the EP was served on him. He then applied for setting aside the ex-parte order, but the same was dismissed. It is pointed out in the order that he has refused the notice. According to him, he re...

K.V. Raghavan @ Unnikrishnan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and

Court: Kerala

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner, even going by the statement filed on behalf of the respondents, was issued a passport in 1982. In that, as well as in the renewed passport, his date of birth is shown as 20.9.1927. His date of birth as per the extract of the admission register of the school is 2.5.1952. It has also been duly certified by the Deputy Director (General) & Additional District Magistrate, Thrissur that the petitioner's date of birth is 2.5.1952. That certificate is issued even after looking into the passport. The said certificate was issued in 1999, obviously, when the petitioner saw that his date of birth has been wrongly entered in the passport. The difference between the date of birth as noted in the passport and that shown in the admission register as also the certification by the ADM is around 25 years. The petitioner says that he was born on 20.9.1127 ME. Obviously, converting that, it would correspond to 1952 AD. The error is quite obvious. The passpo...

M. Radhakrishnan, Convener, Vs. A.C. Jailavudeen,

Court: Kerala

ORDERThottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The judgment sought to be reviewed was issued setting aside the disciplinary proceedings which stood affirmed in proceedings under Rule 176 of the KCS Rules. While it may be true that Rule 176 may not enable adjudication of individual rights referable to disciplinary proceedings because that may not emanate out of a resolution of the society, the fundamental principle on which the judgment sought to be reviewed was issued is that the enquiry against the writ petitioner was conducted by an advocate who later appeared for the employer society to justify his own enquiry report before superior authorities. Such procedure had stamped the proceedings with vice on its forehead. It had infracted the known canons of transparency, fair play and unbiased approach as is required in disciplinary proceedings.2. The review petitioners, though notified of the writ petition, did not appear. They attributed it to the fact that the counsel who was appearing for them...

The Secretary, Nedumkandam Grama Panchayat, Nedumkandam, Idukki Distri ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/Secretary, Nedumkandam Grama Panchayat in CC:165/09 in the CDRF, Idukki. The appellant is under orders to issue the birth certificate of the daughter of the complainant. 2. The case of the opposite party is that the relevant register of birth for the period has been destroyed and hence they are not in a position to issue the birth certificate. 3. It is the case of the complainant that their daughter was born on 17..7..1990 at Community Health Centre, Nedumkandam. 4. The counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant did not get an opportunity to contest the matter and that the proper procedure for the complainant is to approach the Sub Divisional Magistrate and on the direction of the Sub Divisional Magistrate the birth certificate can be issued. 5. We find that the contention of the appellant is without any logic. It appears that the stand of the appellant is that they will obey only the order of ...