Kerala Court November 2011 Judgments

Sathyan Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

V.K. Mohanan, J. 1. The sole accused in S.C. No.105 of 1998 of the court of the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Mavelikkara is the appellant, who challenges his conviction and sentence imposed against him vide judgment dated 7.3.2003 of the trial court in the above sessions case. 2. The prosecution case is that the accused married the deceased Sangeetha on 7.9.1997 as per Hindu Religious rites and customs and thereafter they were living as man and wife and at that time, the accused illtreated the deceased both physically and mentally demanding dowry and due to the continuous harassment, the deceased returned to her parental house and at about 10 a.m. on 11.1.1998, she consumed poison and while she was undergoing treatment in the government Hospital, Adoor, she died at about 12.30 p.m. on 11.1.1998. On the basis of the above allegation, Crime No.9 of 1998 was registered in the Nooranadu Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 498A and 306 I.P.C. 3. On completing the inves...

Anish Vs. District Collector

Court: Kerala

1. Petitioner challenges Exts.P2 to P4 and P8. He also seeks a declaration that the proceedings initiated against him under the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act are illegal and unsustainable. 2. Ext.P2 is a notice issued by the second respondent, exercising his powers under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act and calling upon the petitioner to appear before him for an enquiry, in connection with the alleged unauthorised removal of river sand from the bed of the Achankovil river. According to the petitioner, without conducting any enquiry, Ext.P3 order was passed directing him to remit an amount of Rs.1,05,200/- towards the value of the river sand, royalty and fine. Against this order, petitioner filed Ext.P7 appeal before the District Collector, which was rejected by Ext.P8 order. It is challenging these proceedings, this Writ Petition is filed with the prayers mentioned above. 3. Main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Achankovil river is ...

Dr. Joy P. Chungath, Represented by Power of Attorney Holder, Alfo Joy ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(1)KLJ745; 2012(1)ILR(Ker)977; 2012(1)KLT608

1. The determination of ‘territorial jurisdiction’ under Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code and the intent, purpose and legal effect of the ‘Explanation’ to that section are the issues arose for our consideration in this appeal. 2. An order directing that the plaint be returned for presentation before the proper court in which the suit should have been instituted, passed by the IInd Additional Subordinate Court, Ernakulam in O.S.No.228/2005 under Order VII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, on the premise that the above said court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit, is challenged in this appeal. The plaintiff is a consultant (Pediatric and Hospital service) at Kochi and represented by his power of attorney holder. The defendant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and having its registered office at Firosh Nagar, Mumbai. 3. Facts: The facts relevant in the context of issue involved in this appeal can briefly be stated as follows: ...

Shijumon Vs. George Abraham and Others

Court: Kerala

1. Claimant is the appellant. He claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 08/07/2003. The claimant was a person aged 18 years at the time of the accident. He was a student at the relevant time. He was attending Industrial Training Centre. It is his case that while attending the institution, he was also earning income as a rubber tapper. He suffered multiple serious injuries including head injury as a result of the accident. He allegedly suffered substantial personal disability as a result of the accident. He is unable to move from bed even now. He was produced before the Tribunal and the Tribunal personally observed and verified his alleged disability. He was sent to a medical board under Ext. XI which reported that the claimant was substantially disabled to the extent of 75%. The claimant is not able to respond. He has preferred the claim petition and this appeal through his mother. Initially, the claim was staked before the Tr...

Sherly Idikula Vs. the Union of India, Ministry of Communication Depar ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(1)KLJ126; 2012(1)ILR(Ker)36; 2012(1)KLT51(C.No.56)(SN)

P.S. Gopinathan, J. Petitioner is the applicant in O.A.487 of 2008 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. She is one among the legal heirs of her father who died in harness on 28.9.1998 while working as HSG II Supervisor, RMS SRO, Thiruvalla. Her application for appointment on compassionate ground was declined by the respondent. Assailing the said order, the petitioner moved the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, arrived at a conclusion that there is delay in approaching the Tribunal and that the respondent had considered the application of the petitioner along with the application from various candidates and assessed them in terms of their comparative contingency and most deserving persons were given appointment. Consequently, the application was dismissed. Now this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. We have heard either side and perused the records. It is seen that the petitioner had made her first request on 9.10.1998 ie. wit...

Bindhu @ Bindhu Sureshkumar Vs. Vrinda Radhakrishnan

Court: Kerala

1. This petition is in challenge of Ext. P6, order dated 05/07/2011 in OP (EI) No.18 of 2010 of the Court of learned Munsiff, Wadakkancherry. By the impugned order on Ext. P4, application filed by the first respondent learned Munsiff directed the Electoral Officer to produce the documents specified in Ext. P4, application. 2. The issue arises in an election petition preferred by the first respondent challenging election of petitioner from Ward No. XIII of Panjal Grama Panchayath in the election held on 25/10/2010. It is not disputed that as per the declared result, petitioner got 334 votes as against 328 votes secured by the first respondent. Second respondent got 217 votes. Seventeen (17) votes were declared invalid. In paragraph 2 of Ext. P1, election petition first respondent stated that in the course of counting on account of the biased attitude of the counting officials, four votes which ought to have been counted in favour of the first respondent were counted in favour of petitio...

S. Manilal Panicker Vs. Titto Abraham

Court: Kerala

RamKumar, J. 1. This appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 was disposed of by a Division Bench on 25-3-2010 as “closed” consequent on the matter having been settled before the Lok Adalat organized by the High Court Legal Services Committee on 4-3-2010. But then the Registry raised an objection that the appellant had paid only 1/3 of the court fee at the time of filing the appeal and the balance court fee was not paid. Thereupon the case was posted for hearing on the above question regarding the balance court fee payable. 2. We heard Advocate Sri. P.C. Chacko, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Advocates M/s. Jikku Jacob and Roy Thomas, the learned Government Pleaders who represented the State. 3. The above appeal was filed on 19-5-1998 remitting 1/3 court fee of Rs.1215/-. The total court fee payable on the memorandum of appeal was Rs.3,640/-. The balance court fee payable was Rs.2425/-. The balance court fee payable was Rs.2425/-....

Rev. Father Joseph Mundassery, Chavakkad Taluk Vs. Michael, Contractor ...

Court: Kerala

1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the first accused in C.C. 675/2004 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad, seeking an order to quash the complaint, copy of which is marked as Annexure A. The first respondent herein is the complainant before the trial court. The allegation in this petition is that by the averments in the complaint, no offence under Section 420 read with 34 IPC as alleged in the complaint is disclosed. Therefore, the learned Magistrate should not have taken cognizance of the offence. 2. I have heard Advocate Sri. P.C. Sarath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the complaint. By the averments in the complaint, it is seen that the first respondent was a contractor of a hospital building constructed by the petitioner and that amounts were due from the petitioner to the first respondent in discharge of which two cheques were issued. When presented for collection, the cheques...

Chellammal and Others Vs. Badarudeen @ Babu and Others

Court: Kerala

R. Basant, J. 1. Claimants are the appellants. They are the mother aged 62 years and siblings of the deceased, a young man aged 23 years on the date of the accident, i.e., on 25/04/2002. He succumbed to the injury suffered in that accident. Against a total claim of limited to Rs.6 lakhs, tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1.5 lakhs as compensation as per the details given in paragraph 9 of the impugned award which we extract below. Table 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent insurance company. The 3rd respondent insurer has been directed to satisfy the award with the right to claim and return the amount from the second respondent / owner. Learned counsel for the appellants assails the impugned award on two grounds. 3. First of all, it is contended that the quantum of compensation awarded is low. It cannot be said to be just compensation for the loss suffered. Secondly, learned counsel for the appellants contends that the di...

P. Raveendranath, Khargone District Vs. State of Kerala, Rep. by Its S ...

Court: Kerala

1. The caste status of the petitioner is in dispute; more so with reference to the employment obtained by projecting the petitioner as a member of Scheduled Caste being a ‘Thandan’ in Palakkad District. The sequence of events is as follows: 2. The petitioner, after completing his studies, applied for the post of Driver/Head Constable in the CISF under the quota earmarked for Scheduled Caste. The petitioner’s case was that, he being a member of ‘Thandan’ Community in Palakkad district, was liable to be treated as a member of the Scheduled Caste and it was accordingly, he obtained Ex.P1 certificate dated 02.05.1985 from the concerned village Officer showing his caste status as ‘Thandan’. Pursuant to the selection process, the petitioner was appointed as Driver/Head Constable by the 4th respondent. 3. Later in the course of verification, a report was obtained to the 4th respondent from the District Collector concerned, pointing out that the petiti...