Kerala Court March 2010 Judgments

The Secretary, Kseb, Thiruvananthapuram and Another Vs. Vijayalekshmi

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/KSEB in CC No. 55/2008 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The appellants are under orders to pay sum of Rs. 24,650/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as costs. 2. The case of the complainant is that on 25-08-2007 in the midnight 66 KV line near the house of the complainant fell on the single phase line and as a result on account of high voltage of energy passed the electric and electronic devices at the house of the complainant and others were damaged. Although the matter was intimated to the officials of the opposite party, they have not cared to look into the matter. The complainant and 6 others have on 15-09-2007 filed complaint before the 4th opposite party Executive Engineer. But no action has been taken. They have not assessed the loss sustained to the complainant and others. Lawyer notice sent was replied to mentioning untenable contentions. It is only on account of the negligence of the opposite parties ...

inland Waterways Authority of India Vs. Asakula Raghavan D/O. Parvathy ...

Court: Kerala

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.1. The respondents were served with notice in the context of application for condonation of delay. They did not resist the prayer for condoning the delay. At the time when delay was condoned, there was a tacit understanding that this Court will be following judgments of this Court in identical matters.2. The appeal pertains to acquisition of land in Mullackal village acquired for the purpose of the appellant/Inland Waterways Authority of India. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value for dry lands at the rate of Rs. 11,386/- per Are and for wet lands at Rs. 74/- per Are. The Reference Court under the impugned judgment re-fixed the value of lands under acquisition uniformly at Rs. 35,000/- per Are. For the building which existed on the property, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs. 2,99,288/-. The Reference Court, relying on the report submitted by an Advocate Commissioner re-fixed the total compensation payable for the building at Rs. 4,...

K.V. Sudheer Babu, S/O. Late Krishnan Vs. K.V. Vinod Kumar, S/O. Late ...

Court: Kerala

C.K. Abdul Rehim, J.1. This appeal is filed against order in I.A. 2778/08 in L.A.R. 358/97 on the files of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Thalassery. The said application was filed for posting of the Land Acquisition Reference Case for consideration and disposal on merits. History of the case is that, the reference application happened to be once dismissed on 12/03/03. An application filed seeking restoration was also dismissed, which was subject matter in appeal before this Court, in FAO. 293/04, which was allowed on 04/04/05. This Court directed the parties to appear before the Reference Court on 17/05/05, holding that in case if the reference is allowed and enhancement is granted, the parties will not be entitled for interest for the period from 12/03/03 to 04/04/05. According to the petitioner, a mistake was crept in in the judgment of this Court in FAO.293/04 with respect to the number of the reference case (LAR number). Subsequently, on the basis of an application, this Court had...

Sivaprasad S. Shenoy Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT212

K.M. Joseph, J.1. Petitioner seeks the following reliefs:(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the third respondent not to interfere in the dispute between the petitioner and the fourth respondent in regard to the concrete sunshade of the petitioner's building bearing number 626 and 627 of Ward No. 21 of Payyannur Municipality which matter is pending consideration before the 5th respondent Municipality.(ii) Issue a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, restraining the third respondent from interfering with the dispute in regard to the sunshade of petitioner's building bearing Nos. 626 and 627 of Ward No. 21 of Payyannur Municipality.2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:Petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of the buildings bearing Nos. 626 and 627 in Ward No. 21 of Payyannur Municipality. It was an old building with tiled roof. There was a roofed sunshade on the western sid...

P.T.P. Khadeeja W/O. Kunhi Moideen and ors. Vs. Velikkakath Abdul Naza ...

Court: Kerala

ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J.1. The tenants, being the legal heirs of the original tenant, have come up in revision being aggrieved by the order of eviction concurrently passed against them by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority on the ground under Section 11(3) and also under Section 11(4)(iii). The case of the landlord in the context of the ground under Section 11(3) was that the building is required bona fide for occupation by the landlord's son so that he can conduct a flour mill. The bona fides of the need was disputed by the revision petitioners/tenants, who raised several contentions. It was contended by them that they have got emunity from eviction by virtue of Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. They contended that the land was leased to their deceased father and the building was put up by him long prior to 20/5/1967. They also contended that at any rate they are entitled for the protection of the second proviso to Sub-section 3 of Section 11.2. It was by r...

K.P. Kuriakose S/O. Late Paily and ors. Vs. the Kerala State Electrici ...

Court: Kerala

ORDERS.S. Satheesachandran, J.1. Revision is directed against the order dated 15/03/2005 in O.P(Ele.) No. 61 of 2001 on the file of Additional District Judge, Ernakulam. Revision petitioner is the claimant in the above petition which has been filed seeking enhanced compensation for the trees cut and removed and towards diminution of land value suffered on account of the drawing of overhead lines through his property by the respondent Kerala State Electricity Board hereinafter referred to as the Board. The Board, for the purpose of drawing 11KV feeder line to Edakkattuvayal from Kakkadu Substation, cut and removed some trees from the property of the petitioner. Towards the damages sustained to the petitioner, claimant, the Board assessed and paid a sum of Rs. 6,988/-. Not being satisfied with the compensation adjudged and paid by the Board, the above petition was filed by the claimant under Section 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act and Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act claimi...

Koshy Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT945

ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed by Dr. K.A. Koshy and Dr. Serena, who are two accused persons among the accused in Crime No. 30 of 2010 of Rajpura City Police Station, Patjala District, Punjab.2. The petitioners apprehend arrest in Crime No. 30 of 2010, where the offences alleged, going by Annexure A First Information Report, are under Sections 65 and 66(1) and (2) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. After hearing all the counsel and the learned Additional Advocate General of the State of Punjab, it is fairly clear that the offences alleged against the accused include the offences under Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code as well.3. In the Bail Application, the offences under Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code were not mentioned. When the Bail Application came up for admission, the undertaking made by the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents 1 and 3 ...

Softlution Web Technologis Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mangath Devadasan and Ada Sof ...

Court: Kerala

S.S. Satheesachandran, J.1. The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs.i) Issue an order quashing an setting aside Ext.P4 as arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable.ii) Hold that the proceedings initiated in E.A. No. 57/09 in E.P. No. 172/08 in O.S No. 547/03 of the Principal Sub Court - I Exn, Thiruvananthapuram against the petitioner evidenced by Ext.P4 is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable.iii) Hold that the petitioner's immovable properties are not liable to be attached in execution of the decree in O.S No. 547/03 of the Principal Sub Court - I Exn, Thiruvananthapuram.iv) To issue such other writ, orders and directions as are deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.2. Petitioner is a registered company. Ext.P4 order passed by the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram directing attachment of the movable properties belonging to the petitioner company is impeached in the writ petition contending that the petitioner was not a party to the decree executed by the court. ...

Abdurahiman Vs. Khairunneesa

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT891

R. Basant, J.1. How is the expression 'does not treat her equitably in accordance with the injunctions of the Quran' in Section 2(viii)(f) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to be understood in law? Whose standards are to apply and prevail? Is it the partisan standards of the polygamous husband to be followed? Is it the cold objective standards of the Court - an outsider, to be followed? Or is it the assessment and evaluation of the helpless wife to be reckoned as crucial? Should not that expression consistent with the humane socialist commitment of the Constitution in favour of the helpless and hapless receive a construction in favour of the wife in distress? Can the expression be understood divorced of the core Islamic approach to life and marriage that marriage is an arrangement to be enjoyed and not to be endured reckoning the same as indissoluble? Should not the true perception of the right to life, in all its dimensions, persua...

Ayakali Nadar Sons Vs. Sivasankara Pillai

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT206

M. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. When can a person who is not an accused could be proceeded against under Section 20A of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act? Can he be impleaded as an additional accused before evidence is adduced? These are the questions to be settled in the case.2. Facts are not disputed. Fourth respondent, Food Inspector, Thiruvalla filed a complaint before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvalla against respondents 1 to 3, the accused, alleging that they committed offence under Sections 7(i), 16(1A) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Summons were issued to respondents 1 to 3. Learned Magistrate recorded the evidence of the complainant, as provided Under Section 244 of Code of Criminal Procedure and thereafter framed charge on 17.3.2003. When the case was posted for recording evidence on 2.6.2003 third respondent filed Annexure-I petition under Section 20A of the Act, producing a delivery note as well as Form XXVI issued under...