Kerala Court March 2010 Judgments

Pushpadas Vs. Sukumara Pillai

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT385

ORDERK. Surendra Mohan, J.1. The tenant is in revision. The respondent-landlord had filed R.C.P. No. 5 of 2001 before the Rent Control Court, Kayamkulam seeking an order of eviction against the tenant alleging grounds under Section 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short. The said petition was dismissed by the Rent Control Court. However, as per order dated 19.12.2005 in R.C.A. No. 11 of 2005, the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Mavelikkara has allowed the landlord's appeal and has ordered eviction. The above revision is filed by the tenant against the order of the Appellate Authority. During the pendency of the revision, the respondent-landlord died and his legal representatives have been impleaded as additional respondents 2 to 5. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein as the landlord and the tenant respectively.2. The petition schedule building belongs to the landlord, h...

George Varghese and Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.1. The claimants are in appeal. Their lands in Maradu village were acquired for the purpose of construction of cargo terminal for the Inland Waterways Authority of India. The Land Acquisition Officer included the properties in category-B and awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 85,543/- per Are. The Reference Court under the impugned judgment on the basis of the evidence that came on record re-fixed the land value at Rs. 1,26,000/- per Are.2. We had occasion to deal with a large number of cases pertaining to acquisition of identical lands in the same village acquired for the same purpose (see our judgment in L.A.A. 637/05 etc.). Under that judgment we have re-fixed the value of land included in category-B by the L.A. authority at Rs. 1,50,000/- per Are. For the reasons stated in that judgment, the value of lands under acquisition in this case is also liable to be re-fixed at Rs. 1,50,000/- per Are. It is ordered accordingly.3. We have heard the submissions of Sri ...

Jaya Vs. Suchit

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT709

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. These Writ Appeals are filed by the respondents in the Writ Petitions, challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge, in W.P.(C) No. 15330/2005.2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The parties are mentioned as they are arrayed in the Writ Petition. The first respondent University invited applications for appointment to the post of Lecturer (Hindi), as per Ext.Pl notification dated 3.2.2003. The qualifications prescribed for the post were the following:Good academic record with at least 55% marks or an equivalent grade at Master's Degree level in the relevant subject from an Indian University or an equivalent Degree from a foreign University.xxxxxxNote 1. Candidates, besides fulfilling the above qualification should have cleared the eligibility test for Lecturer ship conducted by the UGC, CSIR or similar tests accredited by the UGCHowever, the candidates who have completed M. Phil. Degree by 31st December, 1993 or have submitted Ph.D. thesi...

Somasekharan Nair Vs. Divakaran Pillai

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLJ1022

ORDERS.S. Satheesachandran, J.1. Revision petitioner is the returned candidate elected from Ward No. II of Kulakkada Grama Panchayat in the general election held on 24.9.2005. His election was impeached by the 1st respondent, one among the candidates who contested the election. Respondents 2 to 4 were the other candidates who contested the election from that Ward. Petitioner had secured 667 votes, and his nearest rival, the 1st respondent (petitioner in the election petition), got only 267 votes. Election of the petitioner as the returned candidate was challenged by the 1st respondent filing an election petition as O.P.(Ele.). No. 10 of 2005 on the ground that he was a defaulter in respect of a loan due to the bank and revenue recovery proceedings were pending against him when he submitted his nomination to contest in the election. His election was also challenged on the ground that he was the Convener of a Beneficiary Committee formed in Kulakkada Grama Panchayat, which was selected a...

N.G.Gopalakrishnan. Vs. the Chief Conservator of Forests.

Court: Kerala

1. The petitioner had offered to the third respondent Temple two elephants by way of Nadayirithu. One of them was by name "Nandilath Gopalakrishnan", but in the meanwhile, the said Gopalakrishnan expired due to natural causes, on 8.1.2006, before completing the dedication ceremony. 2. The present writ petition relates to the claim of the petitioner for legal custody of the tusks of the deceased elephant. By Ext.P7, his claim was rejected by the first respondent and accordingly the second respondent has been directed to take custody of the tusk of the deceased elephant. The Devaswom had also claimed the ownership of the tusks. 3. Going by Ext.P7, the stand taken is that the elephant was gifted to the Paramekavu Devaswom as per the gift deed dated 23.12.2005, the Devaswom had already declared the possession of the said elephant after complying with all the legal formalities provided under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. Therefore, the petitioner has no right over the animal from 23....

Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd., Repd. by Manager Vs. T.M. Reg ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/KSFE in OP:102/2000 in the file of CDRF, Wayanadu. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and also to provide the other benefits and also to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as cost. 2. The case of the complainant is that he was a subscriber of chitty No:7/99 with a sala of Rs.2.lakhs with 40 instalments of Rs.5000/- each. He had given a proxy to the appellants authorizing to bid the chitty with up to a deduction of Rs.60,000/- ie 30%. He was in direct need of money. Whenever he approached the opposite parties he was told that they could not bid successfully in favour of the complainant. In September 1999 he intimated the opposite party that he no longer required the amount and instructed to cancel the proxy. On 28/1/2000 when he went to enquire about the balance amount in his sugama account, one of the staff asked him to execute the cancellation of his proxy in writing, representing t...

New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. P.K .Rappai

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The matter relates to the alleged illegality in cancelling the policy which was issued on 16/7/1998 for a period of 10 years. 2. The respondent/complainant is absent. 3. At the time of hearing it was submitted by the counsel for the appellant that there is no claim with respect to the above policy. 4. We find that the policy period is already over. Hence the matter is infrectuous. The appeal is closed accordingly....

Lekhakumari D/O. Sethu Amma Vs. State of Kerala and

Court: Kerala

ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J.1. The appellant claimant seeks review of our judgment on the ground that in several other cases such as LAA. Nos. 1498 of 2007, 651 of 2009, 757 of 2009 and 23 of 2009 this court had re-fixed the value of the lands identical to the land under acquisition, i.e., the lands included in category 8 and acquired for the purpose of International Airport, Trivandrum at Rs. 1 lakh per Are. Smt. Latha T.Thankappan, Senior Govt. Pleader does not dispute the correctness of the above submission. But she submits that the decision taken in subsequent judgments cannot be good ground for reviewing earlier judgment. Technically the submission of the learned Govt. Pleader is correct. But we keep in mind the legislative objectives underlying provisions such as Section 28-A and are inclined to award the same compensation to the review petitioner. Hence the RP is allowed and revised judgment is passed re-fixing the value of the land under acquisition at Rs. 1 lakh per Are. The par...

Ahammed Thayil Vs. V. Badrilakshmi

Court: Kerala

ORDERPius C. Kuriakose. J.1. The tenant challenges in this revision under Section 20 the orders of eviction concurrently passed against him by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority on the grounds of arrears of rent and bona fide need for own occupation. The allegation in the Rent Control Petition regarding arrears of rent was that, as demanded in the statutory demand notice, the rent is in arrears from 2000 onwards. The above allegation was disputed by the Revision petitioner. The need projected in the context of ground under Section 11(3) was that the building is needed bona fide for occupation of Smt. Lakshmi Priya daughter in law of the landlady who is a graduate in Computer Science so that she can conduct computer related businesses in the building.2. The bona fides of the need and the claim were very stiffly disputed by the revision petitioner through the statement of objection filed by him. It was contended that the defacto claimant, the daughter in law of the landla...

Subair @ Subeer Vs. Detective Inspector, Cbcid and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLJ787

ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. This application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed by Subair alias Subeer, accused No. 3 in Crime No. 73 of 2007, CBCID, Kozhikode. The crime was originally registered as Crime No. 279 of 2005 of Kasaba Police Station, Kozhikode. Later, the case was transferred to CB CID in the year 2007.2. The offences alleged against the accused persons (Mohammad Rafeeq, Shafeeq and Subair) are under Sections 4 and 20 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and Sections 3 and 6 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933.3. The Crime was registered on the basis of an intimation sent by the A.D.E.T. (Vigilance Telecom Monitoring), Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications and IT., Chennai to the Sub Inspector of Police, Kasaba Police Station, Kozhikode. The allegation made in the petition was that an illegal telecom set up at M/s. Smart Tech, Faura Complex, Mavoor Road, Calicut was being misused for illegal operations for receiving int...