Kerala Court February 2010 Judgments

District Collector Vs. Subaida Beevi

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT913

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The respondents 1 to 4 in the Writ Petition are the appellants. The writ petitioner is the first respondent. The point that arises for decision in this Writ Appeal is whether, in the absence of a purchaser for a property, put to sale under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act (for short, 'the Act'), at the instance of an institution covered by the notification issued under Section 71 thereof, it can be purchased by the Government, as provided under Section 50(2) of the Act.2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The first respondent and her husband purchased certain properties from Smt. N.K. Bharathy and her father. The said properties included the 5 cents of property, which is involved in this case. The first respondent's husband, later settled his rights in the said 5 cents of property, in favour of the first respondent and she became the absolute owner of the said property.3. Smt. Bharathy had availed a loan from the second responden...

Faisal Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT198

ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.2. As per Annexure Al order dated 28.8.2009 passed in C.M.P. No. 6201 of 2009 in Tirur Crime No. 726 of 2009, the petitioner who was arrested on 21.8.2009 under Section 41(1)(d) r/w Section 102 Cr.P.C. for having been found in possession of a motorcycle suspected to be stolen, was granted bail by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirur. As a matter of fact, except mentioning Sections 41(1)(d) and 102 Cr.P.C., no penal offence was incorporated in the report filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Tirur either when the petitioner was produced before the Magistrate or thereafter and therefore, there was absolutely no justification for keeping custody of the petitioner beyond 24 hours. Instead, what was done was that he was remanded to judicial custody in flagrant violation of the decision of this Court in Manikandan v. S.I. of Police : 2008 (1) KLT 37.Thereafter, he was released o...

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mariamma George

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT44

C.K. Abdul Rahim, J.1. The question of law involved in this case is as to whether the claimant is entitled to recover the entire amount of compensation from any one of the owners or insurers of the vehicles involved in a motor accident, where two vehicles are involved and when the accident is caused due to composite negligence of drivers of both the vehicles. To be more precise, the question is, when composite negligence of both drivers were found and when the Tribunal had apportioned the percentage of negligence among the two vehicles, whether a third party claimant is entitled to recover the whole amount of compensation from the owner or insurer of any one of the vehicles.2. Brief facts of the case at hand is narrated hereunder. The 2nd respondent -Insurance Company - before the Tribunal is the appellant. The appellant is the insurer of a motor cycle which collided with a jeep. In the accident the pillion rider of the motor cycle died and claim petition was filed by his legal represe...

Manoharan Vs. Circle Inspector of Police

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT889

K.M. Joseph, J.1. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to grant adequate police protection for doing the head load works in connection with the new show room under the name and style M/s. Seema's Wedding Collections, Manakkadavu Junction near Private Bus stand, Pala road, Thodupuzha without any obstruction from the members of respondents 4 to 8 and also for a direction to the third respondent to consider Ext.Pl application and to grant registration to petitioners 2 to 5 under the Headload Workers' Act as permanent headload workers of M/s. Seema's Wedding Collection.2. The case of the petitioners in brief is as follows. The first petitioner is the General Manager of M/s. Seema's Wedding Collections, a new establishment proposed to be opened in the first week of March. It is in a new building located at Manakkadavu Junction at Pala Road, Thodupuzha. The unloading works in the establishment is a work of permanent nature and all its branches...

Easwaran Namboodiri Vs. Travancore Devaswom Board

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT614

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Appellant joined as L.D. Typist with the Travancore Devaswom Board. While serving as L.D. Typist he requested for change of category in the service to L.D. Clerk, which was permitted by the Devaswom Board. However, before completion of one year probation, appellant came to be eligible for promotion to the post of U.D. Clerk which was vacant. The Devaswom Board promoted the appellant even before completion of one year probation in the category of L.D. Clerk. When contesting respondents 3 to 5 pointed out this to the Devaswom Board they reviewed the promotion given to the appellant and reverted him to the post of L.D. Clerk, which was challenged before the learned single Judge who rejected the claim. It is against this judgment the appellant has filed this appeal. We have heard senior counsel Sri. KRB. Kaimal appearing for the appellant, counsel appearing for the Devaswom Board and separate counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 5.2. The main contention canva...

Madhusoodhanan Unnithan Vs. Sub Inspector of Police and

Court: Kerala

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner's wife Usha Rani is allegedly missing. After the filing of this writ petition seeking the issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus, the petitioner applied for and obtained impleadment of the third respondent, a cousin of Usha Rani. That person appeared before Court and pleaded that he is innocent. He has also filed a counter affidavit.2. With the aforesaid materials, we notice the different statements filed by the police officials and the different earlier orders, all apparently showing that it is not a case where Usha Rani is under the illegal detention of any person, but may be a case where she is making herself scarce. At any rate, a case of man- missing having been registered, it is the bounden duty of the police officials to proceed with the investigation in all vigour and conclude it in accordance with law. Therefore, this writ petition is closed recording the statements of the police officials and directing them that inve...

Muhammed Ashraf K.M. Vs. Mumtaz, D/O. Bappu,

Court: Kerala

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent stood dissolved by a decree granted by this Court on 28.4.1994 in M.F.A. No. 29/1994. The petitioner asserts that even before that, on 10.4.1994, the matrimonial relationship was dissolved in terms of Islamic rites and customs. In the writ petition, he does not state even a syllable as to what he did to his daughter through the first respondent. The said child Ajeesha grew under the care of her mother, who later married the second respondent. With the passage of time, she became a major and the third respondent, who is now reportedly in the United Arab Emirates, married Ajeesha.2. Thereafter, on the allegation that Ajeesha is in the illegal confinement of respondents 1 to 3 and that the marriage was conducted without informing the petitioner and against the wishes of Ajeesha, this writ petition was filed and this Court was persuaded to issue notice to the parties.3. Ajeesha has appeared befor...

R. Anil Kumar Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Antony Dominic, J.1. The petitioner submits that he is a provisional driver working under the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. According to him, from 29/12/2009 onwards although he was present in the Pappanamcode Depot for duty, the 3rd respondent has not alloted him any duty. With this grievance, the writ petition has been filed with a prayer to direct respondents 3 & 4 to allot duty to the petitioner forthwith.2. A statement has been filed on behalf of respondents 2 to 4. According to the respondents, on 07/11/2009, while operating Eastfort-Pappanamcode-Udiyankulangara service, the petitioner failed to stop the bus at the authorised stop inside the garage to alight passengers even though the conductor rang the bell. Instead the petitioner drove the bus out side the garage and stopped the vehicle at a place where there was no authorized bus stop. On receipt of the complaint, the Administrative Officer of the Unit summoned the petitioner and advised him to be more vigilant ...

A. Naizam Vs. the Chief Electoral Officer,

Court: Kerala

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner, a voter in No. 125 Eravipuram LA Constituency, filed a petition on 10.6.2006 before the Returning Officer stating that the third respondent, a candidate from that constituency in 2006 general elections, had given wrong information in the affidavit filed along with the nomination paper. It was alleged that the information given by the third respondent that he had passed the SSLC examination conducted by the Board of Public Examination, Kerala in 1959 was false. The plea was that only a person who had passed the SSLC examination could claim that he is a holder of SSLC, while the third respondent is not a holder of such certificate. The Board of Public Examinations, Kerala come into being only in 1965 and any entry in that regard in the affidavit was also therefore wrong.2. The Returning Officer issued Ext.P5 taking the view that as nobody had raised any objection at the time of scrutiny of the nomination paper, the nomination was accepted...

Abdul Gafoor Vs. Sub Inspector of Police

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT956

ORDERM. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. Petitioner along with two other accused were arrested on 30.8.2004 and 70 gms. of brown sugar was seized from the petitioner. He was released on bail. While on bail, he had left India. Later Annexure-IV final report was filed before Special Court, Vadakara alleging that accused committed offence under Section 21(b) of N.D.P.S. Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). While so, first accused committed suicide. Third accused was convicted for the offence under Section 21(b) of the Act. The conviction is challenged before this Court and Crl.A. 1589/2006 is pending before this Court. Petitioner on returning to India finding that non bailable warrant is pending, as the case as against him was removed to long pending register as L.P.9/2006 in SC.6/2006, filed Crl.M.C. No. 141/2009 for a direction to Special Court to withdraw the non bailable warrant. It was disposed by Annexure-I order. Petitioner then surrendered before the learned Special Judge and sought ...