Kerala Court May 2010 Judgments

Wilson S/O. C.O. Varghese Vs. Deepa W/O. Wilson and the Family Court, ...

Court: Kerala

R. Basant, J.1. The petitioner herein was respondent No. 1 in O.P. No. 1332/2003 on the file of Family Court, Ernakulam. Exhibit P1 is the final order passed therein. Exhibit P1 directs the petitioner to pay certain amounts to his wife. It is directed therein that if the amount is not paid on or before 3.5.2006, the wife is entitled to recover custody of the child. That order has become final without challenge, admittedly. It is also seen that the said order was passed in pursuance of a provisional settlement. The child was handed over to the custody of the petitioner, on the basis of such provisional settlement, it is further indicated in Exhibit P1.2. The amount due under Exhibit P1 has admittedly not been paid so far. In these circumstances, the wife has filed Exhibit P2 application (I.A. No. 971/2008) for return of custody of the child in terms of Exhibit P1 order. That application was opposed and Exhibit P3 counter affidavit has been filed. It is at this juncture that the petition...

State of Kerala and the Executive Engineer, K.S.T.P. Division Vs. M. A ...

Court: Kerala

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.1. The strenuous submissions of Smt. R. Bindu, the learned Government Pleader notwithstanding, we are not inclined to admit this appeal. The acquisition was of 0.40 Ares of land (which was completely built up) together with the building standing thereon. The purpose of the acquisition was for construction of Ponkunnam-Thodupuzha State Highway. The claimant/respondent claimed enhancement in value of the land as well as on the value of the building. For the building the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded an amount of Rs. 7,50,063/- on the basis of Ext.R4 valuation report prepared by the Public Works Department. For substantiating the claim for enhanced building value, the appellant relied on Exts.A1(a), A1(b), A1(c) and A1(d) Commission Report. Exts.A1 to A1(d) were proved by examining AW2 Advocate Commissioner and AW3 Engineer who prepared the Valuation Report. As per the valuation report prepared by AW3 the correct value of the building is Rs. 16,17,978/-. The co...

M.P. Akash Radhakrishnan Vs. G. Simitha

Court: Kerala

R. Basant, J.1. The petitioner is the husband of the first respondent and father of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 is the minor child. The wife has filed an application for divorce. That matter is pending before the Family Court from 2008. The wife filed an application for litigation expenses and maintenance pendente lite. She claimed that she is impecunious and has no income of her own. Her husband, the petitioner is employed abroad and earns an income of Rs. 50,000/- per mensem, she asserted. The application was resisted. Husband denied the allegations about his means and the want of means on the part of the claimant- wife. No evidence was produced before the court below. On the materials available in the case, the court below proceeded to pass the impugned interim order directing payment of an amount of Rs. 7500/- as litigation expenses and an amount of Rs. 6,000/- per mensem as maintenance.2. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. He prays that the extra o...

T.H.Noushad. Vs. State of KeralA.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker896

1. This petition is for bail. 2. According to prosecution, petitioner (A6) along with the other accused formed into an unlawful assembly and committed various offences against the defacto complainant and his companion. They also kidnapped the defacto complainant to a Sandalwood factory. An iron rod was used for committing the offence. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was arrested on 29.4.2010 and he is in custody since then. It is submitted that when the second accused attempted to beat the defacto complainant with an iron rod, he obstructed and the hit did not fall on the head. No injury was caused to him. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that a counter case is also registered as Crime No.433/10, against the defacto complainant and others for the same offences. Taking into consideration the stage of investigation and the period of detention, he has no objection in granting bail on stringent conditions. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that ...

The Proprietor, Pentron Infosystems Vs. Mohammedali Kolambil

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in CC:231/09 in the file of CDRF, Malappuram. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- and cost of Rs.1000/-, The matter was adjudged exparte. It is the case of the appellant that he was laid up and hence he could not contact the lawyer. We find that the order is not a considered one. In the circumstances the order of the Forum is setaside on condition that the appellant/opposite party pay a sum of Rs.8000/- towards cost to the complainant or deposit the same before the Forum, which can be withdrawn by the complainant. The matter is remitted back to the Forum for fresh disposal after affording opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence. The matter stands posted for the Forum on 25/6/2010. The office is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Forum urgently....

The Trivandrum Golf Club and ors. Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

S.S. Satheesachandran, J.1. The appeal is filed by the plaintiff in a suit for declaration that an order passed by the Government cancelling the licence agreement between the plaintiff and the Government is illegal, violative of the terms of the agreement and principles of natural justice, and hence null and void and unenforceable.2. Plaintiff is a club namely 'Trivandrum Golf Club' represented by its Secretary. The defendants in the suit are the Government and some public officials, with two of them sued in their individual capacity. In the suit, over and above seeking a decree of declaration as indicated above, the plaintiff has also asked for a decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from evicting the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property and interfering with or obstructing the plaintiff and its members from enjoying such property during the period specified under the licence agreement. An application for interim injunction identical to the perpet...

Union of India (Uoi), Vs. P. Balarajan, Retired Technician

Court: Kerala

P.S. Gopinathan, J.1. Assailing Ext.P3 common order dated 25.4.2007 in OA. No. 639/2006 and OA. No. 697/2005 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, these writ petitions were filed by the common respondents before the Tribunal. The respondent in WP(C). No. 34627/2007 is the applicant in OA. No. 639/2006. The respondent in the other writ petition is the applicant in OA. No. 697/2005. Since facts and disputes are almost identical and the orders assailed is common, these writ petitions are disposed by this common judgment.2. The respondents in both cases entered the Railway service under the 3rd petitioner as casual labourers. They were subsequently given temporary status and thereafter regularised in Group-D. They were then transferred to Bridge Organization and promoted as a Khalasi Helpers. While so, the respondent in WP(C). No. 34627/07 was promoted as Technician Gr.II on 12.2.2004 by Annexure-A4 order produced before the Tribunal. Both respondents were tr...

Ashokan, Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.2. The wife of the Ist petitioner had a property having an extent of 19.5 cents in Sy. No. B10C/4-131 of Mundakkal Village, Kollam District. The office of the District Superintendent of Police is situated on the southern side of the said property. The first petitioner's wife wanted to put up a residential apartment in the said property. For the said purpose she applied for a building permission before the Corporation of Kollam. As per Annexure -3 order dated 8-2-2008 the Corporation granted permission to the first petitioner's wife to put up a building in her property. Since the branches of a vaka tree standing in the property of the District Superintendent of Police, were overhanging the above property, she had sought permission to cut and remove the branches of the tree without which it was not possible for her to put up the building in the property. Annexure 4 is the application fil...

Deepesh Kumar Vs. Shyama

Court: Kerala

R. Basant, J.1. This writ petition is directed against an interim order passed by the Family Court in an application for interim custody of a minor child.2. The writ petitioner was the petitioner before the court below and the respondent is his wife, the mother of the child. The child is aged 3 years and is a female child. The mother keeps the custody of the child now and the father had filed the O.P for custody of the child. Pending disposal of the O.P, interim custody of the minor child was sought. The court below, by the impugned order, did not accept the prayer of the petitioner/father for interim custody of the child; but the court below took note of the submission that the father of the appellant is seriously ill and hence permitted the appellant to have custody of the child from 11 a.m. till 5 p.m. on a specified date. The other requests were turned down.3. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is his grievance? The learned Counsel for the petitioner ...

Gincy M. Chelappuzhayil W/O. Denny George Vs. the State of Kerala and ...

Court: Kerala

C.T. Ravikumar, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as Lower Primary School Assistant in S.N.M.V.H.S School, Vannappuram, Thodupuzha in anticipation of new post, from 5.6.2006. However, the said appointment was rejected by the 4th respondent as per Ext.P1 dated 1.1.2007. The contention of the petitioner is that age wise he is senior to the 6th respondent and therefore, he should have been appointed against the regular vacancy in place of the 6th respondent. Instead of appointing the petitioner against the regular vacancy, the 6th respondent was appointed against the regular vacancy and the petitioner was appointed against the anticipated vacancy and, evidently, both the appointments were made with effect from 5.6.2006. It is the said irregular action in the matter of appointment that culminated in non-approval of the petitioner's appointment, it is contented. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P1 the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent and the same was dismissed as per Ext...