Kerala Court November 2011 Judgments

P.T. Narayanan Namboodiri and Another Vs. the Commissioner, Malabar De ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(1)ILR(Ker)224; 2012(1)KLJ271; 2012(1)KLT379; 2012(1)KHC52

1. The first petitioner is the President of the Managing Committee of the T.T.K.Devaswom, Kannur. The administration of the devaswom is being carried on in accordance with the provisions of a scheme framed in OP.No.60/1987 of the Sub Court, Payyannur. It is the case of the petitioner that as per clause 10 of Ext.P1 scheme, the Managing Committee is the competent authority to appoint an Executive Officer who is necessary for managing the day to day affairs of the temple. 2. Earlier, one Sri.E.K.Babu was functioning as the executive officer. He had been removed from service on the ground of misconduct. However, he challenged his removal in an appeal, AP.No.11/2008, which is still pending before the Deputy Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board. Thus, a situation was created where the devaswom has no regular Executive Officer. Therefore, one M.P.Kuberan was appointed as the Executive Officer on provisional basis, but he was later removed, since he was over aged. The said person has challeng...

Mahatma Gandhi University Vs. Mar Augusthinose College

Court: Kerala

MANJULA CHELLUR, AG.C.J. 1. The Writ Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge wherein Exhibit P2 admission regulations for under graduate courses framed by the appellant-University was inapplicable to Unaided Colleges. Apparently, the unaided self financing colleges approached the learned Single Judge challenging Exhibit P2 regulations mainly contending that the University has no power to take over the right of admission vested with the unaided private college managements as it would be in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 30 (1) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. It is also not in dispute that the Writ Petition came to be filed within a month from the date of introduction of the order dated 25.4.2011. 2. Admittedly, there was no interim order as such. The learned Single Judge having regard to S.73A of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act (for short, ‘the Act’) after securing information from the Government that no...

Jet Airways (India) Limited Vs. the Labour Court, Kozhikode and Anothe ...

Court: Kerala

K. HARILAL,J 1. The principles of ‘Natural Justice’, its violation causing prejudice and civil consequences to a worker who suffered dismissal in the domestic enquiry proceedings are the issues that loom large before us in this Writ Appeal. 2. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment under challenge passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P(C) No.24324/2005 filed by the appellant herein. In the above writ petition the appellant challenged Ext.P4 preliminary order passed by the Labour Court, Kozhikode in IDC No.4/2002. The appellant was an employer and the 2nd respondent (contesting respondent) was a workman under him. Facts necessary for the consideration of this writ appeal can be summarized as follows: 3. The workman by name Mr.K.N.Suresh Kumar was employed as a Senior Security Assistant in the service of M/s. Jet Air Ways India Pvt. Ltd. at Calicut Airport. He was selected to undergo training at Bombay which was scheduled to be held on 16.5.2001. I...

Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Palakkad Vs. Appukuttan

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The delay condonation petition IA.1223/11is dismissed. Consequently the appeal is also dismissed....

Radha Krishnan Nair Panimoolayil Industries Vs. Delia Eedison

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The opposite party in CC No. 333/06 before the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram is the appellant herein who is aggrieved by the directions of the Forum below to the opposite party to pay sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- along with compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the order, failing which interest is also liable to be paid at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till payment. 2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that she has purchased 6500 interlock bricks from the opposite party on 5.11.05 and that the bricks were used for the construction of her building. It is alleged that during the rainy season in Oct 2006, the walls of the building were found to be wet and the wetness increased through out the rainy days causing damage to the building. The complainant alleged further that there was manufacturing defect in the interlock bricks and the complaint w...

The Manager Treasury MaIn Branch and Another Vs. N. Balu

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR, MEMBER This appeal is preferred by the opposite parties in CC.638/09 before the CDRF, Ernakulam who are aggrieved by the directions to refund Rs.26,160/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of transaction till realization. 2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he has purchased 15 pieces of 8 gm. bullion gold (120 gms.) from the second opposite party on 13.2.09 by their invoice No.139 and that the price was Rs.1,451/- per gm. on that day. It is the case of the complainant that the second opposite party collected Rs.1,669/- per gm which was Rs.218/- more per gram on the date of purchase. The complainant has alleged that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice whereby the complainant had lost Rs.26,160/-. In the complaint it was prayed that the amount of Rs.26,160/- collected excessively by the second opposite party be directed to be returned with 15% interest from 13.2.09 till real...

Anil Ravindran Vs. Bank of Indian, Thuravoor Branch

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Appeal 109/11 is filed over the order in CC.256/09 and Appeal 110/09 is filed over the order in CC.5/10 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. Both complaints stands dismissed on the ground that the complaints have been filed beyond the period of limitation. 2. The dispute in CC.256/09 is with respect to the allegation that the 4 cheques in favour of the complainant amounting to Rs.7.lakhs has not been credited in his cash credit account. It is the case that as per the power of attorney executed in favour of the opposite party bank, the Cochin Port Trust for whom contracts works were executed by the complainant were to forward the cheques to the opposite party bank and the opposite party bank is to get it encashed and credit the proceeds in the cash credit account. According to the complainant the above cheques were also encashed but not credited in his account and when the final cheque after the execution of the contract works was sent to the bank an...

Dr. Mary Senteria P.S. Vs. Mahatma Gandhi University

Court: Kerala

1. The rejection of the application submitted by the petitioner for appointment to the post of Professor in the Department of School of International Relations and Politics, by Ext.P3 communication issued by the University is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The rejection is mainly for the reason that the petitioner does not have the required number of publications as per the U.G.C. norms. The notification issued by the University is produced as Ext.P1. Under the category of Professor, the eligibility for applying shown as item 2, reads as follows: “2. An eminent scholar with published work of high quality, actively engaged in research with 10 years experience in Post Graduate teaching, and/experience in research at the University/National Level institutions, including experience of guiding research at doctoral level. OR An outstanding scholar with established reputation who has made significant contributions to knowledge.” Condition No.1 under the General Conditio...

Kerala State Electricity Board, Rep. by Its Secretary, Thiruvananthapu ...

Court: Kerala

COMMON JUDGMENT P.S. Gopinathan, J. Since the issue involved in these connected Writ Appeals is one and the same, these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment. The appellants are common in all the appeals. The respondents were employees of the Kerala State Electricity Board. The appellants represent the Board. The respondents retired from the service of the Board on various dates subsequent to 1.7.2003. After their retirement, pay revision was implemented. Consequent to the pay revision, orders were issued revising pension and other related benefits. Ext.P1 produced in W.P.(C) No.37707/2009, against the judgment of which W.A.No.1702/2010 is filed, is the pay revision order dated 11.11.2008. As per clause 6.1 of Ext.P1, the maximum amount of DCRG was raised from Rs.2,80,000 to Rs.3,30,000/- to those who retired on or after 1.8.2006. For those who retired before 1.8.2006 the limit of DCRG was retained at Rs.2,80,000/-. As per Clause 7.1 the existing rate of 1/3rd of the basic pe...

R. Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala and Others

Court: Kerala

S. SRI JAGAN, J. 1. Petitioners hold licences for conducting bar hotels in Malappuramm district, Accordingly to the petitioners, the establishments or the petitioners are covered under the Employees Provident funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act and the scheme made thereunder. They contend that, in view or the fact that the establishments are covered under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, they are not liable to pay contributions under the Kerala Abkari workers Welfare Fund Act, 1989. The petitioners would contend that this position is covered by the Division Bench decision of this court in W.A. No. 963 of 1997, which is produced as Ext.P6 in this writ petition. Despite the above legal position, respondents 2 and 3 have directed the petitioners to remit contributions in respect or the employees of the petitioners under the Kerala Abkari workers Welfare find Act, 1989. The impugned assessment orders have been Issued in respect thereof. Accordingly to the ...