Kerala Court April 2010 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Kuttappan, Vs. the Chief Secretary and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-05-2010
Antony Dominic, J.1. Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P2. A direction to the respondents not to enter the petitioners' property without formal notice is also sought.2. According to the petitioner's, without giving notices, survey stones have been planted deep inside their properties. It is stated that this has been done mala fide by the 3rd respondent. Further contention is that although only 5 meters property alone is required to be acquired for widening railway lines, survey stones have been planted 25 meters inside the property.3. A reading of Ext.P1 shows that it is a notification issued by the respondents under Section 6 of the Kerala Surveys and Boundaries Act 1960. As per this section, where survey is ordered for the purpose or in connection with the acquisition of any land, notification under Section 6(1) has to be published in the gazette or in two daily newspapers, which in the opinion of the Survey Officer have vide circulation in the locality where the land pr...
Chembankunnel Ambadi @ Kumaran Vs. the State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-05-2010
ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. In this revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the sole accused in S.C. No. 878 of 2004 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge, Hosdurg challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for an offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act.2. The case of the prosecution is that at about 7.10 p.m. on 20-12-2001 the accused then aged 66 years was found in possession of 2 litres of arrack in a jerry can having a capacity of 2 litres with a glass templer meant for sale at a place called Manikayam in Malom village of Kasaragod District and the accused has thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act.3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against him by the trial court for the aforementioned offence, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 7 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 7 and got...
James Abraham Vs. Prasanth S/O. Sasi,
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-05-2010
C.K. Abdul Rehim, J.1. The first respondent before the Tribunal, who is the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, is challenging the award of the Tribunal in this appeal. The first respondent/claimant sustained injuries in a motor accident which occurred at 4.30 p.m. on 26/12/04. The claim petition was filed with the averments that the accident occurred when he was travelling in the vehicle (jeep) driven by the second respondent therein and that he was thrown out of the vehicle due to rash and negligent driving of the second respondent. On consideration of evidence adduced, the Tribunal found that the first respondent/claimant is entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,68,230/-. The said amount was ordered to be paid along with 7.5% interest per annum and Rs. 5,000/- as cost. The first appellant herein was directed to make payment of the amount finding that the third respondent, insurer of the vehicle is not liable, because the policy in question will not cover compe...
State of Kerala and the Chief Engineer Vs. M. Hamzakoya, First Grade D ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-05-2010
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The respondents in the Writ Petition are the appellants. The respondent herein was the writ petitioner.2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The respondent joined the Department of Irrigation, as Draftsman Grade I, on 5.10.1996, pursuant to the advice of the Public Service Commission dated 30.8.1996. As per the Pay Revision Order issued on 25.11.1998, based on the 7th Pay Commission report, the employees like the respondent were entitled to get Higher Grades, on completion of 10 years' service, 18 years' service and 23 years' service, as provided therein. Going by the said Government Order, he would have got the first Higher Grade on 5.10.2006. While so, the Government issued Pay Revision Order dated 25.3.2006, based on the report of the 8th Pay Commission. The salary of the employees were revised notionally, with effect from 1.7.2004, as per that order. But, the actual arrears were payable only from 1.4.2005. As per the said Government Order, the...
State of Kerala Rep. by the Secretary, Vs. P.K. Sujastha W/O. C.K. Kun ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-05-2010
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. Respondents in the writ petition are the appellants. The writ petitioners are the respondents herein. They approached this Court seeking appointment to the post of Anganwadi workers in Peringome Vayakara Grama Panchayat on the strength of Ext.P3 select list prepared for appointment in that Panchayat. They are respectively rank Nos. 7 and 9. Respondents in the writ petition, who are the appellants herein, resisted the prayers in the writ petition relying on Exts.P4 and P5 Government order dated 11.10.2006 and 13.10.2006 providing for regularisation of existing Anganwadi workers who have a minimum of six months' service. But, the learned single Judge repelled the said contention and ordered to appoint the respondents/writ petitioners in preference to the beneficiaries of Exts.P4 and P5. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, the respondents in the writ petition have come up in appeal.2. It is common ground that first respondent has already been appointed. The ...
Krishnankutty P.T., S/O. Thankappan Vs. Auto Credits and Investments a ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-05-2010
ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. In this Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who was the accused in C.C. No. 587/2007 on the file of the J.F.C.M. Muvattupuzha challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The cheque amount was Rs. 34,400/-. The compensation ordered by the lower appellate court is Rs. 40,000/-.2. I heard the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.3. The learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner re-iterated the contentions in support of the Revision.4. The courts below have concurrently held that the cheque in question was drawn by the petitioner in favour of the complainant, that the complainant had validly complied with Clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act. and that the Revision Petitioner/accused failed to ma...
N.Surendran. Vs. the Conservator of Forests.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-05-2010
1. The petitioner is a Forester working in the Social Forestry Division, Palakkad. The contention of the petitioner is that he is a direct recruit to the Malappuram district and he has already completed more than five years in Palakkad district. As per Ext.P1, he had submitted an application for transfer to Malappuram district. However, disregarding his genuine request, he has been given a posting in Palakkad district itself. At the same time, persons, who are having more than five years' stay in Malappuram district, are being permitted to continue in Malappuram district itself. That apart, according to the petitioner, one Kasu, who is Sl.No.47 in Ext.P2, has approached this Court raising grievances against his transfer and posting to Malappuram district by filing W.P(C) No.11435/2010. The said writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the said petitioner to file representation before the competent authority and in turn, the said competent authority was directed to consider and pas...
The Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Collectorate, Kottayam-1 and Another Vs ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-05-2010
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are the 1st and 3rd opposite parties/Executive Engineer, PWD and the District Collector. The appellants are under orders to issue NLC to the petitioner and also to pay compensation of Rs.1090/- and Rs.2500/- towards cost in CC:19/07 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. 2. It is the case of the complainant that she has not been issued NLC on the ground that the previous occupant of the NGO Quarters is liable to remit certain amounts towards the water charges. The complainant and her husband were in occupation of the quarters for about 14 years. It is subsequent to that and on her retirement that she has sought for NLC. The same is denied on the ground that the liability of the previous occupant towards the water authority ought to have been settled by her on her occupation. The complainant has also a case that she paid a sum of Rs.2,115/- for getting the water connection reinstated at the time of the occupation of the quarters. The Foru...
M.K.George, S/O Kuriakode Vs. the Branch Manager, New India Assurance ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-05-2010
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant/New India Assurance Company Ltd in CC:108/08 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad. 2. The case of the complainant is that the tipper lorry owned by him and covered by the insurance policy issued by the opposite party met with an accident on 11/11/2007. The claim was repudiated on the ground of alleged policy violation. 3. It is pointed out that the surveyor has only assessed the damages at Rs.1,08,030/-. It is further alleged that there is clear policy violation as there were extra passengers in the tipper lorry which was permitted to carry only 3 persons. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, PW2, OPW1 to OPW3, Exts.A1 to A9 and B1 to B9. 5. The Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that policy condition No:37-A has been violated as the carrying of 9 persons amounted to violating the permit conditions. The appellant/complainant has relied on the decision of the National Commission in New India...