Kerala Court December 2011 Judgments

Branch Manager, North Malabar GramIn Bank Vs. P.P. Hamsa

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR: MEMBER The order dated 10.9.08 of CDRF, Kannur in OP 162/05 is being assailed in this appeal by the opposite party who is under directions to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.22,660/- with interest at 8% p.a from the date of complaint till payment with cost of Rs.1,000/-. 2. The complainant had approached the Forum stating that he had availed a loan from the opposite party bank for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and that the opposite party initiated recovery proceedings by filing a suit before the Sub Court Thalassery and that a compromise decree had been passed directing the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.6,50,594/-. It was also submitted that after the decree of the court came, the complainant was allowed to pay Rs.5,03,000/- as one time settlement. However, it was the case of the complainant that he was entitled to get back half of the court fee amounting to Rs.22,660/- remitted by the bank before the court. The complainant had made a claim before the opposite ...

Deepa Sasikumar, Palakkad Dist and Another Vs. Sasikumar, Palakkad

Court: Kerala

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN 1. First appellant is the respondent’s wife. Second appellant is her brother. Appellants applied for appointment of the second appellant as the guardian of the daughter of the first appellant and the respondent. That girl is due to become a major by the 22nd of this month, that is, December 2011. The appeal is directed against an order by which the matter was dismissed stating that it is on default. But, that order goes with the reason, which would be seen as we proceed. 2. Having regard to the urgency sounded by the appellants, persuaded to look deeper into the matter on merits, the lower court records were called for and we have examined the pleadings and materials available therein. Heard learned counsel for parties. 3. There are no allegations among the couple of any matrimonial misdemeanour, except that each accuses the other of desertion. It appears that the couple now live apart. The respondent, the father of the girl, is a doctor while the moth...

M/S. Leotex Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Kerala

ManjulaChellur, Ag. C. J. 1. Whether the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge relegating the appellant herein to avail the statutory remedy is correct or not is the issue involved in this Writ Appeal. 2. The grievance projected by the appellant pertains to the rights and liberties of the appellants to have the benefit under the Duties Drawback Scheme in connection with the export business being pursued by the appellant. The appellant / petitioner is an exporter of coir products and originally he sought to have the benefit under the DEPB scheme. But, subsequently, the appellant found that he would be benefited more by virtue of the terms of another scheme declared by the Government, i.e., the Drawback Scheme governed by the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995. It was in the said circumstances that, the appellant / petitioner approached this Court by filing WP (C) No. 5549 of 2007. After hearing both sides, the said Writ Petition was disposed of as per Ext. P6 ju...

Rajesh. S. Vs. Superintendent of Police, Kollam and Others

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(1)KLT348; 2012(1)ILR(Ker)363; 2012(1)KLJ338; 2012(1)KHC194

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Read the earlier orders. 2. The alleged detenue vidya is present. We interacted with her. She is well oriented. She is clear in her stand that she will go with the petitioner who has married her. The marriage has to be registered in terms of the provisions of the Rules under the Hindu Marriage Act since the parties are Hindus. It also needs to be registered in terms of the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008. Having seen that the alleged detenue vidya is a free person and that she desires voluntarily to go with the petitioner, we record the submission of the petitioner and vidya that they are married. We direct them to produce before the Registrar General of this Court, the copy of certificate under the provisions of the Common Rules within a period of two months from now. Having regard to the pendency of this litigation, any delay in making the application before the registering authority will be condoned by the officer concerned. W...

Binu Baby Vs. Dy. Superintendent of Police

Court: Kerala

Pius C.Kuriakose, J. 1. Counsel for the petitioners seeks adjournment. We are not inclined to grant adjournment as the matter has been pending for quite some time. 2. The petitioners, who belong to Christian Pentacost Community and claim to have been conducting prayer meetings in their house in what they describe as a very calm and peaceful manner, without causing nuisance to the neighbours, have filed this Writ Petition alleging that at the instance of the party respondents the police officials are harassing them. The 3rd respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit wherein she contend on the basis of documents Ext.R3 (a), (b) and (c) that the manner in which the petitioners are conducting prayer meeting is causing extreme nuisance to the neighbouring people. She relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Churchof Godv. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association ((2000) 7 SCC 282) in support of her contentions. 3. As directed by us, the second respondent has filed a detailed ...

State of Kerala, Rep. by the Deputy Commissioner (Law), Commercial Tax ...

Court: Kerala

ManjulaChellur, Ag.C.J. 1. These two revision petitions are before us by way of reference dated 12.09.2006. The reference reads as follows: "The issue raised, that is classification of the item polystik compound is squarely covered by the decision of this court reported in State of Kerala v. Shaji Joseph (2003)11 KTR 210). In the said decision, this court has considered the nature and use of the product and held that the item is essentially an adhesive as its main purpose is to fix the rain guard to the rubber tree. The other purpose, such as prevention of leakage to the cut portion of the bark which protests the tree is found to be incidental. However, counsel for the respondent assessee has relied on an unreported decision of this court in T.R.C 448 of 2002, wherein this court has held that the item is a plant protection chemical. We find from the judgment that the later decision does not refer to earlier judgment. Moreover, this court just followed the certificates issued by two aut...

Board of Trustees of Port of CochIn Vs. Jaisu Shipping Company Private ...

Court: Kerala

V. Ramkumar, J. 1. In this appeal filed under S.37(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the Act" for short), the appellant i.e. the Board of Trustees, Port of Cochin, challenges the order dated 05.09.2011 passed by the District Judge, Ernakulam dismissing on merits OP (Arbitration No. 505/2011) filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the Act. THE PARTIES 2. The appellant is a major Port constituted under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 having its office at Willingdon Island, Kochi - I and is represented by its Chairman Sri. Paul Antony. The first respondent i.e. Jaisu Shipping Company Private Ltd. is company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Kewal Remany House, Dinshaw Building Road, Nedar Custom House, Kandala Port, Gujrat - 370 220 and having a branch office at Link Horizon, Marine Drive, Ernakulam. The additional second respondent i.e. Jaisu Dredging and Shipping Ltd., Gujrat got itself impleaded as per the order dated 04...

Jayachandran @ Kannan, Sakthikulangara Village Vs. State of Kerala, Re ...

Court: Kerala

(Prayer: Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein the High Court be pleased to suspend the sentence passed against the petitioner, Accused in S.C.No.463/2008 on the file of the 1st Additional Sessions Court, Kollam in the Judgment dated 1.10.2010 and direct him to be released on bail. BASANT, J. 1. The agony and helplessness of a court which is unable to promptly allot the time of the court to the litigant who needs it and deserves it haunts us always-particularly in this jurisdiction. The appellant needs, may be 3 hours of our time. We are not able to allot that time to him now. He may have to wait in the queue for long to get that small bit of time allotted to him. 2. The request of the appellant/petitioner appears to be too legitimate. He prays that this appeal filed as early as in October, 2010 may be taken up for hearing. If that is not possible for this Court, the learned counsel prays that the application for suspension maybe taken up for consideration and favou...

Lalitha Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. 1. The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Adhoc-I, Thiruvananthapuram in SC. No.1013/2001 for offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act read with Section 8(1) and (2) of Abkari Amendment Act, 1997 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. One lakh with a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months. Assailing the above conviction and sentence, this appeal is preferred. 2. The prosecution case is that at 10 a.m., on 25.4.2000, PW2, the Excise Inspector attached to Excise Enforcement and Anti-narcotic Special Squad, Thiruvananthapuram, found the appellant walking along the Pattoor-Pettah road with MO1 plastic bottle with full of liquid. Being got suspicious, the appellant was intercepted and the contents in MO1 was tested by smell and taste and convinced that it was arrack. The appellant was arrested and MO1 was seized for which, Ext.P1 seizure mahazar was prepared. The appellant was taken to the Exci...

Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. Kerala State Electricity Regulatory ...

Court: Kerala

1. This writ appeal is filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board (for short ‘KSEB’) challenging the decision of the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission communicated vide Exts.P9 and P11 produced in the writ petition whereunder they refused to modify clause 12 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2005 framed by Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission under section 181 read with section 50 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and incorporated by the KSEB in the Kerala State Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005. 2. We have heard Senior Counsel Sri. P. Santhalingam, appearing for the appellant, Standing Counsel appearing for the Regulatory Commission and Senior Counsel Sri. Gopalakrishna Kurup appearing for additional respondent No.3 which is Kerala State Small Industries Association and also additional respondent impleaded which is the industry impleaded through I.A. No.947/2011. The facts leading to the controversy are the following. 3. Large n...