Kerala Court January 2011 Judgments

Dr.Surbahmaniam Swamy Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2011(1)Ker833

1. These two writ petitions are filed in public interest. The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.35180 of 2009 is a former Minister of the Union of India. 2. W.P.(C).No.35180 of 2009 is filed with the prayers as follows:"a) call for the records leading to the case and issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing Exhibit.P1. b) issue such other appropriate writ, oder or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. c) award costs to the Petitioner". 3. The impugned order-Exhibit P1 is an Order dated 14.10.2009 evidencing a decision taken by the Government of Kerala. The relevant portion reads as follows: "The Islamic Financial Services (IFS) Industry has grown substantially over the years forming a significant segment within global financial services and is generating lot of interest as an alternative model of financial intermediation. Growing awareness and demand for investment and financing in compliance with Shariah ...

Chella Rowthar Vs. Remabhai

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2011(1)Ker975

1. The tenant is in revision. The landlord who retired from CRPF sought eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act contending that he bonafide needs the petition schedule building for starting a stationery business for eking out the livelihood of himself and his family members as he has no other source of income other than the pension he gets. The tenant contended that the need projected is not bonafide. The Rent Control Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties ordered eviction of the revision petitioner under Section 11(3) of the Act. His appeal, RCA No.14/2005 was dismissed. 2. The tenant contends that subsequent to the dismissal of the RCA, the landlord expired and so the need does not survive. According to the revision petitioner the subsequent event ie; the factum of death of the original landlord has to be taken into account and as there is no evidence to show that the need was for family members as well, order of eviction cannot be sustained....

Kalarikkal Hotels Private Ltd Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2011(1)Ker1033

1. The appellant established a three star hotel in the temple town of Guruvayur and applied for a Bar licence, which, according to the appellant, basically is for catering to the needs of the tourists. Under Rule 13(3) of the Foreign Liquor Rules framed under the Abkari Act, Government, in the interest of promotion of tourism in the State, can order the Excise Commissioner to grant FL-3 Hotel (Restaurant) licence to hotels which have star classification above 3. The field officers of the Excise Department starting from the Circle Inspector of police, the Assistant Commissioner of Excise and Deputy Commissioner of Excise and even the Excise Commissioner recommended the issue of bar licence to the appellant as the appellant's hotel is located 350 metres away from the temple, the restriction being within 200 metres from the temple. However, in spite of the favourable reports from subordinate officers and even the Excise Commissioner, the State Government declined approval of grant of lice...

Ansari Kannoth Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2011(1)Ker403

1. Parties hereto and the exhibits are referred as they are  arrayed and exhibited in W.P(C) No.22707 of 2010. 2. Pappinissery Eco Tourism Society (for short, "the  Society"), petitioner in W.P.(C ) No.22707 of 2010 is a Society  registered in March, 2009 under the Travancore-Cochin Literary,  Scientific & Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955. It established  and started operating a Mangrove Theme Park (for short, "the Theme  Park") on the banks of Valapattanam river and its branch in  Pappinissery Village, Pappinissery Panchayat in Kannur District.  Alleging that the Theme Park is situated in Coastal Regulation Zone-I  (for short, "the CRZ-I) classified under the Coastal Regulation Zone  Notification, 1991 (for short, "the CRZ Notification") issued by the  Ministry of Environmental and Forest (for short, "MoEF") as per the  Environmental Protection Act (for short, "the Act") and Environmental Protection Rules (for ...

M/S Idea Cellular Ltd., Vs. P.Paulose

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT Appellants are the opposite parties in CC.503/2008 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation to the complainant. 2. The matter is with respect to the alleged disconnection of the mobile connection of the complainant during the period from 2/12/2008 to 10/12/2008. It is only after lodging a complaint before the police, the connection was reconnected. According to the complainant he had suffered personal losses on account of the disconnection. He had claimed a sum of Rs.1.lakh as compensation. 3. Although the opposite parties had filed version disputing the case that the complainant had informed the case of disconnection to the opposite parties no evidence was adduced. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3. 5. The only contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in General Manager, Teleco...

Kannur District Co-operative Bank Ltd., R/by Its General Manager-in-ch ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT Appellant is the opposite party/Co-operative Bank in CC.259/09 of CDRF, Kannur. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation. 2. It is the case of the complainant that she pledged gold ornaments weighing 46.5 gms with opposite party on 15/7/2008 and a sum of Rs.40,000/- was received as loan amount. It is her case that the complainant was asked to sign in a blank application form which was filled up by the office staff. Later that the address etc of the complainant was taken down by the staff of the bank. Subsequently when she enquired it was told that the ornaments have been sold in auction. She has not received notices allegedly sent. The ornaments were gifted by her father and hence there was sentimental value. 3. The opposite parties have contended that it is after taking down the address of the complainant that the form was signed by the complainant. It is contended that 2 notices were sent in the address given...

Suresh Lal.R. Vs. the Drugs Controller of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2011(1)Ker562

1. The issues raised in these writ petitions are common and, therefore, these cases were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience, W.P.(C) No.33949/2010 is adopted as the leading case. 2. Petitioner is a wholesale dealer in drugs, who has obtained Ext.P1 licence issued under Rule 61 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. The third respondent is a manufacturer of medicines, who, by Exts.P2 and P3, has appointed him as a stockist for Pathanamthitta District. Ext.P4 sale invoices are produced to show that medicines have been supplied in the past. Petitioner states that subsequently, the third respondent discontinued supply of medicines and Ext.P5 request made to continue the supply was not responded. It is stated that complaining of the above, they made Ext.P6 representation to the second respondent. Thereupon, they were directed to move the first respondent. Accordingly, they submitted Exts.P7 and P8 series of complaints to the first respondent. There ...

Biju Xavier Vs. Benedit.K.H.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2011(1)Ker136

1. This appeal is directed against the impugned order passed by the District Court dismissing an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking interim directions for protection of the interest of the appellants - to attach property belonging to the respondent herein.          The relevant portion of the impugned order reads as follows:             "Petitioners and counsel are absent. Counsel for respondent has vehemently requested for dismissal of the petition, as the petitioner did not even take steps to refer the dispute to the Arbitrator. They were also not prepared to appear before the Adalath. Accordingly petition is dismissed with costs." 2. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants happened to be absent under the impression that their counsel shall be appearing before court. The dismissal for default is not justified, i...

Susi Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2011(1)Ker773

1. Is the pendency of security proceedings against a detenu under Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure a relevant circumstance to which mind of the detaining authority must be applied before ordering preventive detention under the Kerala Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KAAPA')? Does the blissful ignorance of the pendency of such proceedings and the total omission/failure on the part of the detaining authority to apply his mind to that aspect vitiate the order of preventive detention? Does the conduct of the sponsoring authority of totally withholding/suppressing such information from the detaining authority vitiate and justify the invalidation of the order of preventive detention? These questions arise for consideration in this writ petition. 2. Fundamental facts are not disputed. The petitioner concededly falls within the definition of known rowdy in Section 2(p) of the KAAPA. The Circle Inspector of Police, Chavara submitted Ex...

Unnikrishnan Vs. Kunhibeevi

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2011(1)Ker785

1. The appellants are defendants 5, 7, 8 and some among the legal representatives of the 6th defendant, in O.S.No.229/93 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Kochi. Respondents 1 to 8 are the legal representatives of the plaintiff viz., P.K.Aboo. 9th respondent is the 1st defendant in the above suit and respondents 10 to 12 are defendants 2 to 4 in the suit. Respondents 10 and 12 passed away during the pendency of the appeal and their legal representatives have been impleaded as respondents 19 to 23 and 24 to 27 respectively. Respondents 13 to 18 are the other legal representatives of the 6th respondent in the suit. 2. The appeal is directed against the decree granted by the court below setting aside the court sale in O.S.No.67/81 of the Principal Sub Court, Kochi, and directing re-delivery of some of the properties covered by that sale, four items described as B schedule in the present suit. 3. Short facts involved in the case necessary for disposal of the appeal can be summed up t...