Kerala Court May 2010 Judgments

K.M. Mohammed S/O ZainuddIn Abbas Vs. the Executive Engineer

Court: Kerala

C.K. Abdul Rehim, J.1. LAA. 1577/08 is filed by the claimant challenging award of the Reference Court in LAR. 97/95, seeking enhancement of the compensation, whereas LAA. 223/09 is filed by the State against the very same award contending that the amount awarded by the Reference Court is excessive. The acquisition pertains to 3 cents of property along with a commercial building, which is a hotel with lodging house, and two small residential buildings. The property is situated in Kumbla town in Kasaragod district. The acquisition was for widening of National Highway, by virtue of notification under Section 4(1) published on 13/02/90. The dispute in both these appeals mainly pertains to the valuation of the building re-fixed by the Reference Court.2. Mr. T. Sethumadhavan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants, raised arguments mainly contending that the Reference Court went highly erred in not accepting Ext.X1 Commission Report in which valuation was done with assistance...

Shylaja Vs. Sujith and ors.

Court: Kerala

ORDER04.12.20071. This writ of habeas corpus is filed praying for a direction to the respondents to produce the body of the petitioner's daughter by name Queency before this court and to set her at liberty. 2. The petitioner is the mother who is a Lower Division Clerk working in the Office of the R.D.O., Alappuzha. Petitioner has got two children, of which elder is the son and the alleged detenue is the daughter. The alleged detenue Queency was undergoing her studies in the St.Joseph's College for Women, Alappuzha. The petitioner and her daughter were staying in a Working Women's Hostel and she was attending the College as a day-scholar. It is alleged that the alleged detenue was missing on 22.10.2007. Information is said to have received from respondents 1 to 3 that the petitioner's daughter was with them. It is for releasing her that the present petition is filed. 3. The alleged detenue Queency was produced before us by the 5th respondent. We interacted with her as also the petitione...

Shamsudeen.T.E. Vs. Conservator of Forests.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker146

1. The petitioner is a Forest Range Officer. It is stated by Ext.P1 dated 25.9.2009 that he was transferred from Mullaringad to Thattekkadu, which are closely situated stations. Subsequently, by Ext.P2 dated 13.5.2010, the petitioner is transferred and posted to Kozhikode, which is under challenge. 2. Having regard to the close proximity of the place to which he was posted that there is no substance of the claim of the petitioner that he has already suffered a transfer and hence could not have been transferred by Ext.P2. In any case, the post is a transferable post and no malafidies are made out. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition. Writ Petition is therefore dismissed. 3. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P2 it will be open to the petitioner to seek its modification by filing an appropriate application before the competent authority, in which event; the same will be dealt with, in accordance with law, without any delay....

K. Prabhakaran Vs. V.K. Rajan

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The application is filed for condonation of delay of 480 days in the affidavit filed in support of the application. 2. It is mentioned that he shifted his place of work from Kannur to Thiruvananthapuram during the pendency of the case filed by him as OS.No.369/05 before Munsiff Court, Kannur. According to him the Advocate who was entrusted with the case in the Munsiff Court did not inform him about the present case. It is also mentioned that he was laid up due to chicken guinea and that he is under treatment at AyurvedaHospital. 3. We find that no sufficient reason as such is mentioned in the affidavit to condone the inordinate delay of 480 days. It is not even mentioned as to which hospital he was under treatment. No medical record in this regard has been produced. If he has shifted his place of work he has to make necessary arrangements to redirect the postal articles in his subsequent address. The ground mentioned that the Advocate who appeared for h...

Kerala Transport Company, Reptd. by Its Zonal Manager Vs. KuttiyammA.Y ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR, MEMBER By the order dated 27.2.07 in OP.154/03 the CDRF, Pathanamthitta has directed the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.40,950/- to the complainant with 12% interest from the date of the complaint till the date of the order and thereafter @ 6% per annum till the date of payment with compensation of Rs.15,000/- and cost of Rs.1500/-. The opposite parties are jointly and severely held liable for the payment. It is aggrieved by the said directions that the present appeal is filed by the first opposite party calling for the interference of this Commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the forum below. 2. The complainants case is that she had entrusted 39 numbers of domestic items with the opposite parties for transportation to her house at Thiruvalla on 18.5.03 by paying an amount of Rs.19,000/-.She has submitted before the forum that the articles were entrusted with the opposite parties consequent to her retirement from service from SKMM ...

The Assistant Engineer, K.S.E.B, Electrical Section, Kuruppanthara and ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

COMMON JUDGMENT SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The above appeals are preferred by the opposite parties in OPs 531/2001 and 615/2001 before the CDRF Kottayam, who are under directions to cancel Ext.A5 bill for Rs. 83,640/- in OP No. 531/2001 and Ext.A6 bill for Rs. 28,975/- in OP No. 615/2001. The opposite parties are also under directions to issue revised bills for consumption under Clause 31(c) of the conditions of supply for the periods included in the respective OPs and also to pay costs of Rs. 500/- to the complainant in the respective cases. 2.OP 531/2001 was filed by the respondent/complainant on the ground that the bill for Rs. 83,640/- which was marked as Ext.A5 was issued to him consequent to the filing of a complaint by the complainant before the Forum as OP No. 376/2001. The complainant has alleged that it was to wreak vengeance for filing a complaint that the opposite parties have issued the impugned bill dated 28-09-2001. It is his further case that there was no reaso...

Mundavalappil Muraleedharan Vs. Kizhakkumbrath Ibrahim Haji

Court: Kerala

ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J.1. Under challenge in this revision filed under Section 12 of Act 2/1965 by the tenant is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority stopping all further proceedings in the Rent Control Appeal and directing the tenant to surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule building to the landlord in compliance of the directions already passed by the Appellate Authority in I.A No. 199/2009. The above I.A was filed by a landlord invoking Section 12 alleging that even during the pendency of the rent control appeal, the tenant had not chosen to discharge the rent which fell due subsequent to the institution of the RCP. The Rent Control Appeal itself was directed against the summary order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under Sub-section (3) of Section 12. In this revision, the tenant impugnes the judgment of the Appellate Authority on various grounds. Mr. K.P. Sarvothaman, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, addressed us extensivel...

In Re: Snehasagar Charitable Trust

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLJ1037

P. Bhavadasan, J.1. The prayer made in this Writ Petition is that permission be granted to the first petitioner Trust to sell an item of property for raising funds for construction of buildings.2. The first petitioner is a charitable trust. Petitioners 2 to 11 are the trustees of the trust. The trust was constituted with the object of providing care and shelter to aged persons. An extent of 29.40 cents of property in Sy. No. 105/2 in Kuruvattoor Amsom Payimbra Desom in Kozhikode Taluk was purchased by the trust for the purpose of constructing a building to run the old age home. The vendor of that property, attracted by the object of the trust, gifted a further extent of 5 cents adjoining to the 29.40 cents. This combined block of 34.4 cents is situate on the bank of a river and is very suitable and appropriate for running an old age home. But construction could not be started due to paucity of funds.3. It appears that another well wisher of the trust namely, one Pokkanchery Swamikutty ...

Haseena Mansoor Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLJ981

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Note 1(i)(a) under Rule 118 in Part III of Kerala Service Rules, for short, the 'K.S.R.', provides that the share of DCRG due to minor children should be paid to the surviving parent except when the surviving parent happens to he a Muslim lady and that where there is no surviving parent or if the surviving parent is a Muslim lady, the payment be made to the person producing the guardianship certificate. The petitioner challenges this provision. Consequential directions are also sought for.2. T.K. Mansoor, an employee of Kerala State Electricity Board, died leaving behind his wife and their two minor children. K.S.R. applies to K.S.E.B. employees. Relying on the impugned rule, the share of Death cum Retirement Gratuity due to Mansoor's minor children was not paid to their surviving parent, the petitioner, only on the ground that she happens to be a Muslim lady. Hence, this Writ Petition.3. Mansoor's children, having since attained majority, have been pa...

Arjun Krishna K. S/O. T.K. Jayaraj Vs. S. Snisha D/O. Sarada Sasi

Court: Kerala

R. Basant, J.1. The petitioner is the husband and the respondent herein is the wife. The petitioner had filed an application for divorce and by Ext.P1 order dated 08/04/2009 in O.P.(HMA) No. 788/08, an ex parte decree for divorce was passed. The respondent herein filed an application to set aside the ex parte order after condoning the delay in filing the same. Those applications are pending before the Family Court as I.A. Nos. 1971 and 1972 of 2009. During the pendency of that petition, the respondent filed an application for interim injunction to restrain the petitioner herein from committing breach of marital obligation or contract a second marriage during pendency of that petition. That petition was allowed vide Ext.P9 order and the challenge in this writ petition is against the said order.2. When this petition came up for final hearing today, there is an agreement between learned Counsel that the impugned order can be maintained and direction can be issued to the Family Court to di...