Kerala Court February 2010 Judgments

Krishna Preetha Vs. Jayan Moorkkanatt

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT459

R. Basant, J.1. Can the waiting period after filing the joint petition for divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, Section 10A of the Indian Divorce Act and Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act be waived by the court suo motu or on the application of both parties?2. This question arose for consideration in various petitions and we posted all such cases together for hearing. Sri. G Shrikumar, Advocate, has rendered assistance as amicus curiae for the court. We have had the advantage of hearing Advocates M/s S. Subash Chand, Sandhya Raju, M.R. Rajesh, R. Sunil Kumar, Shoby K. Francis and others on the question. We are answering that question in this case.The finding on that question in this case will be followed in all other cases.3. Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, Section 10A of the Divorce Act and Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act are all identically worded except in so far as it relates to the stipulation of a larger period of separate residence under Sectio...

Narayanan Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT918

P.R. Raman, Ag. C.J.1. Appellant is the Petitioner in O.P. No. 31184 of 2001. During the relevant time, he was the Secretary of Kannur Municipality. A show cause notice was issued by the Local Fund Audit Department under Section 9(2) of the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act, 1994, produced as Ext.P4 in the Original Petition, to show cause as to why steps for prosecution shall not be initiated for non submission of accounts in terms of Section 9(2) of the said Act. Petitioner challenged the said notice on various grounds.2. In the Writ Petition, he, inter alia, challenged the very provision contained in Section 9(2) of the Local Fund Audit Act and also contended that in the light of the subsequent enactment, namely the provisions contained in Sections 294 and 295 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, Section 9(2) of the Local Fund Audit Act should be deemed to have been repealed. The learned Single Judge considered the contentions and repelled the challenge against Section 9(2) of the Local F...

Boban Thomas Vs. Kottayam Municipality

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT954

Antony Dominic, J.1. Petitioners are merchants engaged in the buniness of dry fish, having their shops in building Nos. 929 and 930 of Ward No. XII of Kottayam Municipality. In this Writ Petition, the main prayer sought by the petitioners is for a declaration that the building of the petitioners situated in Kottayam Municipality is not a 'market' as defined in the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 and that therefore, Municipality is not entitled to levy any fee as mentioned in Exts. P1 to P3 auction notices.2. Exts.P1 and P2 are auction notices published by the Municipality, for the year 2008-09. In so far as it is relevant, Exts.P1 and P2 provides for levy of fee, on those bringing dry fish into the Market area, viz., the area from Chanthakavala to Kodimatha, at rates specified therein. Petitioners objected to the levy and the objections were rejected by the Municipality by Ext.P3. It was thereupon that the Writ Petition was filed. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, auction for the...

Mini Vs. Jwala Sajikumar

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT1000

ORDERS.S. Satheesachandran, J.1. A short, but, interesting question arise in common for consideration in these revisions, both filed by the returned candidates whose election as members to the Panchayat was impeached. Both of them were elected from reserved constituencies earmarked for Scheduled Caste. Election of the revision petitioner in C.R.P. No. 834 of 2007 was impeached on the ground she belonged to the Scheduled Tribe and that of the revision petitioner in C.R.P. No. 252 of 2008 contending that he is a converted Christian, and thus, disqualified. Both of them are incompetent and not qualified to contest from the reserved constituencies for Scheduled Caste was the challenge in the respective Election Petitions.2. The question posed for determination is whether the Civil Court, even when it is competent to try an Election Petition as empowered under Section 88 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, for short, the 'Panchayat Raj Act', has jurisdiction to examine the disqualificati...

The Secretary, West Quilon Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Another ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in OP.522/04 in the file of CDRF, Kolllam. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards damages and Rs.15,000/- as compensation and costs. The case of the complaints husband/wife is that they had availed a loan of Rs.25,000/- after pledging their property. They closed the loan on 24.12.03. The release deed was not handed over to the complainants. The complainants approached the High Court of Kerala. The High Court directed the Asst. Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kollam to pass an order to the matter. The Asst. Registrar directed the opposite parties to hand over the release deed to the complainant. The opposite parties went in appeal over the order of the Asst. Registrar. During the pendency of that appeal on 14.10.04 the document writer of the opposite parties handed over the release deed to the complainants. It is seen that the release deed have been registered as early as ...

The Asst. Engineer, Electrical Section, P.O. Parappur and Another Vs. ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER The above appeal preferred from the order dated 22.07.2004 passed by CDRF, Thrissur in O.P.No.243/04 which is included in the common order whereby the Forum directed the petitioners including the complaint to file fresh applications before the concerned Agricultural Officers and they are directed to prepare the list of eligible agriculturists and to submit the same to the K.S.E.B for the purpose of availing the benefit to the agriculturists by virtue of G.O.(MS)30/99/AD dated 04.02.1999. The Forum also directed the KSEB to restore electric supply if disconnected and not to take any cohesive steps in the complaints pending consideration. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal is filed by KSEB. The case of the complainant is that he is an agriculturist and was enjoying exemption from payment of electricity charges. Though he had applied for exemption on 30.01.2004 a notice was issued to him asking him to pay all the arrears and in case of defaul...

Shyla Vs. Secretary to Government

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT990

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The final order passed by the disciplinary authority as confirmed by the Government in revision, is under challenge in this Writ Petition.2. The petitioner was the Headmistress of AUP School, Panangattiry, Palakkad District. By Ext.P1, the Asst. Educational Officer granted permission to extend the period of suspension of the petitioner pending the disciplinary action. The short facts leading to the dispute are the following:3. The petitioner had availed leave from 13.9.2004 to 19.9.2004 and rejoined for duty on 20.9.2004. During the period of leave she had entrusted all the charges of her office to the seniormost teacher by name Smt. Santhakumari. In her absence there was discontinuation of noon feeding to the students. The allegation appears to be that petitioner did not lift sufficient quantity of foodstuff from the Maveli Store concerned and had also misappropriated certain quantity of rice and green gram. The Asst. Educational Officer had conducted the ...

E.P. Ahammed Vs. State of Kerala and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010CriLJ1797

ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No. 1 in Crime No. 10 of 2010 of the Kasaba Police Station, Kozhikode District.2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code.3. The gist of the prosecution case is the following: On getting secret information that one Joseph Christy of Mananthavady had kept a tiger skin for sale, as per the direction of the Divisional Forest Officer, Flying Squad, Kozhikode, the Forest Range Officer, Flying Squad, Kalpetta made enquiries. He got information that Joseph Christy was interested in the sale of the tiger skin. Joseph Christy was contacted and he expressed his desire to sell the tiger skin. Joseph Christy was staying in Alaska Hotel, Mananthavady. On 5.1.2010, the forest officials met Joseph Christy under the pretext that the former were the intending purchasers of tiger skin. Joseph Christy informed...

Ambika Vs. Chief Engineer, P.W.D. Administration

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT610

C.T. Ravikumar, J.1. The petitioner is an Assistant Engineer (Works) presently working at Roads and Buildings, Central Circle, Aluva. As per Ext.P1 she was transferred to Puzhakkal Road Section in Thrissur District and the 3rd respondent who was working at Roads Section, Puzhakkal in Thrissur District was transferred to Roads and Buildings, Central Circle, Aluva. Thus, in effect it is a mutual transfer. In Ext.P1 it is stated that the transfers and postings have been effected on administrative convenience. The petitioner contends that the said reason assigned in Ext.P1 is not true to facts and that, as relates herself and the 3rd respondent, it was passed only on the request of the 3rd respondent. In short, according to the petitioner the convenience taken into consideration is not the administrative convenience whilst it is the convenience of the 3rd respondent. The further contention is that the first respondent lacks jurisdiction to pass such a special order on compassionate grounds...

V.S. Rajesh S/O. Sreedharan Nair Vs. Divisional Forest Officer and the ...

Court: Kerala

ORDERS.S. Satheesachandran, J.1. The revision and the writ petition arise from a common judgment rendered by the learned District Judge, Kozhikode in C.M.A. Nos. 47 and 105 of 2003. The above two miscellaneous appeals were filed against the orders passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Kozhikode division confiscating two mini lorries bearing Nos. KL-11/B-9720 and KL-11/H-4119, both allegedly involved in the illicit transportation of forest produce from a reserve forest.2. Revision petitioner in C.R.P. No. 1148 of 2004 is the owner of a mini lorry, KL-11/B-9720, which was ordered to be confiscated by the Divisional Forest Officer. The other vehicle involved in the confiscation proceedings, namely, KL-11/H- 4119 belong to the 1st respondent in the writ petition. Though the Divisional Forest Officer had ordered for confiscation of both the vehicles on the basis of the findings entered in his enquiry conducted in accordance with Section 61B of the Kerala Forest Act, in the appeals prefer...