Kerala Court February 2010 Judgments

Kunhibi Vs. Sherin

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT315

Thomas P. Joseph, J.1. Does a composite lease of building and land come within the purview of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, 'Act 2 of 1965')?. That is one of the substantial questions of law I am called upon to decide in this appeal. Short facts, frills and embroideries excluded and necessary for decision of this appeal are: A small building with measurement of 10 x 8 ft (80 Sq. ft) described as office building and vacant land measuring 35 x 75 ft (2625 Sq.ft) on which it is situate and belonging to the predecessor-in-interest of appellants was let out to the respondent as per Ext.A1, Kaiehit dated 4.2.1971 for three months for a monthly rent of Rs. 500/- for running a petrol pump. The tenancy continued on the same terms and conditions stated in Ext.A1 even after expiry of the said period. Respondent filed R.C.R. No. 97 of 1972 in the Rent Control Court against appellants for fixation of fair rent. Appellants filed O.S. No. 38 of 1975 in the civil ...

P.K. Appukuttan Vs. the Guruvayoor Municipality

Court: Kerala

Antony Dominic, J.1. This writ petition was filed challenging an auction that was scheduled to be held on 27/03/2009 in respect of a room in a building owned by the Guruvayoor Municipality. Today when the case was taken up, learned Counsel for the petitioner requested that the writ petition may be dismissed as withdrawn.2. Learned Counsel for the respondent states that auction was held on 27/03/2009 and that the highest bid offered was Rs. 16,60,605/-. The petitioner also had participated in the auction and had offered only an amount of Rs. 3,00,301/-. Though, the Municipality had confirmed the auction in favour of the highest bidder, in the meanwhile, the petitioner had approached the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions and had obtained an order requiring the Municipality to maintain status quo. Therefore, Municipality could not induct the successful bidder into the licensed premises with effect from 01/04/2009, the date on which the licence period was to commence.3. Duri...

Chief Executive Officer, Sski Service Pvt. Ltd., Ss Kantilal Ishwarlal ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The Revision Petitioners are the opposite parties in CC No. 345/06 in the file of CDRF, Kozhikkode. The order of the Forum in IA No. 131/08 filed by the petitioners disputing the maintainability of the case before the Forum is the matter under challenge. The Forum dismissed the contention of the Revision Petitioners that the complaint is not maintainable. 2. The CC related to the claim of Rs. 9.45 lakhs with interest at 12% from the opposite parties, being the margin money deposed by the complainant in share transactions, and other reliefs. The opposite parties are the Executives of the opposite party company dealing in share transactions. 3. The contentions of the revision petitioners/opposite parties are that the complainant is indulging in Forum shopping as he has resorted to civil remedies and the remedy available under the arbitration clause and further that as per the clause in the agreement, only the courts at Mumbai alone has got jurisdi...

The President, Kollurvila Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Another V ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in CC 295/05 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The appellant is under orders to settle the dues of the complainant as per circular No.51/03 ie; the outstanding loan amount without including contract rate of interest and the same is to be calculated with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of release of the loan and to refund the excess amount that has been paid by the complainant with interest at 9% per annum and also to pay Rs.2000/- as costs. 2. We find that the dispute is with respect to the interpretation of circular No.51/03 as per which even the lonee who have settled the loan accounts prior to the issuance of the circular ie. dated 30.8.03 are entitled for the benefits accorded as per the above circular. The complainant herein settled the transaction by payment on 20.11.02. As admitted by the appellant the amount of loan which is Rs.25,000/- was repaid with interest at 18% from 18.12.95 to 31.3.01 and ...

Valappil Azeez Vs. Moidu Ammad

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT974

V. Ramkumar, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 40 of 2008 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Vatakara is the Writ Petitioner. The said suit was filed by the respondent herein for realisation of Rs. 1,50,000/- and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the foot of a dishonoured cheque. The plaintiff had invoked the summary procedure prescribed under Order XXXVII C.P.C. The suit was instituted on 31.3.2008. Ext.P1 is the plaint. The petitioner remained exparte and the suit was decreed ex parte on 16.6.2008. Ext.P2 is the judgment. Thereafter the petitioner filed Ext. P3 application (R.P.I.A. No. 988 of 2008) under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the exparte decree. The respondent/plaintiff opposed the application by filing Ext.P4 counter affidavit. The petitioner produced two prescriptions by Dr. M.C. Vasu, Medical Practitioner in support of his contention that he was unable to appear before the court below on the date when the suit was posted for hearing. He a...

Thodupuzha Taluk General Marketing Co-op. Society Vs. Michael Sebastia ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT938

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The appellant was the writ petitioner. The Writ Petition was filed by the appellant, challenging Ext.P1 award of the Labour Court, Ernakulam, setting aside the order of dismissal passed by the appellant against the 1st respondent and ordering his reinstatement with 50% back wages and continuity of service.2. The main contention raised before the learned Single Judge was that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter after 2.1.2003, for the reason that with effect from that date Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (for short 'the Act') was amended, conferring jurisdiction on the Co-operative Arbitration Court to consider the disputes mentioned therein. Sub-section (2) of Section 69 clarifies that any dispute between the management of a Society and its employees, arising in connection with their employment, will also come under the purview of a dispute, for the purpose of Section 69 of the Act. In view of the enforcement of th...

Cheranalloor Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. Vs. Alfred

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT749

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The 2nd respondent in the Writ Petition is the appellant. Respondents 1 and 2 herein were the writ petitioners.2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The respondents 1 and 2 availed two loans from the appellant Bank, of Rs. 50,000/- each. They closed their loan accounts on 14.12.2005. The same was done after the Arbitrator passed an award against them and further steps were taken to execute it. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies notified a Scheme for one-time settlement of the loans due to the Co-operative Societies. The said Scheme ended on 31.3.2005. Later, the Registrar notified Ext.Pl Scheme on 27.2.2006 for the benefit of persons, who are defaulters since 31.3.2005. They were permitted to remit the amounts without penal interest, compound interest, interest for interest etc. The respondents 1 and 2, claiming the benefit of Ext.P1, filed a representation before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Ernakulam. The said officer issu...

State of Kerala Vs. Navas

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT542

R. Basant, J.(i) Has the guilt of the accused been established beyond doubt by the circumstances proved by the prosecution ?(ii) Is the instant case one that belongs to the category of rarest of rare cases, where the alternative options of punishment are unquestionably foreclosed and a sentence of death has to be imposed as laid down in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab : (1980) 2 SCC 684?(iii) Does the decision in Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka : 2008 (3) KLT SN 62 (C. No. 77) SC : (2008) 13 SCC 767 raise the bar further in the attempt to identify the rarest of rare cases where a sentence of death can be imposed and is liable to be confirmed?1. These questions arise for consideration in this Death Sentence Reference and the Criminal Appeal, which we dispose of by this common judgment.2. Navas @ Mulanavas, a person aged about 28 years has been found guilty, convicted and sentenced in a prosecution for the offences punishable under Sections 449, 302 and 309 I.P.C.. He faces ...

P. Hemachandran Nair Vs. Plavazhlkam Devi Temple Vilabhagam, Trivandru ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU :PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in O.P.142/01 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards damages with interest at 14.5% and also to pay Rs.500/- as costs. One of the members has dissented. It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party/advocate who was entrusted with the matter in the E.P. proceedings failed to file objection and hence the property happened to be delivered to the decree holder. It is mentioned in the complaint that in O.S.68/96 wherein the complainant was the defendant the Munsiff, Varkala decreed the suit. The appeal filed in Sub Court, Attingal was also dismissed. There was an E.P. filed as E.P No.32/2000 was before the Munsiff Court, Varkala. It was in the E.P. proceedings that the opposite party was entrusted with the Vakalath. The complainant filed second appeal in the High Court of Kerala. No stay order from the High Court could be obtained. It is...

Joseph Vilangadan, S/O. Ulahannan, Vs. P.N. Writer and Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Kerala

ORDERAntony Dominic, J.1. The applicants have approached this Court invoking its jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short) for the appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between themselves and the respondent herein.2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the case of the applicants is that by Annexures A1, A2 and A4 unregistered lease deeds, the applicants leased out the premises mentioned therein to the respondent. By and large, the terms of the lease deeds are similar, and in so far as it is relevant, the lease deeds provided for payment of monthly lease rent and an initial period of three years with two successive renewal options for three years each at the discretion of the lessee. The lease rent payable for the three spells of periods is contained in Clause 3 of the agreements. Clause 26 of Annexures A1, A2 and A4 provided that in case of any dispute with respect to lease agreement, the same shall be r...