Kerala Court January 2011 Judgments

Kunjumol C.immanuvel Vs. Shibu.S.N.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2011(1)Ker226

1. The prayer in this O.P. filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the mother of the tenant against whom a final order of eviction has been passed by the authorities under the Rent Control Act is to defer E.P. No.503/04 in RCP No.2/03 for a period of four months on the petitioner giving an undertaking that the building will be surrendered within four months. 2. According to the petitioner, her son, the tenant is abroad and is not in a position to approach this Court directly. We do not think that any case is made out for invocation of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 which is visitorial in nature and will be invoked only in exceptional circumstances. We decline jurisdiction and dismiss the O.P. in limine. ...

Shibi.M.V. Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2011(1)Ker8

1. This Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge rejecting appellant's claim for appointment to the post of Clerk in the 4th respondent Bank in the 50% quota reserved for employees of member societies under Rule 187 of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Rules. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the PSC and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent Bank. 3. The appellant, while working as Secretary of a member Society of the 4th respondent Bank, applied for the post of Clerk in the quota reserved for employees of member societies in the 4th respondent Bank. The PSC, being the selection agency, invited applications for the post, and the last date for submission of applications was 24/05/2006. As on the date of submitting the application, the appellant had 9 years' service as Secretary of a member Society of the 4th respondent...

State of Kerala Vs. M/S. Southern Fisheries Corporation

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2011(1)Ker974

1. The question raised in the Writ Appeal is covered by the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Padmanabhan v. State of Kerala reported in 2009(1) KLT 295, where the learned Single Judge followed another Single Bench judgment to hold that covered terrace area does not become part of the plinth area of a building for assessment. Even though learned Government Pleader submitted that the building in this case is a commercial building whereas the case decided by this Court in the above referred judgment pertains to residential building, we do not think there is any difference between residential and commercial buildings for the purpose of assessment of building tax, which is on the plinth area of building. 2. We endorse the view expressed by the learned Single Judge in the judgment in Padmanabhan v. State of Kerala reported in 2009(1) KLT 295 and declare that unless the roof terrace is enclosed, the same cannot be treated as plinth area for assessment. In other words, mere covering of ...

Akbar Ali Vs. U.Narayanankutty

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2011(1)Ker877

1. The short point that arises for consideration in these seven Rent Control Revisions is whether the order for joint trial and the consequent order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller u/s.11(3) of Act 2/65 which was confirmed in appeal by the learned Appellate Authority suffer from the vice of illegality, irregularity or impropriety warranting invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under S. 20 of the Act. 2. Eight Rent Control Petitions were filed by the same landlord against different tenants inter alia raising the common ground for eviction under S.11(3) of the Act. All the petition R.C.R.3/2011 and connected cases schedule rooms form part of the ground floor of a larger building. The common ground urged by the landlord is that he requires all the petition schedule buildings/rooms for the purpose of conducting a departmental store. It was averred that in order to conduct a departmental store, necessary modifications and alternations will be effected by...

United India Insurance Company Ltd., Neyyatinkara Branch Vs. Shalu and ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the 1st opposite party/insurance company in CC.143/07 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The appellants are under orders to pay the assured sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant with interest at 12% from the date of the order till realization. 2. The case of the complainants who are the wife and children of the deceased Pavithran is that he met with an accident on 25/9/2005 while fishing as hit on the side of the country boat. Since then he is an inpatient at first at the local hospital and thereafter as referred to the higher centre at Lissie Hospital, Ernakulam and during treatment he died on 13/10/2005 due to pulmonary embolism and consequent cardiac arrest. The deceased was covered by the group insurance policy of the 1st opposite party. The claim was rejected contending that it is only a natural death. 3. The 1st opposite party/appellant has contended that the deceased had a history of diabetes, hyper tension and renal pr...

Valliyoth Karunan Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2011(1)Ker524

1. The revision petitioner stands convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- in default of which, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two years, he having been found guilty of an offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Such conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court is confirmed in appeal. Hence this revision. 2. The allegation against the accused is that at about 7:45 p.m. on 18.11.1995, he raped the victim, aged about 28 years then. The scene of occurrence is alleged to be the lane near a public road. The prosecution version is that, the victim, a maid servant in the house of PW4 was returning from a Temple; that she came to the shop of PW5 and enquired about the availability of bus and then went in the auto rickshaw of the accused, leading to her being raped by the accused. The accused then accompanied the victim to the residence of PW4, where the victim entered a toilet whi...

P.K.Sasi Vs. Murukan Achari

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2011(1)Ker3

1. The respondent instituted O.S.No.349 of 2004, Munsiff's Court, Thodupuzha against the petitioner and his wife for damages for malicious prosecution. The suit was decreed for a sum of ` 50,000/- and the decree was confirmed in appeal. 2. The respondent levied execution. He prayed for realising the decree amount by arrest and detention of the petitioner, by attachment of his salary and if the amount is not realised by the same, by attachment and sale of the immovable property belonging to the petitioner. 3. As a first step, the decree holder prayed for attaching the salary of the petitioner. The decree holder contended that the attachable portion of the salary is ` 4,025/- per month. The petitioner herein contended that the attachable portion is ` 3,450/- per month. The court below held that the attachable portion of the salary is ` 3,546/-, by the order impugned in this Writ Petition. 4. An interim stay was granted in the Writ Petition on 26.11.2009 on condition of deposit of ` 10,00...

Manager, White Planet, Global Electronics Village Vs. T.G.Gopalakrishn ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the 1st opposite party/dealer in CC.59/2010 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.2150/- as excess amount levied and also to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- and cost of Rs.500/- with interest at 12% per annum. 2. It is the case of the complainant that excess amount was levied for the 410 litre Deluxe Professional Finish Refrigerator purchased from the opposite party. According to him a sum of Rs.4700/- was collected in excess and that he was delivered the Fridge misrepresenting that it is Elite brand Sixth Sense model. 3. The opposite parties have disputed the contentions and has stated that the retail price of 410 litre Deluxe Professional Finish Refrigerator was Rs.33,206/- and only Rs.33,200/- was collected. The commodity was delivered on 27/7/2009. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, Exts.A1 to A6. 5. It is mentioned in the order that after filing version, ...

Sudhakaran Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2011(1)Ker890

1. This petition is in challenge of Annexure-A1, order dated February 9, 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Aluva refusing permission to the petitioner to go abroad. Petitioner is accused of offences punishable under Sections 419, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12(1) (b)(d) of the Indian Passports Act, allegation being that he tried to go abroad on 29.05.2009 at about 2.30 p.m. making use of forged passports which were issued to one Sivan. It is the case of the Investigating Agency that three such passports were seized from the possession of petitioner, all issued to the said Sivan . At a stage when investigation was not complete, petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.178 of 2010 seeking permission to go abroad in connection with employment. That petition was opposed by the Investigating Agency on the ground that investigation of the case is not completed. Learned Magistrate observed that if petitioner went abroad, he might not return and make avai...