Kerala Court April 2010 Judgments

Pannivizha Service Co-operative Bank Vs. M.K. Radhamani

Court: Kerala

P.N. Ravindran, J.1. The petitioner-bank is a co-operative society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The Managing Committee of the petitioner-bank adopted a resolution on 29.9.2009 whereby it was resolved to request the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Pathanamthitta to re-classify the bank as a Class I Special Grade bank with effect from 1.4.2008. By Annexure A1 judgment delivered on 12.1.2010 in W.P.(C) No. 868 of 2020, this Court directed the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies to consider the request made by the petitioner-bank in Ext.P7 representation and to take a decision thereon after affording the Secretary of the petitioner-bank a reasonable opportunity of being heard. This Court also directed that while taking a decision in the matter, Ext.P10 order passed by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies shall be taken into account and that orders on Ext.P7 should be passed within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of...

Brihaspathi Vs. Ramadasan

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT425

ORDERC.K. Abdul Rehim, J.1. The revision petitioner and the 2nd respondent herein are tenants of the schedule building which was sought to be evicted in R.C.P. No. 107/05 on the files of the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode. The 1st respondent herein is the landlord. The parties are referred hereinafter as landlords and tenants.2. The Rent Control Petition was filed under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act for short) seeking eviction on the ground that the petition schedule building is required for expansion of the Automobile Workshop conducted by the landlord, by starting an industry in the premises for performing industrial works connected with repairs of vehicles. The tenants resisted the petition inter alia contending that the lease deed executed is for a period of 15 years and that the landlord is not entitled to seek eviction unless and until the period of lease is over. The need projected was also disputed as not genuine. According to th...

Ravindran Pulikkaparambil Vs. State of Kerala,

Court: Kerala

S. Siri Jagan, J.1. The petitioner is working as a Peon in a Government U.P. School. He claims to be qualified to be promoted as HSA (Physical Science). As per the Special Rules applicable, 10% of the vacancies are reserved to be filled up by appointment by transfer from ministerial staff of the Education Department. The petitioner seeks a direction to the Public Service Commission to issue a notification for selection to the vacancies earmarked for appointment by transfer from qualified ministerial staff in Education Department. The petitioner's request in this regard met with Ext. P9 rejection from the Public Service Commission. The petitioner challenges Ext. P9.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel for the Public Service Commission.3. As is clear from Ext. P9, on 30-4-2008, a notification has already been issued by the Public Service Commission inviting applications for selection to the post of HSA from open merit candidates a...

T.K. Bhaskaran Vs. Parakkandy Thaha

Court: Kerala

ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J.1. Under challenge in these revision petitions filed by two tenants in possession of two rooms in a larger building belonging to the respondent Sri Thaha is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority remanding the rent control petitions to the Rent Control Court. Eviction was sought on the ground of reconstruction under Section 11(4)(iv). The Rent Control Court dismissed the rent control petition on various reasons. The Appellate Authority made a thorough reappraisal of the evidence and formulated the following points as points arising for decision in the appeal1. Whether the landlord bonafide requires re- construction of the petition schedule building?2. Whether the landlord has satisfied the court that he has the ability to rebuild the building as proposed by him?3. Whether IA. Nos. 1562/07, 909/08 and 1608/09 are allowable?4. Whether the order of the Rent Control Court requires interference?5. Whether the landlord is entitled to eviction under Sec...

Enarc Consultants Vs. the General Manager

Court: Kerala

ORDERAntony Dominic, J.1. By Annexure A1 order, the 1st respondent appointed the applicant herein as its consultant for the construction of the Sahakarana Sathabdi Mandiram at Kovilakathumpadam in Thrissur District.2. Annexure A1 details the respective obligations of the parties. Clause 5 thereof provided that the applicant shall be paid a fee calculated at the rate of 3% of the total cost of the project. Clause 8 provided for resolution of disputes, if any, between the parties by arbitration.3. According to the applicant, in terms of Annexuare A1, they discharged their obligations including the preparation of the revised project cost, which was around Rs. 9 crores. It is stated that the construction was completed and the contractor's final bills were also recommended. Their complaint is that despite having done all works and the expiry of defect liability period, their fee was not fully paid.4. By Annexure A2 letter dated 02/07/2007 issued to the 1st respondent, the applicant claimed ...

J. Saraswathy Amm Vs. N. Sreedharan Nair and ors.

Court: Kerala

P.N. Ravindran, J.1. The appellant is the 8th respondent in O.P. No. 18798 of 1995. The first respondent is the petitioner and respondents 2 to 9 are respondents 1 to 7 and 9 respectively therein. By judgment delivered on 22.7.2002, in N. Sreedharan Nair v. State of Kerala 2002 (3) KLT 307, the learned single Judge allowed the original petition. The 8th respondent in the original petition has, aggrieved thereby, filed this writ appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the original petition. The brief facts of the case are as follows:2. A parcel of land, 91 cents in extent, comprised of 15 cents in Survey No. 1026, 34 cents in Survey No. 1342 and 42 cents in Survey No. 1421 of Ulloor Village, Trivandrum Taluk, was outstanding in the occupation of Viruthicars who were obliged to perform Oozhiyam services in Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple, Trivandrum and Sree Balasubramanya-swamy Temple, Ulloor. The lands described above were in the occupation o...

The Manager, St. Michael, S. College, Vs. the University of Kerala,

Court: Kerala

S. Siri Jagan, J.1. The 1st petitioner is the manager of an aided college and the petitioners 2 & 3 are Lecturers appointed by the 1st petitioner in his college. Their grievance in this writ petition is that although there is sufficient workload in the Commerce Department of the college, to accommodate the petitioners 2 & 3, the 1st respondent University is not approving the appointments made, on the ground that the course sanctioned for teaching which the petitioners 2 & 3 were appointed, was sanctioned with the condition that the expenditure thereof shall not exceed the budget allotment. According to the petitioners, the validity of such condition have been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Arun George 2009 (4) KLT 972 and this court has held that such conditions are unsustainable. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs:i) declare that B.Com degree course sanctioned vide Exhibits P1 and P1 (a) in St. Michael's College, Cherthalai an Aide...

Syndicate Bank Vs. Mohammed

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT563

P. Bhavadasan, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 219 of 1989, who suffered a decree at the hands of the first Appellate Court is the appellant. The parties and facts are hereinafter referred to as they were available before the Trial Court.2. The plaintiff alleged that he had pledged gold ornaments of five sovereigns on 11.11.1981 with the defendant Bank and borrowed a sum of Rs. 2500/- on the security of those gold ornaments. The plaintiff paid Rs. 1918.70 on 8.4.1985 towards the loan amount. The Bank issued a notice dated 4.2.1986 to the plaintiff recalling the loan and informing him that if he failed to discharge the debt, the ornaments would be sold in auction on 27.2.1986. The plaintiff claimed to have paid Rs. 500/- in response to the notice and thereafter he expressed his willingness to discharge the balance amount. But the gold ornaments were not returned to him. A notice was issued by the plaintiff, which caused the defendant to send a reply containing false allegations. The defe...

Nhattialputhiyapurayil Ahammedkutty Vs. Chulliyodan Pattuvamvalappil U ...

Court: Kerala

ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J.1. The tenant is in revision. He challenges the orders of eviction concurrently passed against him by the statutory authorities on the ground of arrears of rent and bona fide need for own occupation. As for the order of eviction passed on the ground of arrears of rent, we are of the view that since there is no dispute regarding the contract rent and the revision petitioner/tenant did not adduce any evidence to substantiate his plea of discharge and since the order of eviction is a tentative one which is liable to be vacated by making requisite deposits under Section 11(2)(c), in revision, we need not interfere with the above order.2. As for the order of eviction passed under Section 11(3), the need projected in the RCP by the landlords was that the building is required bona fide for the occupation of the fifth petitioner in the RCP namely the fifth respondent herein so that he can conduct a stationery shop therein. Disputing the bona fides of the claim, it was...

Alfred C.S. Vs. CochIn University of Science and Registrar, CochIn Uni ...

Court: Kerala

S. Siri Jagan, J.1. The petitioner entered service of the Cochin University of Science and Technology as an Aquarium Assistant on 23.07.1984 in the scale of pay of Rs. 640-1000/-. Later on the post of Aquarium Assistant was accepted as one in the Technical Cadre, as a result of which the petitioner was inducted into the nearest scale of pay in the technical cadre, which was Rs. 675-1,125/-. Subsequently by Ext.P1 order a ratio promotion was given to all categories of employees on completion of minimum five years in the lower grade. Consequently the petitioner was given the scale of pay of Rs.780-1,320/- on completion of 5 years. Thereafter a new higher grade promotion scheme was introduced by Ext.P3 as per which every employee is entitled to higher grades on completion of 7, 15, 20 and 25 years of service. In respect of technical cadre staff, the higher grade was introduced as given in Clause 6 thereof which reads thus:6) The existing nine scales of pay recommended for Technical cadre ...