Kerala Court April 2010 Judgments

Bhagyalakshmy Vs. R.T.A.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT431

K. Surendra Mohan, J.1. The petitioner's late husband Sri. T.M. Ramankutty was the owner of two stage carriage vehicles, one bearing Reg. No. KL-9/H 9440 conducting services on the route Malayadivaram-S.K. Puram and the other bearing Reg. No. KL-9/K 1015 conducting services on the route Elavancherry-Palakkad. The permit holder expired on 6.12.2009. According to the petitioner, intimation regarding the death of her husband was given on 14.1.2010, within 30 days of death of the permit holder. Subsequently on 3.3.2010, the petitioner herself intimated the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority that she had succeeded to the possession of the vehicles.2. Thereafter the petitioner has submitted requests for transfer of the vehicles to her name producing all the necessary documents as required by Rule 56 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. Her complaint is that the respondent has not entertained the requests for transfer on the ground that Legal Heirship Certificate has not been produced by...

E.S. Sony S/O. Shanmughan Vs. the Excise Commissioner and ors.

Court: Kerala

Antony Dominic, J.1. Petitioner seeks a declaration that the sale of toddy shop Nos. 19 to 24 in group No. IV of Erattupetta Excise Range, made in favour of respondents 4 to 6, by taking lot on 19.3.2010 is illegal. Consequential relief's are also sought for.2. According to the petitioner, he and respondents 4 to 6 were the joint licensees in the previous year. But however, this year they applied for allotment of toddy shops separately. Since there are rival claims, lot was taken and in that process, the shops were allotted to respondents 4 to 6.3. Petitioner submits that the offer made by respondents 4 to 6 were not in compliance with the Rules governing the same for various reasons and that he was the only claimant, who satisfied all the statutory requirements for allotment of toddy shops on a preferential basis. It is stated that therefore there was no necessity to adopt the lot system and that the shops ought to have been allotted to the petitioner.4. Essentially therefore what the...

V.G. Rajilal and Vs. the State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

M.L. Joseph Francis, J.1. This Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed with the following prayer:to set aside the order dated 19.3.2010 of the Family Court, Malappuram returning Ext.P1 filed by the petitioners under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act for non-production of Marriage Certificate and direct the Family Court to receive Ext.P1 on file and consider the same on merits.2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. The petitioners belong to Thiyya Community and professing Hindu Religion. The marriage of the petitioners were solemnized on 31.10.2008 as per the customs prevalent among members of Thiyya community of Hindu Religion. The petitioners have decided to dissolve their marriage mutually under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. Accordingly, the petitioners submitted a petition dated 16.3.2010 before the Family Court, Malappuram for divorce on mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. Along with the said ...

Dr.A.P.Philip Kerala Vs. Tata Motors Ltd. Kerala

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

Admittedly A1 prescription was in the letter pad of Sreenivas Medical Hall, Mangalore. The appellant/opposite party in his written version has categorically contended that the said letter pad in the name of Sreenivas Medical Hall Mangalore was not issued by him and that he has no contact with the said Sreenivas Medical Hall, Mangalore in such a situation it was incompetent upon the respondent/complainant to establish his case that the said prescription written on the letter pad of Sreenivas Medical Hall, Mangalore was supplied to the appellant/opposite party. But there is no evidence available on record to show such a letter pad was issued by Sreenivas Medical Hall, Mangalore to the opposite party Balakrishnan. It is also to be noted that the opposite party has categorically contended that the said letter pad is a concocted one. In such an event it was the bounden duty of the complainant to establish the whereabouts of the said letter pad in the name of Sreenivas Medical Hall, Mangalor...

P. Devaraj, Forest Contractor Vs. Chathu, Timber Merchan and ors.

Court: Kerala

K.M. Joseph, J.1. Petitioner has approached this Court alleging harassment by the respondents, in the matter of civil dispute between the petitioner and respondents 1 to 4, pursuant to Exts.P1 to Ext.P3 (a) and P3(b).2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:Petitioner has supplied timber logs to respondents 1 to 4. Petitioner has not yet received the entire amount due from them. There is an arrear of Rs. 7,38,737/-. It is stated that the first respondent is having the sole responsibility to make the payment of arrears. It is also submitted that respondents 2 and 3 are duty bound to send C Forms to the petitioner for the timber logs received by them from the petitioner. There is reference to Exts.P1 and P2 lawyer notices. While so, it is stated that the petitioner received phone calls and there is harassment by the fifth respondent, Sub Inspector of Police. A Counter Affidavits filed by respondents 1 and 3 to which a Reply Affidavit also is filed.3. We heard the learned ...

Kerala Forest Development Corporation Vs. Labour Court and

Court: Kerala

S. Siri Jagan, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the management in I.D. No. 139/95 before the Labour Court, Kollam. Challenging Ext.P4 award passed by the Labour Court in that I.D. the issues referred for adjudication were:1. Justifiability of the action of management in having suspended Sri Chacko Kurian w.e.f. 4.7.1994.2. Reimbursement of Sri Chacko Kurian in supervision post.3. Legality of the action of Management in having dismissed Sri Chacko Kurian during the period of conciliation.2. It appears that before dismissing the workman no enquiry was conducted. But relying on some other enquiry conducted in respect of some other misconduct the management wanted to sustain the punishment. The Labour Court found that in respect of the particular charge for which the workman was punished there was no enquiry at all, not even a show cause notice. Labour Court further found that at the time of dismissal of the workman involved an industrial dispute was pending in respect of a claim of the...

T. Kaisudeen S/O. Muhammed Yusuff Vs. the State of Kerala,

Court: Kerala

Antony Dominic, J.1. Writ Petition No. 34036/09 is filed by the Varkala Municipality. The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P9 order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, in RP. No. 67/09 filed by the first respondent herein, who is the petitioner in WP (c). No. 192/2010.2. Facts pleaded in WP (c). No. 34036/09 are that the Municipality issued Ext.P1 permit dated 22.8.2005, for the construction of a commercial building. Although, construction was started on the basis of the building permit granted, according to the Municipality they cancelled the building permit at a subsequent stage and thereafter they issued Ext.P3 permit dated 29.7.2007. According to the first respondent, cancellation of Ext.P1 was not communicated to him and on the basis of Ext.P1 he completed construction of the building. Thereafter he applied for assigning building number which was rejected by the Municipality by Ext.P7 order. Appeal filed to the Municipal Council also was rej...

Madhavan Vs. Sub Registrar

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLJ674

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The Federal Bank, a secured creditor in terms of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, hereinafter, the 'SARFAESI Act', exercised its rights under that Act as regards a secured debt, through its authorised officer, and the secured asset was sold to the petitioner and certificate of sale issued to him in terms of Rule 9(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, for short, the 'Enforcement Rules'. Is duty in the form of surcharge payable on that certificate of sale under Section 270 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, hereinafter, the 'Municipality Act' and the Kerala Municipality (Assessment of Duty on Transfer of Property) Rules, 2003, for short, the 'Duty Rules'?Rival contentions2. Petitioner, the holder of the certificate of sale, contends that a conjoint reading of Section 270(1)(ii) of the Municipality Act and the Duty Rules would show that a certificate of sale does...

A.K. Gopalan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by Secretary and CochIn Por ...

Court: Kerala

P.N. Ravindran, J.1. The appellant in this writ appeal is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 37917 of 2007 and the respondents are the respondents therein. By judgment delivered on 21.5.2009, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Though the appellant filed R.P. No. 625 of 2009 seeking a review of the judgment dismissing the writ petition, the review petition was dismissed by order passed on 8.7.2009. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has preferred this writ appeal. The brief facts of the case are as follows:2. The appellant retired from service while he was working as Deputy Wharf Superintendent in the Cochin Port Trust on 30.6.1985, on attaining the age of superannuation. At that point of time, he was drawing a basic pay of Rs. 1,529/-. He was also paid various other allowances and his aggregate pay was Rs. 1990/-. After retirement, by Ext.P2 order dated 29.6.1985, the appellant was sanctioned superannuation pension of Rs. 737/- per mensem with effect from 1.7.1985 and Death...

The Divisional Manager Vs. the Labour Court of Quilon and

Court: Kerala

S. Siri Jagan, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the management in I.D. No. 2/1995 before the Labour Court, Kollam. The issue referred for adjudication was as follows:Legality or otherwise of the denial of employment to Sri. Sivalinga Velu, worker by the Management of Kerala Forest Development Corporation.2. From a reading of the Award, it is seen that the workman involved in the Industrial Dispute was convicted by a criminal court to undergo three months' imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,500/-. Therefore the workman did not attend duties for sometime. His wife appears to have filed a leave application for the said period. But when the workman reported for duty, he was not allowed to work, which resulted in the Industrial Dispute and the Award. The Labour Court found that the criminal case related to some family dispute totally unconnected with his employment and therefore could not have been a ground for denial of employment. Therefore the Labour Court directed the management to rei...