Kerala Court March 2010 Judgments

Sivan S/O. Ponnayyan Vs. State of Kerala Rep. by Public

Court: Kerala

R. Basant, J.1. i) Is the circumstance leading to the allegation of patricide against the appellant established by satisfactory evidence?ii) Can the circumstances established lead a prudent mind to a safe conclusion of guilt against the appellant?iii) Is the appellant entitled to the benefit of doubt?iv) Did the court below commit the error of importing extraneous information, which was not legally placed before the court in the course of trial, while attempting to adjudicate the guilt of the appellant?These are the questions raised by Ms. V. Shylaja, learned Counsel for the appellant in her attempt to assail the impugned verdict of guilt, conviction and sentence against the appellant.2. The appellant was the sole accused who faced indictment. The crux of the charge against him is that the accused on the night of 4/9/2002 at about 10.45 p.m. caused the death of his father by ligature strangulation with MO.2 towel in the workshop where PW3 was working as a mechanic. The alleged motive i...

Smt. ShervIn Vs. Sub Inspector of Police and ors.

Court: Kerala

ORDER08.05.20101. The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions reports that the alleged detenue is a student of class XII and that her Board Examinations are in progress. Such examinations will continue till the end of this month, ie. 29.03.2010.2. Call this petition again on 31.03.2010. The alleged detenue shall be present before the Court. The learned Government Pleader shall make arrangements to ensure that the alleged detenue is made available before the Court on that date....

Joseph Das Vs. State of Kerala,

Court: Kerala

R. Basant, J.1. The petitioner has come to this Court with this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue directions to restrain the respondents from executing an order of detention allegedly passed against him under Section 3 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KAAPA').2. The petitioner asserts that an order of detention has been passed categorizing him as a 'known rowdy' falling within the ambit of the expression under Section 2(p) of the KAAPA. Three cases are allegedly relied upon to issue such order of detention against him under Section 3 of the KAAPA. The first crime relied on is the one registered, inter alia, under Section 308 IPC on the basis of Ext.P1 FIR i.e., Crime No. 289/06 of the Sakthikulangara Police Station in Kollam District. The second crime on which reliance is placed is the one registered as Crime No. 42/08 of the Sakthikulangara Police Station in Kollam District for offences punishable, ...

State of Kerala Vs. Ritha Thomas

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLJ637

P.R. Raman, J.1. State is the appellant. The respondent herein filed the Writ Petition seeking a direction to the District Educational Officer, the third respondent in the Writ Petition to forward the applications Exts.P2 and P4 for alteration of the name in the school records to the second respondent Commissioner of Government Examinations, for appropriate sanction. The writ petitioner was a student studying for B. Com. Degree in a private college. In the school records her name was shown as 'Ritha Thomas'; but in the certificate of Baptism, Birth Register and Passport, her name is recorded as 'Annie Ritha Karukaparambil'. Petitioner is yet to secure any job and to avoid future confusion as a result of the difference in the name in the school records and in the other records, namely, passport, birth register etc., she filed an application seeking correction in the name. The second respondent District Educational Officer turned down the said request as per Ext.P3, stating that the writ...

Lalitha Vasudevan Vs. Guruvayoor Devaswom

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT607

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent Guruvayoor Devaswom Board not to prohibit Sri. K.J. Yesudas from entering Guruvayoor Temple to worship observing Hindu religious rites. The petitioner says that Sri. Yesudas is a devout Hindu and that there is no law prohibiting such a person from entering Guruvayoor Temple observing all rites of Hindu religion and that there is no law made by the second respondent Government of Kerala preventing those who believe in Hinduism from entering Guruvayoor Temple and worshiping according to Hindu religious rites. The plea of the petitioner is that Article 25 of the Constitution of India guarantees the rights to the aforesaid effect and that the materials on record would show that Sri. K.J. Yesudas deserves to be permitted to enter Guruvayoor Temple.2. When this matter came up for admission, we required the learned Counsel for the petitioner to address on the need to entertain...

Crescent Foundary and Engineering Works, Cheruvannur and Another Vs. H ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

COMMON JUDGMENT SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeals are preferred from the order dated 22nd May 2000 passed by CDRF, Kasaragod in OP.58/99. The complaint in the said OP.58/99 was filed by the first respondent in these appeals as complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellants in these appeals who were the opposite parties in the said complaint in OP.58/99. The complainant therein alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 in supplying a defective peeling machine having manufacturing defect. It was averred that the said peeling machine was manufactured by the first opposite party M/s.Crescent Foundry and Engineering works, Cheruvannur, Feroke, Kozhikode and the same was supplied by the second opposite party/India Machine Tools Company, Shamsu Building, Kallai Road, Calicut. Thereby, the complainant claimed refund of the price of the peeling machine amounting to Rs.334880/- with interest at the rate of 18% per a...

The Chief Executive Officer, Jet Airways, S.M. Centre, Marol, Andheri ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU PRESIDENT The appellant in 87/09 is the 3rd opposite party Jet Airways, the appellant in 88/09 is the 1st opposite party/Managing Director, Cochin International Airport, the appellant in 708/09 is the 4th opposite party/Airport Manager, Airport India Limited in C.C.516/06 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- of which 50% is to be borne by 1st and 4th opposite parties/appellants in appeal 88/09 and 708/09 respectively and the balance by the 3rd opposite party ie, the appellant in A.87/09. The case of the complainant is that he is aged 60 years and has been suffering from Parkinsons disease in an advanced stage. He can move only in wheel chair and lacks coherence in speech. He had undergone Deep Brain Stimulation surgery at Jaslok Hospital in Mumbai in 2002. The surgery involved placement of electrodes in the diseased parts of his brain and then connecting these electrodes to a battery implant inserted...

Advocate M.L. George Vs. High Court of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT237

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The petitioner is a practising lawyer. He claims, he is a public spirited citizen very much interested in the efficient administration of justice. He points out that large number of cases are pending before this Court and the Civil Courts in the State. According to him, the panacea to cure the said ill is to reduce the vacations of this Court and the Civil Courts. He also suggests that all Saturdays should be made working days for this Court. Therefore, he has filed this Writ Petition, seeking the following reliefs:i) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ or direction or order to the respondents for amending the relevant rules and regulations which envisage the number of holidays/working days of High Courts and Subordinate Courts.ii) to order that all Saturdays shall be working days for the courts including High Court and the Tribunals.iii) To quash Section 23A of High Court Judges Conditions of Service Act, 1954...

State of Kerala Vs. K.S. Distillery

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLJ663

A.K. Basheer, J.1. These three appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment since a common issue is involved in all of them.2. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the State can levy excise duty on rectified spirit which is not fit for human consumption.3. In Writ Petition No. 32187/2005, which is the subject matter of W.A. No. 71/2008, a learned Single Judge of this Court answered the above question in the negative and held that Rule 55(4) of the Kerala Distillery & Warehouse Rules 1968 is ultra vires and unenforceable in so far as it deals with levy of duty 'on wastage exceeding 0.5%'. Later, the above decision was followed in two other Writ Petitions, which are impugned in the other two Writ Appeals.4. Before we refer to Rule 55(4) of the Kerala Distillery & Warehouse Rules 1968, it may be profitable to take a look at Chapter 5 of Abkari Act which deals with duties, taxes and rentals. For the sake of convenience, relevant clauses of Sections 17 and 18...

Ali Vs. Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT477

P.R. Raman, J.1. Writ Appeal form the judgment reported in : 2009 (3) KLT 735. The appellant is working as Section Officer in the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady, the first respondent herein. He is a candidate belonging to the Muslim community. The university issued Ext.P1 notification, dated 4.12.1999, inviting applications from qualified Assistants/Sections Officers working in the Universities of Kerala State to the post of Section Officer in the scale of pay of Rs. 6500-10550. The number of posts advertised was 15 (approximate). The appellant and respondents 2 to 10 were also candidates who applied for the said post. The rank list consisting of 50 candidates was published on 1.4.2000, as evidenced by Ext.P2. The appellant and respondents 2 to 10 were included in the rank list and they were appointed to the post of Section Officers on 5.4.2000, applying the rules of rotation contained in Rules 14 to 17 of the Kerala State & Subordinate Services Rules, 1958, for shor...