Kerala Court April 2010 Judgments

The Kerala State Electricity Board, Vydyuthi Bhavanam, Pattom, Tvpm, R ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/KSEB in CC:190/07 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam and are under orders to issue fresh bills of energy consumption. Bills from 18/1/2007 stands cancelled. The appellants are also under direction to install a fault free meter. The appellants are also under orders to pay Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he started receiving exorbitant bills from 18/1/2007. He informed them the opposite parties that the meter is faulty and requested to replace the same. The opposite parties did not replace the meter and continued to issue excess bills. 3. On the other hand, the opposite parties/appellants have contended that the meter was tested by the opposite party and that the same was found to be without any defects. It was also contended that average bimonthly consumption for the previous period used to be 810 units. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof aff...

S. Devan, Cine Artist Vs. C. Krishna Menon and State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

ORDERR. Basant, J.1. i) Does a cheque cease to be a cheque merely because the drawer raises a dispute about the execution of the cheque and the genuineness of the signature in the cheque?ii) Does it cease to be a cheque when a banker constrained to dishonour the cheque of a valued customer instead of returning it with the endorsement that there is no sufficient funds includes the reason that the signature differs?iii) Is an obliging banker making such an endorsement to be reckoned as the final arbiter of culpability in a prosecution for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.iv) Does not the court have jurisdictional competence in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to ascertain the real reason for the dishonour of the cheque notwithstanding the purported reasons stated by the Banker?v) Does the decision in Thomas Varghese v. P. Jerome 1992 Cri.L.J. 380 require or warrant reconsideration?vi) Is there a conflict between the decision...

Sheela Vs. Kamco Employees Union

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT435

ORDERK. Surendra Mohan, J.1. This is a tenant's revision filed challenging concurrent orders of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court, Aluva and the Rent Control Appellate Authority, North Paravur. The respondent-landlord is the KAMCO Employees Union, represented by its General Secretary. The Rent Control Court ordered eviction under Section 11(3), 11(7) and 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. On appeal, the Appellate Authority rejected the ground under Section 11(3) and confined the order of eviction to the grounds under Section 11(8) and 11(7) of the Act.2. The respondent-landlord filed R.C.P. No. 15 of 2004 of the Rent Control Court, Aluva seeking an order of eviction against the tenant under Section 11(3), 11(7) and 11(8) of the Act. According to the petitioner, the tenanted premises having an area of 750 sq.ft. was initially let out to the husband of the revision petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 2,300/- for the purpose of conducting hotel busin...

Thattil Kochuvareed Educational and ors. Vs. Yamuna Raghavan W/O. Late ...

Court: Kerala

ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J.1. The landlord/Thattil Kochuvareed Educational and Charitable Trust is in revision. The landlord sought to evict the respondents who are conducting a textile shop in the petition schedule premises which is situated on the Municipal Office road on the ground of bona fide need for own occupation. Statement of objections was filed by the respondents resisting the landlord's claim. Through the statement of objections, the bona fides of the need and the claim projected was disputed and it was contended that the tenants are entitled to the protection of second proviso to Sub-section 3 of Section 11. Various other contentions including a contention that the RCP is not maintainable was raised. But importantly, no specific contention to the effect that the title of the landlord is denied was raised. However, once the Rent Control Petition was special listed by the Rent Control Court for trial, an interlocutory application was filed by the tenant requesting that the qu...

Hari Kumar M. Vs. the Kerala Public Service Commission,

Court: Kerala

S. Siri Jagan, J.1. Certain percentage of vacancies of UPSA in the General Education Department of the Government of Kerala are reserved to be filled up from among Clerks/Typists/Attenders/Peons of the Education Department. The Public Service Commission invited applications from ministerial staff from the Education Department for selection to the vacancies of UPSA in the reserved category. The petitioner applied. The petitioner's application was rejected on the ground that he does not possess the required number of years of service in the Education Department. The petitioner challenges the rejection of his application as well as the condition in Ext. P6 notification inviting applications of 5 years' service as Clerk/Typist/Attender/Peon prescribed as a qualification for appointment in the Education Department as on the date of application. The petitioner contends that the petitioner was originally recruited pursuant to a notification inviting applications for appointment to various dep...

S. Devan, Cine Artist Vs. C. Krishna Menon 'Sowparnika' and State of K ...

Court: Kerala

ORDERR. Basant, J.1. i) Does a cheque cease to be a cheque merely because the drawer raises a dispute about the execution of the cheque and the genuineness of the signature in the cheque?ii) Does it cease to be a cheque when a banker constrained to dishonour the cheque of a valued customer instead of returning it with the endorsement that there is no sufficient funds includes the reason that the signature differs?iii) Is an obliging banker making such an endorsement to be reckoned as the final arbiter of culpability in a prosecution for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.iv) Does not the court have jurisdictional competence in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to ascertain the real reason for the dishonour of the cheque notwithstanding the purported reasons stated by the Banker?v) Does the decision in Thomas Varghese v. P. Jerome 1992 Cri.L.J. 380 require or warrant reconsideration?vi) Is there a conflict between the decision...

Johnson V. Francis S/O. Francis Vs. the Executive Engineer,

Court: Kerala

P.N. Ravindran, J.1. The petitioner is a contractor engaged by the Kerala Water Authority for the execution of maintenance works in the Kerala Water Authority Quarters at Koovappadom in Ernakulam district. The grievance voiced by the petitioner is that though Ext.P2 final bill was submitted, till date payment has not been effected. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay the sum of Rs. 6,58,045/- with interest at 18% per annum.2. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 28.11.2009 wherein it is stated that the petitioner was bound to execute 37 items of work, that he has executed only 29 items and that final bill in respect of the 29 items has been check-measured and a decision taken to pay the amount subject to the condition that the petitioner shall complete the remaining works also as undertaken by him. It is also stated that the Kerala Water Authority will pay the bill amount to the petitioner if the petitioner accepts the m...

Ernakulam Karayogam Vs. T.D.M. Hall Consumer Co-operataive and

Court: Kerala

C.K. Abdul Rehim, J.1. Petitioner is the landlord/petitioner in a Rent Control Petition filed against the respondents seeking eviction under Section 11(7) of Act 2 of 1965. The Rent Control Petition was filed along with four other cases, seeking identical reliefs with respect to other tenants in the same building. Those four cases were numbered as RCP Nos. 80/97, 81/97, 82/97 & 83/97 and the number of the Rent Control Petition concerned with this Writ Petition is RCP.234/97. All the cases were jointly tried and disposed of by a common order dt.29/01/03. The Rent Control Petitions were dismissed. The landlord filed appeals in all the five cases. The Appellate Authority, by a common judgment dt.14/09/09, allowed all the appeals and ordered eviction. But in the operative portion of the appellate judgment, wherein the number of the cases before the Rent Control Court is mentioned, instead of RCP No. 234/97 mistakenly it is noted as RCP.84/97. The petitioner submitted application for correc...

George Vs. George

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLJ692

Thomas P. Joseph, J.1. The substantial questions of law framed for a decision are:i. On a true construction of Ext.B2, was not the suit property and other items included in Annexures I to III thereof thrown into the firm by the retiring partners with an intention to henceforth treat the same as property of the partnership as newly constituted and in view of Section 14 of the Indian Partnership Act (for short, 'the Act') is the said document compulsorily registerable under the Indian Registration Act (for short, 'the Registration Act')?ii. Is not a mere intention to treat individual properties as partnership properties sufficient to treat such properties as having been transferred to the partnership firm and is it legally necessary to execute any formal conveyance?iii. Are not the covenants in Ext.B2 to execute conveyances, powers of attorney or to subscribe signatures by the retiring partners at some future point of time as and when called upon to do so by the continuing partners by wa...

State of Kerala Vs. P.P. Ravi

Court: Kerala

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The respondents in the Writ Petition are the appellants. The respondent herein was the writ petitioner. He was the licensee of toddy shops in group No. III of Adimali Excise Range. Crime No. 32/2008 has been registered against him by the Excise Range Officer, Adimali, under Section 57(a) of the Abkari Act. Though the challenge against the prosecution was repelled by this Court, it is common ground that the prosecution in that case has been stayed by the Apex Court. Therefore, the respondent moved for a certificate under Rule 5(1)(a) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules (for short, 'the Rules'). The certificate was granted. He was also granted allotment of those shops, for the financial year 2010-2011. It is common ground that he has deposited the entire amount in accordance with the rule, within the time limit specified. But, the Commissioner of Excise did not pass any orders, confirming the said allotment, under Rule 5(15) of the Rules. Feeling aggrieve...