Kerala Court March 2010 Judgments

Shaji Mathew Vs. Thomas Chacko

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLJ843,2010(2)KLT148

ORDERS.S. Satheesachandran, J.1. Revision petitioner is the returned candidate elected from Ward No. VIII of Mankulam Panchayat in the general election held on 24.9.2005. His election was impeached by the 1st respondent, one among the defeated candidates by filing Election Petition No. 15 of 2005 before the Munsiff Court, Devikulam on the ground he was disqualified to contest the election as he was a defaulter with dues outstanding to the Government as on the date of filing of his nomination, and that revenue recovery proceedings for arrears for the amount due were then pending against him. Nomination paper of the revision petitioner was improperly accepted despite the objection raised before the returning officer was the case of the 1st respondent/the petitioner in the election petition. Since the revision petitioner was a defaulter, he was disqualified to contest the election, and as such, his election is liable to be declared void and set aside was the case presented in the election...

Kochu Suresh @ Shiju S/O. Maniyan Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

R. Basant, J.1. i) Can the identification of the appellant by PWs.1, 4 & 9 be safely acceptedii) Can the evidence of recovery of MO.1 on the basis of the confession statement of the appellant by PW14 be safely accepted to draw assurance and inspiration for the evidence of identification of the appellant by PWs.1, 4 and 9?iii) Is the accused in the totality of circumstances entitled to the benefit of doubt?iv) Is the conviction and sentence under Section 302 I.P.C. justified.These are the questions that are raised for consideration in this appeal.2. The appellant/accused challenged the verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence imposed on him under Sections 302, 393 and 394 I.P.C. He has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, rigorous imprisonment for three years and rigorous imprisonment for five years for the said offences. Sentences of fine and default sentences have also been imposed under these sections.3. The crux of the allegations against the appellant/accused is that ...

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Narayana Pillai

Court: Kerala

ORDERS.S. Satheesachandran, J.1. These revisions are filed against the orders passed by the Additional District Judge, Kottayam awarding enhanced compensation in O.P.(EA). No. 107 of 2000 and O.P.(EA). No. 108 of 2000, both filed under Section 42 of the Indian Electricity Supply Act and Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act read with Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act.2. C.R.P. No. 573 of 2008 is filed against the order in O.P. (EA). No. 107 of 2000 and C.R.P. No. 594 of 2008 against the order in O.P. (EA). No. 108 of 2000.3. Previously, the enhanced compensation awarded by the court below in the two original petitions earlier had been set aside by this Court in revisions remitting the cases for fresh consideration with some directions. Pursuant to such remission, complying with the directions given in the remand order, the impugned orders have been passed. At the time of hearing, it is submitted that this Court while remitting the cases earlier had directed the court be...

Ragesh Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT557

ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. In this revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., the revision petitioner who was the complainant in a private complaint C.M.P. No. 3699 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kannur alleging the commission of offences punishable under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and Sections 465, 468, 471 and 120-B read with Section 34 I.P.C., challenges the order dated 9.11.2009 passed by the Magistrate refusing to take cognizance of the aforesaid offences and dismissing the complaint after holding that no sufficient ground has been made out even for forwarding the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.2. The case of the complainant can be summarised as follows:The complainant is a permanent resident of Kannur Assembly Constituency and he is a voter in the said Constituency. Shri. K. Sudhakaran was a member of the Kerala Legislative Assembly representing the Kannur Assembly Constituency. He resigned from the post afte...

State of Kerala Vs. Radhakrishnan

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT185

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The appellants were the respondents in the Writ Petition. The respondents were the writ petitioners.2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The respondents are the partners of Apsara Tourist Home. The said firm was having an FL-3 licence, authorising retail sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor in its restaurant. There were 12 partners for the said firm, when it was reconstituted as per Ext.P2, on 1.4.1996. One of them, K.V. Balakrishnan, died on 13.6.2003. After his death, it was decided to reconstitute the partnership, with the remaining 11 partners. The son of K.V. Balakrishnan was already a partner of the firm. Annexure R-II dated 27.6.2003 was the partnership deed executed, pursuant to the said decision. It was forwarded to the Excise Commissioner, by Annexure R-III. But, the same was not approved by the said officer. The licence of the firm was being renewed from time to time.3. Another partner, A.P. Antony, died on 9.10.2006. All his sons were a...

M/S. Kosamattom Finance Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. T. Sheela

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC No. 307/2008 in the file of CDRF, Kozhikode. The appellants are under orders to return the pledged ornaments after receiving the principal amount of Rs. 8,900/- with interest at the rate of 12% till 05-05-2008 ie, the date of filing the complaint. The matter relates to the alleged deficiency in service by selling the pledged gold ornaments weighing 13.7 gm without giving notice to the complainant. The opposite parties have asserted that they have sent notice and that it is because the complainant did not respond to the notice that the ornaments were sold some time in the first half of 2008. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DW1, Exts. A1 to A4 and B1. The opposite parties have produced only the postal acknowledgement card dated 25-10-2007. As the copy of the notice was not produced the Forum declined to rely on Ext.B1; and rightly so. The complainant had sent lawyer notice the c...

iyyappalli Janaki Vs. Special Tahsildar, L.A. Airport

Court: Kerala

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.1. This appeal by the claimant pertains to acquisition of land for the purpose of Kannur Airport pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 9/3/1998. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 682/- per cent. The Reference Court under the impugned judgment refixed the land value at Rs. 1,500/- per cent.2. Our attention is drawn by Mr. K.V. Pavithran, learned Counsel for the appellant to the judgment of this Court in L.A.A. No. 1696/2008 and a number of other cases where this Court has approved refixation of the land value of identical lands acquired for the same purpose pursuant to the same notification at Rs. 3000/- per cent. The learned senior Government Pleader Sri Basant Balaji also would fairly concede that the judgment of this Court refixing the land value at Rs. 3000/- in identical cases has attained finality.3. Under the above circumstances, we do not find any reason as to why the appeal should not be allowed and the land val...

State of Kerala Vs. Valsamma

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT294

P.N. Ravindran, J.1. The appellants are the respondents in W.P. (C) No. 21854 of 2006. The respondents are the petitioners therein. The brief facts of the case are as follows.2. The respondents are Teachers and Ayahs working in various Kindergartens run by the appellants. They commenced service in the Balavadies/Feeding Centres in the year 1984 after they were locally recruited otherwise than through the Employment Exchanges/Kerala Public Service Commission. Initially Teachers were being paid Rs. 500/- per mensem as honorarium and Ayahs were being paid Rs. 100/- per mensem as honorarium. Thereafter the honorarium was enhanced to Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 500/- respectively for Teachers and Ayahs upon the Balavadies being upgraded as Kindergartens. They are presently being paid honorarium depending on their length of service. Teachers who are matriculates having five years of service are paid a honorarium of Rs. 2,000/- per mensem, Teachers who are matriculates having more than five years of ...

Philip S/O. Thomas Vs. State of Kerala and

Court: Kerala

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.1. The claimant is in appeal and as directed by us, M/s. Menon. and Pai has taken notice on behalf of the second respondent/Requisitioning Authority, Kochi Refineries Ltd. The appeal is confined to the appellants' claim for enhancement of the compensation payable for the building which existed on the property under acquisition. For the building, the Awarding Officer awarded a total compensation of Rs. 3,71,956/-. The Reference Court did not award any enhancement towards compensation for the building. This was obviously due to the reason that the appellant did not take out a commission for revaluing the building.2. Smt. Thushara James, the learned counsel for the Requisitioning Authority submitted that in the absence of any acceptable legal evidence, the Reference Court is not to be blamed for not having awarded any enhancement towards the value of the building. It is true that acceptable legal evidence was not adduced by the appellant before the Reference Court reg...

State of Kerala Vs. T.C. Valsamma

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLJ809

P.N. Ravindran, J.1. The appellants are die respondents in W.P.(C) No. 21854 off 2006 the respondents are the petitioners therein. The brief facts of the case are as follows.2. The respondents are Teachers and Ayahs working in various-Kindergartens run by the appellants. They commenced service in the Balavadies/Feeding Centres in the year 1984 after they were locally recruited otherwise than through the Employment Exchanges/Kerala Public Service Commission. Initially Teachers were being paid Rs. 500/- per mensem as honorarium and Ayahs were being paid Rs. 100/- per mensem as honorarium. Thereafter the honorarium was enhanced to Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 500/- respectively for Teachers and Ayahs upon the Balavadies being upgraded as Kintergartens. They are presently being paid honorarium depending on their length of service. Teachers who are matriculates having five years of service are paid a honorarium of Rs. 2,000/- per mensem, Teachers who are matriculates having more than five years of s...