Kerala Court April 2010 Judgments

State of Kerala Vs. Mujeeb and ors.

Court: Kerala

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The respondents 1 to 3 in the Writ Petition have filed this Writ Appeal, challenging the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition on 30.03.2010, which reads as follows:There would be an interim order directing respondents 1 to 3 to see that the transfer certificates issued by the 5th respondent for the students of Std.VII in the 4th respondent's school are accepted and honoured for admission to all Government and aided schools in the State of Kerala.The above order is passed on a prayer for interim relief to stay Ext.P5 and also to direct the 3rd respondent Headmaster (5th respondent in the Writ Petition) to issue transfer certificates to the students of Std.VII of Vivekodayam aided Lower Primary School, Karakuthangadi, Muthuthala P.O., Pattambi.2. The 1st respondent/writ petitioner is the President of Parent-Teachers Association of the aforementioned school. The Manager, anticipating sanction of upgradation of his school, on the ...

Manikantan @ Biju S/O. Sasidharan Nair Vs. the State of Kerala,

Court: Kerala

R. Basant, J.1. The petitioner herein challenges an order of preventive detention which, he apprehends, has already been passed and is about to be executed against him under Section 3 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KAAPA').2. According to the petitioner, there are four cases registered against him, the details of which are shown below:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sl. F.I.R. No./ Date of C.C. No./ Sections Nature of offenceNo. Date/Rank Incident Court-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 54/07 23.02.07 339/07 4(1)A r/w 21(1) 4 persons were seen illegally 23.02.07 JFMC-I, - the Mines Act loading river sand into a Lorry and they fled. The 2nd accused Varkala driver was arrested and revealed that it was for the petitioner and that the Lorry is his.1 A1 to A5 named in FIR. 127/07 625/07 4(1)A r/w 21(1) 4 persons were found 08...

Dr. N. Prasanatha Kumar Vs. Sree Sankaracharya University,

Court: Kerala

S. Siri Jagan, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the 1st respondent University in completing the process of selection for appointment to the post of Registrar of University which is lying vacant. He is also aggrieved by the fact that a person who has already completed the age of 55 years has been put in charge of the post of the Registrar, although the age of retirement of Registrar is 55 years.2. As far as the 1st grievance of the petitioner is concerned the standing counsel for the University submits that the University would require 8 months time to complete the process for selecting and appointing a qualified person to the post of Registrar of the University. As far as the 2nd contention is concerned, they would contend that although the 3rd respondent is past 55 years of age, he is a regular employee of the University, who is statutorily entitled to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years. He has only been put in charge of the Registra...

Secretary, Kseb, Vydhudhi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram and Other ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/KSEB in CC:146/06 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The bill issued by the opposite parties for a sum of Rs.27,057/- stands cancelled. The opposite parties are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as cost. 2. The case of the complainant is that in the first bill issued to him after getting electric connection the amount noted is Rs.27,057/-. The bill is dated:15/7/2006. According to the complainant he occupied the newly constructed house only in June 2006. The subsequent bill issued on 15/8/2006. It is only for the sum of Rs.1180/-. According to him the initial reading of the meter is wrongly noted as 14. According to him it should have been a figure in between 4500 and 5000. Hence the complaint. 3. According to the opposite parties, the initial reading was 14 in the meter on 25/5/2006and the subsequent reading on 5/7/2006 was 4904. They have denied the allegation that the initial reading was wrongly noted. ...

The Manager, Sakthi Automobiles, Thana Road, Kannur and Others Vs. Kri ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

M.V. VISWANATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellants were the opposite parties 1 to 3 and the respondent was the complainant in OP.295/97 on the file of CDRF, Kannur. The complaint in the said OP.295/97 was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in their failure to replace the defective chassis of the vehicle which was purchased by the complainant from the opposite parties. The complainant has also claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 600/- per day from 20.6.97 on the ground that he suffered financial loss. The complainant has also alleged manufacturing defect in the chassis fitted for the vehicle (Mini Lorry) which he had purchased on 17.3.96 from the opposite parties. 2. At the first instance, the complaint was filed against opposite parties 1 and 2, the dealer and service center of the vehicle manufactured by Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. On the basis of the contentions raised by the opposite parties 1 and 2 in their written version the s...

Regional Distributor, View Sonic Corporation, Reddington India Ltd. Vs ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellant is the 2nd opposite party/distributor in CC:133/08 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad. The appellant and the 1st opposite party/shop keeper are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.10,650/- the price of the LCD monitor and Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost. 2. The case of the complainant is that the LCD monitor purchased by him from the 1st opposite party for a sum of Rs.10,650/- was found to be defective. It was having warranty also. During the warranty period the equipment became defective after repair at the service centre also. As directed by the service centre it was produced before the main service centre at Cochin. After one month he received the same back after repairs. Again it was found to be not in a working condition. According to the complainant he has spent about Rs.4000/- for sending LCD to various service centers and also Rs.1000/- toward telephone charges. 3. The 1st opposite party the shop keeper has filed ver...

The Executive Engineer Vs. the General Secretary and the Industrial Tr ...

Court: Kerala

P.N. Ravindran, J.1. The appellant is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 8106 of 2004. In that writ petition the appellant challenged Ext.P2 award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam in I.D. No. 12 of 1988. By judgment delivered on 2.1.2008, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved thereby this writ appeal is filed. The brief facts of the case are as follows:2. The Neendakara Fishing Harbour constructed by the Harbour Engineering Department of the State Government was commissioned on 28.3.1987. 42 casual workers engaged by the Harbour Engineering Department in the construction of the Neendakara Fishing Harbour as Drivers, Watchmen, Security Personnel, Electricians and Sweepers, raised various claims including confirmation in service. The dispute raised by them was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam for adjudication by the Government as per G.O. (Rt.) No. 1891/88/LBR dated 18.10.1988. The workers contended that they have been working in the Neendakara Fi...

Rajeena George Vs. Lissy Yacob

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT714

ORDERS.S. Satheesachandran, J.1. Concurrent decision rendered by the court below setting aside the election of the revision petitioner, the returned candidate from a Ward in Mazhuvannur Grama Panchayat is challenged in the revision. The revision petitioner and respondents 1 and 4 contested for election as a member from the 15th Ward in the above Panchayat in the general election to the Panchayats held on 24.9.2005. On counting of votes, the revision petitioner and the first respondent got. equal number of votes and the 4th respondent got votes much less than both of them. One ballot paper cast in the polling was found missing in the counting. The Returning Officer conducted lots to determine the elected candidate from the two, the revision petitioner and also the 1st respondent, who had secured equal votes. The lot fell in favour of the revision petitioner and, accordingly, adding one additional vote in her favour, Smt. Rajeena, the revision petitioner was declared elected. Her electio...

Dr. Abdul Rasheed M.H. Vs. Secretary to Government

Court: Kerala

P.N. Ravindran, J.1. The petitioners in these writ petitions challenge their transfer pursuant to the directions issued by the Government in G.O.(Rt.) No. 743/2009/H&FWD.; dated 19.3.2009, a copy of which is produced and marked as Ext.P3 in W.P.(C) No. 10287 of 2009.2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 9266 of 2009 is presently working as Professor and Head of the Department of Thoracic Surgery and the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 10287 of 2009 as Assistant Professor in the said department in Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. By Ext.P3 Government order produced in W.P.(C) No. 10287 of 2009, the Government ordered transfer of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 9266 of 2009 to Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode and the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 10287 of 2009 to Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. When W.P.(C) No. 9266 of 2009 came up for admission on 23.3.2009, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner was transferred on account of an incident which resulted in the de...

Kanakamma Vs. Banerjee Babu

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT523

P. Bhavadasan, J.1. The defendants who suffered a decree for redemption are the appellants. The parties and facts are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the court below.2. Since the solitary question raised is regarding limitation, the facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Second Appeal are being referred to.3. The suit was one for redemption. It is not in dispute that by Annexure A2 document dated 8.2.1958 the property involved in the suit was mortgaged to the predecessor in interest of the defendants. Later a purakkadam deed dated 9.4.1962 was also executed. These facts are not disputed. The suit was laid for redemption. Originally the defendants entered appearance and filed a written statement raising several contentions. The main contention was one pertaining to limitation.4. Before the court below, issues were raised and evidence was adduced. P.W.1 was examined on the side of the plaintiffs and marked Exts. A1 to A3. The defendants had D.Ws. 1 and 2 e...