Kerala Court December 2011 Judgments

Alex C Joseph, Pathanamthitta District Vs. the Union of India, Rep. by ...

Court: Kerala

1. An order of detention dated 13/4/2000 passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) issued against the petitioner is challenged. A writ of certiorari is sought. 2. The Writ Petition was filed on 12/01/2010. As on the date of the Writ Petition, the impugned order had not been executed. While the Writ Petition was pending, that is on 06/11/2011, the impugned order has been enforced and the petitioner was taken into custody and he has been imprisoned. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: It is averred that the order of detention has been passed for a wrong purpose based on vague, extraneous and irrelevant grounds, and that it is illegal, arbitrary and mala fide. Import of four old and used cars by four non-resident Indians who had returned back to India for permanent settlement, is stated to be the basis of the impugned order. It is contended that customs du...

A. Thaha Vs. Sumina @ Sumayya and Another

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(1)KLT39; 2012(1)ILR(Ker)104; 2012(1)KLJ369; 2012(1)KHC136

K.M. Joseph, J. 1. This is a First Appeal directed against an order passed under Order IX Rule 13. Apparently there was delay. The Application to Condone delay was dismissed. An order was passed by the court below dismissing the application under Order IX Rule 13 as belated. The matter stands posted before us. Sri. G.S. Reghunath, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the matter is to be heard by the Single Bench under The Kerala High Court Act. The Registry has stated as follows: “Kindly see Section 3(13)(d) of the Kerala High Court Act. As per the same, the powers of the High Court in relation to the following matters may be exercised by a Single Judge, that an appeal from an order under Section 104 of the CPC, except an order of the kind mentioned in Clause (h) of sub-section (1) of the said section or in Clauses (c), (d) or (j) of Rule 1 of Order XLIII of the First Schedule to the said Code. Since this FAO is filed under Order XLIII Rule 1(d) of CPC the same was po...

The Assistant Executive Engineer, Kseb Electrical Section and Another ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The 1st and 2nd opposite parties in CC No. 41/10 before the CDRF Idukki are the appellants herein who are aggrieved by the directions of the Forum to cancel Ext. P1 demand notice amounting to Rs.74,095/- and pay cost of Rs.1,500/- failing which the amount of Rs.1,500/- would carry interest at 12% per annum from the date of default. 2. The complainants case before the Forum was that he was an agricultural consumer of the opposite parties and that he had taken a connection believing that the supply of electricity was free of cost. He had also produced a certificate from the agricultural officer. He had alleged low voltage in the area which destroyed his cultivation due to lack of irrigation. It was also his case that on 16.10.2004 the 1st opposite party disconnected his service and that the 1st opposite party had demanded Rs.74,095/- which included surcharge of Rs.37,598/- though the electricity energy charge was only Rs. 36,497/-. Alleging deficiency ...

Pushpavally Vs. Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The revision petitioner is the complainant in CC.No.119/07 and petitioner in IA.455/10. We find that the order is not a speaking one and hence the same is set aside. The Forum is directed to consider the case of the complainant and dispose of the IA.455/10 by a reasoned order....

Ramachandran, M.K. Vs. the District Collector and Another

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(1)KLT123; 2012(1)ILR(Ker)91

PIUS C. KURIOKOSE, J. 1. The claimants are the appellants. Their properties in Malappuram village situated within the limits of Malapuram Municipal town and at a distance of hardly 500 maters from the civil station in Malapuram town was acquired for the construction of approach road to Ummathoor - Aanakadavu bridge. The acquisition was on the basis of Section 4(1) notification which was published on 14/11/2005. The Land Acquisition Officer relied on a particular basis document and awarded land value at the rate of Rs.5008.29 per cent. Before the Reference Court, the appellants relied mainly on Exts.A1 and A2 sales documents. Ext.A1 document was a pre notification document executed about two and half years prior to the date of Section 4(1) notification in favour of Malapuram District Police Co-operative Society and reflected land value at the rate of Rs.90,000/- per cent. Ext.A2 also reflected the same rate of land value. However, A2 was a post notification document executed on 10...

C.R. Neelakandan, Kochi and Others Vs. Sunny Mathew and Others

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(1)ILR(Ker)198; 2012(1)KLT99(SN)(C.No.107); 2012(1)KHC117

RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. 1. This Review Petition is filed by three persons, who are not parties to the WP(C), for reviewing our judgment in WP(C) No.29100/2011 dated 02/11/2011, whereunder we directed the National Highway Authority to immediately take steps for widening of both the National Highways, namely NH-17 and NH-47, in the State under the Schemes already proposed by the Authorities. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the Review Petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the WP(C) and learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the State. 3. The WP(C) was filed as a Public Interest Litigation challenging Ext.P2 issued by the State Government keeping in abeyance Ext.P1 decision taken by the Government to proceed with the development of both the National Highways passing through Kerala, NH-17 and NH-47, up to a width of 45 metres. The case of the petitioner in the WP(C) was that the Government after elaborate discussions with the National Highway Aut...

Satheesh Vs. Parur Municipality

Court: Kerala

The petitioner is a registered owner of an autorickshaw described in Ext.P1 certificate at registration. He applied for a fresh contract carriage permit to operate the autorickshaw in North Paravur town with parking place at Kannankulangara junction. By Ext.P3 order dated 21.1.2011, the Joint Regional Transport Officer, North Paravur who is also the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam at North Paravur rejected the application. Hence this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P3 and seeking a direction to the second respondent to dispose of the application afresh after holding a proper enquiry and with notice to the petitioner. The main ground raised in the Writ Petition is that before Ext.p3 order was passed the petitioner was not heard or put on notice. It is also contended that the Paravur Municipality is not empowered to place any restriction on the number of permits to be issued and before Ext.P3 order was passed no proper enquiry was conducted. 2. I heard Sri. C. Chan...

T.A. Babu Vs. Rejimol John and Another

Court: Kerala

P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. 1. The revision petitioner was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chalakudy, in C.C. No.255/2000 for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 8,500/-(Rupees eight thousand five hundred only). Though he preferred criminal appeal No.467/2003, he was not successful. 2. Appellate Court set aside the fine on holding that Judicial Magistrate of the First Class has no power to impose fine exceeding Rs. 5,000/-. Instead of fine, the revision petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 8,500 as compensation. 3. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as modified in appeal this revision petition is filed. 4. I have heard Adv. Smt. M.R. Reena, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Adv. Sri. Ravi K. Pariyarath, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. Perused the impugned judgment and evidence on rec...

Haridas Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

R. Basant, J. Is the criminal trial just a complicated forensic game with accent only on compliance with complex rules? Is there no mission of discovery of truth for the stake holders in a criminal trial? Should not the indictee be obliged to assist the truth discovery process by revealing the true facts, at least to the court at the stage of trial? Does he have a right to remain arrogantly silent and non co-operative in the process of truth discovery before court? Should not the Indian jurisprudence look for a third desi (native) alternative for administration of criminal justice-other than the Anglo Saxon adversarial and the continental accuisitorial ones, which can cater better to the needs of our society and which will rhyme better with our native commonsense and sense of justice? Should not bold efforts and initiatives in this direction start at least now-after Law India has completed about six and half decades of independent existence? These thoughts remain with us when we part w...

M-far Hotel Limited, Cochin, Rep by Its Director Vs. State of Kerala, ...

Court: Kerala

This writ petition relates to demand for building tax under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act from the petitioner. The petitioner is a company running a five star hotel within the jurisdictional limits of the 2nd respondent Panchayat. By a notice dated 28.6.2001, the petitioner was directed to pay building tax of ` 29,81,600/- under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and ` 1,49,080/- as library cess for the period from 1.4.2001 to 31.3.2002. Against the demand, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Standing Committee on Taxes of the Panchayat, which was disposed of by order dated 27.7.2001 reducing the tax and cess to ` 26,83,414/- and ` 1,34,172/- respectively. On appeal, the Panchayat Committee, by resolution dated 25.8.2001, reduced the same further to ` 22,36,200/- and ` 1,11,810/- respectively. The petitioner filed a further appeal to the Deputy Director of Panchayats, which was disposed of by Ext.P1 order dated 14.01.2002, directing the Panchayat to fix the tax as directed the...