Kerala Court March 2010 Judgments

K.J.Thomas, Kanayamplackal. Vs. the Chief Conservator of Forests.

Court: Kerala

1. The petitioner herein is the sole proprietor of furniture cum wood based unit called 'Anand Ambani Mini Industries' at Kattappana. The unit is mainly engaged in the manufacture of furniture items, door frames and window frames using the timber purchased from the Depot of the Forest Department. The petitioner had applied for a N.O.C. before the D.F.O., Kottayam through the Forest Range Officer Ayyappan Kovil as early as on 7/7/1999. The application has been transmitted to the first respondent. Ext.P2 is the copy of the receipt of the application evidencing the same. The petitioner is having the licence of the Panchayat as evidenced by Ext.P4. Sale Tax registration as evidenced by Ext.P5 and consent issued by the Pollution Control Board as evidenced by Ext.P6 and copy of the SSI Registration issued by District Industries Centre as evidenced by Ext.P7. 2. Seeking for a direction to issue the NOC by the first respondent, this writ petition has been filed. 3. The learned Government Plead...

Regi Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT265

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The petitioners approached this Court challenging Ext.P5 order of the Government allowing the representations of some inter-district transferees and granting them seniority over the petitioners and other similarly placed Police Constables and Ext.P7 order passed by the Director General of Police granting identical reliefs. Initially this Court granted interim stay of those orders. Later, after hearing both sides this Court vacated the interim order by order dated 6.9.2007. The said order reads as follows:The petitioners in this Writ Petition challenge Ext.P5 order of the Government and also the order of the Director General of Police, Ext.P7. They are presently working in the District Armed Reserve, Idukki. Initially, they were recruited to the Kerala Armed Police Battalion V. They were transferred to the District Armed Reserve, Idukki, according to their turn. Before they joined the District Armed Reserve, respondents 4 and 5 were transferred from the Distri...

Raju @ Kalan Raju and Suresh @ Kottali Suresh Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

R. Basant, J.1. These appeals are preferred by three accused persons who, in the same crime, faced allegations under Sections 120B, 302, 341 and 323 read with 34 I.P.C. The 1st accused has preferred Crl.A. No. 925/07 whereas accused 2 and 3 have preferred Crl.A. No. 493/2006. The 1st accused was not available for trial when the trial against accused 2 and 3 was taken up. They were tried separately. Subsequently, the 1st accused became available for trial. Separate trial was held against the 1st accused.2. In such separate trials, accused 1 to 3 have been found guilty, convicted and sentenced under Sections 302, 120B and 341 read with 34 I.P.C. In both cases, the accused have been found not guilty and were acquitted of the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. A sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 25,000/- has been imposed on the 1st accused/appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. Accused 2 and 3 faced the sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- each. Separate ide...

Dr. Vellayani Arjunan Vs. Employees Provident Fund Organization

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT335

ORDERK. Hema, J.1. Can the Chairman of a Public School be prosecuted for non-payment of provident fund contributions and administrative charges, under Section 14A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ('the Act' for short)(i) Can an 'establishment' be prosecuted under Section 14(1A), for such non-payment ?(ii) Can any person be prosecuted under Section 14(1A) of the Act, on the ground that he is 'in charge of and responsible for the business of the establishment'?2. Enforcement Officer, Employees' Provident Fund Organization filed a complaint against a Public School, its Secretary and its Chairman alleging that they failed to pay the contribution to Employees' Provident Fund and Administrative charges for the period March 2003 to May 2003. As per the allegations in the complaint, first accused is a Public School which is an 'establishment', within the meaning of the Act and 'accused 1 to 3' are the persons 'in charge of the said establishment and resp...

Joseph James @ Jose Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLJ794

V. Ramkumar, J.1. In this appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. the appellant who was the accused in C.C. No. 9 of 1999 on the file of the Court of Special Judge (SPE/CBI-II), Emakulam challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the P.C. Act' for short).THEPROSECUNON CASE2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows:During the period between 13-10-1997 and 23-2-1999 the accused (Joseph James @ Jose) was working as the Sub Inspector of Police in the Lakshadweep Police Special Branch Office at Cochin. The de facto complainant namely M.A. Jamaludheen (P.W.1) is a Labour Contractor. He wanted to make inquiries about the supply of labourers to a Contractor at Minicoy Island in the Union Territory of Lakshadweep. Accordingly, on 22-10-1999, P.W.1 applied for a permit to visit the Island His application...

Karunakaran Vs. Chandran Panikkar

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT379

ORDERS.S. Satheesachandran, J.1. Revision petitioner is the returned candidate from Ward No. 2 of Thattacherry Ward of Nileshwar Grama Panchayat in the general election held on 26.09.2005. His election was impeached by the 1st respondent, the defeated candidate, by filing an election petition as O.P.(Ele.) No. 12 of 2005 before the Munsiff Court, Hosdurg. Revision petitioner/returned candidate was disqualified from contesting election as he was a defaulter to a bank, namely, North Malabar Gramin Bank, Madiyan Branch, a public sector undertaking, and there was material suppression of facts in the Form 2A submitted by him with his nomination paper and thereby he had infringed and violated the mandatory requirements under Section 52(1A) of the Panchayat Raj Act was the case of the petitioner (1st respondent herein) for challenging the election of the returned candidate. The learned Munsiff, on the materials produced in the case found merit in the challenge against the election of the revi...

D. Raju, S/O. Devadas Vs. D. Ebanesar S/O. Devadas, M. Devadas S/O. Ma ...

Court: Kerala

1. These appeals are preferred by the appellants who are respectively defendant No. 3 and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in O.S. 775/07 on the files of the Principal Subordinate Judge's Court, Thiruvananthapuram impugning the orders passed by that court dismissing the applications filed by them seeking condonation of delay caused in the matter of filing applications for setting aside the ex parte decrees passed against them. In the appeals, they also impugn the orders rejecting applications filed by them for setting aside the ex parte decrees.2. Going by the orders passed on the delay condonation petitions, the extent of delay in I.A. 2721/09 filed by the appellant in FAO.28/10 was 101 days and extent of delay in I.A. No. 5719/09 filed by the appellants in FAO.29/10 was 223 days. Even though medical certificate was attached to the application in support of the averments in the affidavit filed by the appellants, the learned Subordinate Judge did not become inclined to place any reliance on the ...

ishaque Vs. Raveendran Thampan

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT1

ORDER1. (i) Does a Criminal Appellate Court, in an appeal against conviction, have the power under Section 386(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code') to direct re-trial of the appellant by the court below for the purpose of imposing an appropriate and just punishment after upholding the conviction and setting aside the sentence?(ii) Is the expression 'reverse the finding and sentence' in Section 386(b)(i) of the Code elastic enough to justify it being read as 'reverse the finding and/or sentence'?(iii) If injustice results, can the revisional court invoke its powers of revision notwithstanding the fact that the lower Appellate Court has not technically committed any error?(iv) Does the decision of the learned single Judge in Vijayakumar v. State 2009 (2) KLT 499 lay down the law on this aspect correctly?2. These questions arise for consideration in this Revision Petition which has come up before us on a reference made by a single Judge (one of us...

Najmal Babu and Noushad, Sulthana Group Vs. State Bank of India

Court: Kerala

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.1. Under challenge in this appeal is what is described by the appellants as the excessive cost that was ordered by the court below for setting aside the ex parte decree which was passed in favour of the respondent State Bank of India. It was a simple suit for money amounting to 4,71,144/- with interest and cost that was filed by the Bank in the year 2007. Ex parte decree was passed against the appellants. The court, though was not fully convinced by the explanation offered by the appellant for his absence on the date the suit was decreed, allowed the application imposing condition that the appellants shall deposit an amount of Rs. 1 Lakh towards the plaint claim and the further condition that the appellants shall pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- as cost to the Bank. According to the appellants, imposition of cost of Rs. 1 Lakh is highly excessive and runs contrary to the principles of law laid down by a learned Single Judge of this Court Deepu Zachariah v. Xavier 2005 KHC 1...

Balachandran Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT269

K. Surendra Mohan, J.1. All these appeals are filed by the claimants challenging the awards passed by the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram, the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short. The properties of the appellants were acquired for the expansion of the International Airport, Thiruvananthapuram. The properties are all situate in Pettah Village of Thiruvananthapuram Taluk.2. Section 4(1) notification in all these appeals was published on 4.2.1999 but, the land was taken possession of only in 2002 or 2003. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award fixing land value at Rs. 1,36,616/- per Are for the lands in Category I, Rs. 98, 712/- per Are for the lands in Category II and Rs. 78,743/- per are for the lands included in Category IV. The land value awarded for the other categories are not referred to herein for the reason that the lands that form the subject matter of these appeals have been categorised only unde...