Kerala Court October 2011 Judgments

Smt. R Lekshmi, S T Reddiar and Sons, Mullackal, Alappuzha Vs. Lithaid ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBERThis Revision Petition is filed by the complainant/ Decree Holder in CC No. 497/08 before the CDRF, Alappuzha. The order dated : 26/8/10 in IA No. 115/10, in EA No. 64/02 in CC No. 497/08 is under challenge by the Revision Petitioner who has approached this Commission stating that the Forum below has exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the opposite party/Judgment Debtor to give a new computer of any of the new branded computers such as Sony, Dell or H.P for a value in between Rs.60,000/- and Rs.80,000/-. 2. The main contention raised by the Revision Petitioner is that the Forum below cannot go beyond the directions contained in the original Order. It is submitted that in the original order, there was a direction to the opposite party to repair and make the computer defect free and hand over the same to the complainant within 2 months and to pay a cost of Rs. 5,00/. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted that though attempts ...

Appu S/O. Chellappan Vs. Surendra Swami

Court: Kerala

The questions raised for a decision in this proceeding are whether, as in the case of an order as provided under Rule 6(1)(a) of Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”) that the suit be heard exparte the executing court is required to pass an order that the application be heard exparte on the judgment debtor not appearing in spite of service of notice and whether the period of limitation prescribed under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 106 of Order XXI of the Code is to be reckoned from the date on which judgment debtor is declared absent or, the executing court passes order on any application, in the execution proceeding in the absence of the judgment debtor? 2. A resume of the facts necessary for the decision of the questions are: Respondent obtained an exparte decree for recovery of money from the petitioner in O.S.No.47 of 2000 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Neyyattinkara and in the year, 2001 he launched execution against petitioner by filing E.P.No.9 ...

The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Ernakulam Vs. M.K. Moidu, Chennamanga ...

Court: Kerala

Balakrishnan, J. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the direction made by the Tribunal to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation, on the appellants’ failure to deposit the compensation with interest at 9% within three months from the date of the award is penal in nature and if so whether it is illegal and unsustainable. 2. The learned Tribunal directed that the appellant should deposit the amount determined as compensation with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The learned Tribunal further directed that if the amount is not deposited within a period of three months from the date of the award, the amount of compensation awarded will carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that there is nothing illegal in the direction so issued by the lear...

M. Abdul Aziz and Another Vs. the Circle Inspector of Police and Other ...

Court: Kerala

An important question arises in these two cases. Since common question is involved, both these cases are heard and disposed of together. 2. The petitioner in Criminal M.C.2715/2011 is an accused against whom the allegation made is that on 04/02/2005 at 06.30 P.M., he rode the motor cycle bearing No.KL7-AG5750 on a public road in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and hit a child aged 3 years. The child later succumbed to those injuries. Hence, the charge sheet was laid against the accused alleging offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A IPC. 3. The learned Magistrate found that the victim in this case is a child and as such the case is to be tried by the Children’s Court and therefore the case was committed to the Children’s Court (Principal Sessions Court, Ernakulam). The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offence alleged against the petitioner is not to be tried by Children’s Court since no violation of child right is i...

St. Peterand#8217;s Orthodox Syrian Church, Puthencruz, Represented by ...

Court: Kerala

V. RAMKUMAR, J. 1. The appellants in this first appeal are the plaintiffs in the suit, O.S.No.162 of 1977 on the file of the Church Court (I Addl. District Court, Ernakulam). The said suit was one filed by the Catholicos (Orthodox) faction of the Syrian Christians for a declaration that all religious worship and administration of the assets of the 1st plaintiff-plaint schedule church (St. Peters Orthodox Syrian Church, Puthencruz, together with the church building and cemetery comprised in Survey Nos. 390/3, 392/1/78, 392/1/77/2, 382/3B and 392/1/77 in Pannikuzhi Kara, Chemmanad Village, Kunnathunad Taluk) are to be carried on under the authority of the Catholicos and in accordance with the constitution of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and for a perpetual injunction restraining defendants 2 to 11, members of the Jacobite (patriarch) faction of Syrian Christians from interfering with the religious worship or administration of the plaint schedule church or from obstructing the 2nd pla...

Keerthi B. Nair D/O. Indira Amma Vs. Rolland Andrade, S/O. Richard And ...

Court: Kerala

The question urged for a decision in this proceeding is whether invoking sub sec.(3) of Sec.23 r/w Sec.22 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”) it is within the power of a High Court to transfer a case pending in a Court subordinate to it to a Court subordinate to another High Court to a Court subordinate to it? Placing reliance on the decision in Jency Vs. Biju Thomas (2005 (4) KLT 766) learned counsel for petitioner contends that it is permissible. 2. A resume of the facts of the case required to decide the question are: Petitioner/wife filed O.P.No.952 of 2011 for restitution of conjugal rights and M.C.No.269 of 2011 seeking maintenance from the respondent/husband in the Family Court, Nedumangad. Respondent filed O.P.No.770 of 2011 for restitution of conjugal rights in the Family Court at L.B. Nagar, R.R. District, Andhra Pradesh which is subordinate to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Petitioner states that she received notice on 17.08.2011 in O.P.No.7...

Hemanth Kumar and Others Vs. Sub Inspector of Police and Another

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(4)KLJ296; 2011(4)ILR(Ker)261; 2011(4)KLT288; 2011(4)KHC89; 2012CrLJ1297

This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 4 in Crime No.478 of 2011 of Kunnamangalam Police Station, Kozhikode District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Section 143, 147 and 452 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. 3. The prosecution case is the following: On 12.8.2011, the accused forcibly entered into the Government Vocational Higher Secondary School, Chathamangalam in connection with a political strike by one of the students’ unions and the accused destroyed the furniture, computer etc. belonging to the School, thereby causing a loss of Rs.23,000/- to the State. The petitioners are not students of the Government Vocational Higher Secondary School, Chathamangalam, but they are outsiders. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that though they are outsiders, they are also stud...

C.K. Sarojini, Kannur Dist Vs. State of Kerala Rep. by Principal Secre ...

Court: Kerala

1. The audit objection leading to refixation of pay of the petitioner is under challenge in this writ petition. Even though the petitioner approached the Government in the matter, the view taken by the Government as per Ext.P9 order is adverse to the pleas raised by the petitioner. 2. We are concerned with the benefit of weightage granted as per G.O.(P).No.145/2006/Fin, dated 25/03/2006 (2004 pay revision order). The pay and allowances of Government employees and teachers were revised with effect from 01/07/2004as per the said Government Order. Annexure-2 to the said order contains the Rules for fixation of pay in the revised scale. Rule 5(1) provides for Service Weightage. The petitioner opted to come over to the revised scale with effect from 01/07/2004 and her pay was fixed at Rs.8,990/- from the said date in the scale of pay of Rs.8390-13270/-. While fixing her pay, she was granted three increments as service weightage for 13 years of service of which nine years was a part-time tea...

P.G. Ajimol, Lecturer (Sel. Grade) Vs. University of Kerala Rep by Its ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(4)KLJ410; 2011(4)KLT111(C.No.123)(SN); 2011(4)KHC366

Aggrieved by Ext.P1 decision of the University rejecting the plea for relaxation of two years on account of acquisition of Ph.D for promotion/placement as Selection Grade Lecturer, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in N.S.S. Training College, Pandalam with effect from 07.12.1995. The said appointment has been approved. The petitioner was placed as Lecturer (Senior Scale) with effect from 07.12.2001. She acquired Ph.D on 13.10.2005. By granting relaxation for two years on account of acquisition of Ph.D, the Management placed the petitioner into the Selection Grade with effect from 13.10.2005. The proposal was forwarded to the University for approval. Ext.P1 communication is thus issued by the University rejecting the proposal, which is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the University and the learned Government Pleader. 4. Lea...

The Manager,The Centurian Bank of Punjab Ltd(Hdfc Bank)thodupuzha Bran ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBERThe order dated: 30.9.09 of CDRF, Idukki in CC No. 5/09 is being challenged in this appeal by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties. By the impugned order they are under directions to issue the loan Termination letter, Spare Key, Original Registration Certificate and other documents of the vehicle along with compensation of Rs. 3,000/- and cost of Rs.2,000/- within 30 days of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which 12% interest per annum is also liable to be paid by the opposite parties. 2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he has purchased a motor bike from the 3rd opposite party for a sum of Rs. 45,600/- by availing a loan from the 1st and 2nd opposite parties. As per the agreement the complainant was liable to pay the installments at the rate of Rs. 1,700/- and it is his case that though he had paid the entire amount, the opposite parties denied the issuance of the Termination letter, the spare key and other connected papers. ...