Kerala Court March 2010 Judgments

P.P. Aravindakshan Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

R. Basant, J.1. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce his wife-Shiny, a woman, aged 42 years. The petitioner and Shiny have remained married for a long period of time. 2 children have been born in the wedlock - Arun, aged 20 years and Ajith, aged 18 years. It is the grievance of the petitioner that his wife is missing from 27.07.2009 and that thereafter her whereabouts are not known. It was the apprehension of the petitioner that respondent Nos. 3 to 6, relatives of the said Shiny are illegally detaining her.2. This petition was filed on 12.01.2010. Directions were issued from time to time. Ultimately the case stood posted to this date.3. Today when the case is called, the petitioner is present along with his Counsel. Both children of the petitioner have also come to Court along with the petitioner, their father. The alleged detenue shiny has also come to Court today. She is not represented by any ...

Chief of Air Staff Vs. Augustian

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT514

P.N. Ravindran, J.1. A common question arises in these Writ Appeals. They were therefore heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.W.A. No. 774 of 20092. The appellants are the respondents in O.P. No. 39594 of 2002. The sole respondent is the petitioner therein. The respondent joined the Indian Air Force as Airman on 15.5.1985. As per the rules then in force, an Airman below 29 years of age who acquires a degree was eligible for being considered for regular commission in the Indian Air Force. After entry in service, the respondent acquired the LL.B. degree on 7.10.1996, but he was over-aged and was not eligible to be considered for regular commission. Later, on 9.12.1997, the upper age limit to be considered for regular commission was raised to 39 years. Though on 25.7.1998, the respondent applied for being considered for regular commission, his request was turned down on medical grounds, on 27.7.1998. He again applied for regular commission and was considered fo...

Sivan Pillai Vs. Padmanabha Pillai Ayyappan Pillai

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT531

ORDERS.S. Satheesachandran, J.1. The assignee decree holder, in a suit for redemption has filed this revision challenging the order of the Execution Court, (Additional Munsiffs Court, Neyyuttinkara), dismissing his execution petition holding that he is not competent to execute the decree.2. The factual back ground giving rise to the present revision, can be summed up as hereunder:The decree sought to be executed by the assignee decree holder is one passed in O.S. No. 67/57 allowing redemption of a mortgage property from the 1st defendant one Ummini Nadar Kochappi Nadar. Suit was filed by two plaintiffs on behalf of a tharwad viz., Punnakulath Tharwad, to redeem a usufructuary mortgage of the year. 1095 ME from the 1st defendant on behalf of the tharwad. Suit was decreed by judgment dated 17.3.1959. Execution of that decree was applied for filing a petition on 9.3.1961. That execution petition was dismissed on 1.8.1962 since the mortgagee had obtained grant of registry in respect of the...

Abraham Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT392

S.S. Satheesachandran, J.1. The Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs.i) To issue a direction or order calling for the files leading to the issue of Exts.P2 and P4, examine their legality, propriety and quash the same.ii) To declare that the valuation shown by the petitioner in probate application 493/97 on the files of the District Court, Ernakulam is true and correct.iii) To pass any other and such orders as this Hon'ble Court deem fit to pass in the nature and circumstances of the case.iv) To award cost of these proceedings to the petitioner.2. Petitioner as the executor appointed under a Will moved an application for issue of a probate over that will executed by one late Alice Varghese, before the Second Additional District Court, Ernakulam. After enquiry, the probate annexed with a copy of the will was issued to the petitioner relegating the question of court fee payable on such probate subject to the determination of the market value of the property by the District...

Qualified Private Medical Practitioners' Association Vs. State of Kera ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT375

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.W.P.(C) No. 38494 of 20031. The first petitioner is an Association of Qualified Private Medical Practitioners. Petitioners 2 to 6 are its members. The members of the first petitioner are running private hospitals/nursing homes. The grievance raised in this Writ Petition is concerning the insistence of the third respondent that the petitioners' hospitals should take out licence for dispensing medicines/drugs.2. The brief facts of the case are the following. The manufacture and sale of drugs and cosmetics in India are governed by the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Under Section 18(c) of the Act, for sale of drugs, it is mandatory to obtain licence from the competent authority. The Central Government have been authorised by the Act to frame rules, granting exemption from various provisions of the Act in Chapter IV thereof subject to appropriate conditions. Section 18(c) comes under the said Chapter. The Central Government have...

Mohanan S/O. Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

R. Basant, J.1. i) Have the circumstances relied on by the prosecution been established by cogent evidenceii) Do the circumstances established lead to a safe inference of guilt against the appellant?iii) Is the accused/appellant entitled to the benefit of doubt?These are the questions that are raised for consideration in this appeal by the learned Counsel for the appellant Ms.Sangeetha Lakshmana.2. The appellant/accused has suffered a verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence under Sections 452, 392 and 302 I.P.C. He faces a substantive sentence of imprisonment of R.I for a period of three years, R.I for a period of 10 years and imprisonment for life respectively for these offences. In addition, he has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- respectively for these offences. In default, he faces the prospect of a sentence of R.I for a period of one year, R.I for a period of two years and R.I for a period of three years respectively for the said offenc...

The Accounts Officer (Pension Sanction) Vs. Mariyamma

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT241

P.N. Ravindran, J.1. The appellants are the respondents in W.P.(C) No. 16858 of 2005. The respondent is the petitioner therein. The short question that arises for consideration in this writ appeal is whether the married daughter of a pensioner, whose marriage is subsisting, is entitled to payment of contributory family pension under Section VII of Part III of the K.S.R. The brief facts of the case are as follows.2. The respondent is the daughter of late P.V. Joseph, who was an employee of the Kerala State Electricity Board. He retired from service in the year 1985. Upon retirement he was paid pension and other terminal benefits. He expired in the year 1997 and thereupon family pension was paid to his wife and the petitioner's mother Smt. Rebeka Joseph. She passed away on 27.11.2004. The petitioner thereupon moved the Kerala State Electricity Board claiming payment of family pension by submitting an application dated 17.12.2004. The Accounts Officer in the office of the Chief Engineer (...

Belsi Vs. Corporate Management of LatIn Catholic Schools

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT260

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The appellant was the seventh respondent in the Writ Petition. The first respondent herein was the writ petitioner. The point that arises for decision in this case is whether the appointment of the sixth respondent Smt. N.Y. Ammini as Headmistress of a Lower Primary School, overlooking the claim of the appellant herein was valid for the reason that the first respondent did not follow a fair procedure as directed by this Court in Kurian Lizy v. State of Kerala : 2006 (4) KLT 264 (F.B.). The brief facts of the case are the following:2. The first respondent manages a few schools, including St. George L.P. School, Palode. It is not disputed before us that the said educational agency belongs to a minority community and therefore, is entitled to the protection of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. A vacancy in the post of Headmaster arose in St. George L.P. School, Palode on 1.4.2004. The management appointed Smt. N.Y. Ammini, who is admittedly junior to t...

Santosh Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT250

ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. The question of law arising for judicial resolution in this revision is as to whether in an appeal by the accused it is permissible for the appellate court to transpose or interchange the dissimilar sentences of imprisonment awarded by the Trial Court in respect of the conviction for two separate offences without enhancing the aggregate sentence imposed by the Trial Court for those offences.2. The revision petitioner who was the 1st accused in C.C. No. 615 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Ottappalam for offences punishable under Sections 457, 461 and 380 r/w Section 34 I.P.C., challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed concurrently against him by the courts below for offences punishable under Sections 457 and 318 r/w Section 34 I.P.C.3. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows:Sometime during the night of 3.2.2000, the two accused persons in furtherance of their common intention to commit theft criminall...

Dharmadom Paristhithi Samrakshana Samithi Vs. Dharmadom Grama Panchaya ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT194

Antony Dominic, J.1. The issue raised in these Writ Petitions are connected, and therefore, the cases were heard and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. For convenience, I shall make reference to the facts as pleaded in W.P.(C) No. 15755/09.3. The 2nd respondent is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act. The 2nd respondent submitted an application to the 1st respondent Panchay at for obtaining a building permit for the construction of a multi storied apartment complex. By Ext.P1 resolution, the Panchayat Committee in its meeting held on 25.4.2008 resolved not to grant permit applied for on the ground that if the project is allowed to come up, that will increase the water shortage in the area.4. Contrary to Ext.P1, the Secretary of the Panchayat issued Ext.P2 building permit on 13.5.2008. Subsequently, Panchayat passed Ext.P4 resolution to cancel Ext.P2 building permit and on that basis, the Secretary then in office issued a communication to the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved ...