Kerala Court February 2011 Judgments

The Vice Chancellor Vs. Dr.Tresa Radhakrishnan

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2011(2)Ker47

1. The connected Writ Appeals are filed against common judgment of the learned Single Judge vacating the orders of nomination of Senate members by the Chancellor under the category reserved for Heads of Departments of the University as provided under Section 17 (13) of the Kerala University Act, 1974 (hereinafter called "the Act"). We have heard senior counsel appearing for the appellants and counsel appearing for some of the contesting parties, all of whom took notice on admission and argued the matter. 2. Writ Petition was filed by the Head of the Department of Aquatic Biology and Fisheries which is a Department under the University of Kerala, first respondent in both the Writ Appeals, challenging appointment of seven Heads of Departments of the University as Senate Members by the Chancellor based on the recommendation of the Vice Chancellor. The learned Single Judge found that the selection by the Vice Chancellor was not in accordance with the statutory provision and what the entire...

C.K. Mohanasundaram Vs. K.U. Gopalakrishnanan Nair

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

1. It is aggrieved by the directions contained in the order dated 29-03-2010 of CDRF, Malappuram in CC No. 62/2009 that the present appeal is filed by the opposite party calling for the interference of this Commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below. 2. The case of the complainant bereft of unnecessary details is that he has applied for possession certificates for 48 cents and 58 cents which were owned by him as per partition deed No. 2875/1974 of Sub Registrar Office, Tirurangadi and that though he had applied for the certificates on 13-03-2008, he was issued the possession certificate of 58 cents only and the other possession certificate relating to 48 cents of land was denied by the opposite party under one reason or other as the complainant refused to pay Rs. 200/- demanded by the opposite party as illegal gratification for the issuance of the certificates. Alleging deficiency in service in nonissuing the possession certificate for the 48 cents the c...

Malayimmal Raveendran Vs. Malayimmal M.Vimala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2011(1)Ker993

1. King Solomon renowned for his wisdom, when called upon to decide the rival claims of maternity over a new born baby by two harlots, adopting a clever tactic based on his profound knowledge of human nature, resolved the literally unsolvable dispute with ease. The decision rendered by King Solomon identifying the true mother from the two rival claimants and handing over the infant to her, acclaimed as "The Judgment of Solomon", showing his outstanding wisdom, depicted in Kings 3:16-28, most probably may be the first case over an issue of maternity. Certainly, it is not the last, though the factual scenario over the dispute may be different, as seen from the present case. King Solomon was blessed with the "Wisdom of God", but the courts manned by little mortals, not endowed with the wisdom of King Solomon nor of having his profound human knowledge, cannot follow or adopt any tactic to resolve the issue, but have to determine and render a decision applying the settled legal principles, ...

Firose Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2011(1)Ker980

1. Question raised for a decision in these proceedings at the instance of the accused is whether in the absence of the notification contemplated under Sec.5(4)(i) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (for short, "the Act") a person who converts paddy land/wet land could be prosecuted under Sec.23 of the said Act?. 2. Petitioners own paddy lands within the local jurisdiction of jurisdiction of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Perinthalmanna. The said officer preferred complaints before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri alleging that petitioners in violation of the prohibition contained in Sec.3 of the Act converted their paddy lands and hence are liable to be punished under Sec.23 of the said Act. Annexure-B in these proceedings are copy of those complaints. Based on those complaints learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the said offence, filed C.C.Nos.19 to 22 and 34 of 2010 and issued process to the petitioners. Petitioners have approa...

Philip Alfred MalvIn Vs. Y J Gonsalvis

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2011(1)Ker985

1. Plaintiff in a suit for partition is the appellant. Preliminary decree passed in the suit upholding his claim for partition and allotting him a share in the suit property was reversed and the suit was dismissed by the lower appellate court in the appeal preferred by the 2nd defendant. Feeling aggrieved, he has preferred this appeal. 2. Plaint schedule property admittedly belonged to late George Correa and his wife Jane Correa, who pre-deceased her husband. Plaintiff claimed that he is the adopted child of the abovesaid George Correa and Jane Correa. Defendants 1 and 2 and another viz., Marvin Correa, who is no more, are the natural children of the abovesaid George Correa and Jane Correa. Defendants 3 to 8 are the wife and children of the aforesaid late Marvin Correa. Pending the appeal before the court below, the 2nd defendant, who alone contested the suit, had passed away and her legal representatives brought in are respondents 9 to 11 in this appeal. 3. According to the plaintiff ...

The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sunil George Jacob

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT 1. The appellants are the opposite parties/insurance company in CC.179/08 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- towards the assured sum and Rs.2000/- towards cost. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he was running a home stay classified as Diamond category. The building was covered by the standard fire and special perils policy of the appellant. On 29/7/2008 during the period of coverage on account of heavy wind and rain which was present in the area from 26/7/2008 till 30/7/2008, at about 6.30am a big Iron wood tree fell on the building. The top portion of the building, the first floor and the side room was fully crushed and there was damage to the furniture, fittings etc causing a loss of Rs.30.lakhs altogether. He was running the home stay availing a loan of Rs.17.lakhs from the KFC. On the same day the matter was reported to the opposite party and a surveyor visited the property by the evening. T...

Thomas Varkey Vs. Union of India

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2011(1)Ker218

1. All these writ petitions are filed challenging the deductions of income tax made, under section 194 (LA) of the Income Tax Act. According to the petitioners, eventhough properties belonging to them were notified for acquisition for a public purpose, the land in question were not acquired through the normal procedure contemplated under the Kerala Land Acquisition Act. On the other hand, the land were acquired on executing agreement in Form 10(a) as per Rule 12(5) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Rules 1990. Contention of the petitioner is that compulsory deduction of income tax was not warranted in such cases because the purchase was made through negotiations and it was not acquired through normal process of law as contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a Division Bench decision of this court in WA.No.2243/2008 dated 8.1.2009, in order to canvass the above position. 3. However it is noticed that tax deductions were already eff...

Dr.Tresa Radhakrishnan Vs. Chancellor, University of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2011(1)Ker688

1. The notification issued by the Chancellor nominating seven heads of University departments to the Senate of the University as evident from Ext.P2 is under challenge. It is alleged that the same is issued in violation of Sub-section 13 of Section 17 of the Kerala University Act, 1974 (for short 'the Act'). 2. The petitioner is the Professor and Head of the Department of Aquatic Biology and Fisheries of the University. The University is governed by the Kerala University Act, 1974. The Department of Aquatic Biology and Fisheries is one of the oldest teachings cum research department of the Kerala University which was started in the year 1938 and formerly it was the Department of Marine Biology and Oceanography and in the year 1972 it was renamed as Department of Aquatic Biology and Fisheries. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that under Section 17(13) of the Act, seven Heads of Departments of the University who are not otherwise members of the senate, have to be nominated in th...

Biju.R.S. Vs. Madhavikutty Amma

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2011(1)Ker872

1. Under challenge in this revision filed under Section 20 by the tenant is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the summary order of eviction which was passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 12(3) of Act 2 of 1965. The above summary order was passed on 8/4/2010. In order to appreciate whether the above order is legal and proper, it will be necessary to read the order dated 11/3/2010 passed by the learned Rent Control Court in the application under Section 12 which was filed by the landlady. Copy of the above order is placed before us by Sri. G.Unnikrishnan. We are convinced on a reading of that order that the learned Rent Control Court has examined the question whether there is justification for proposing a summary order under Section 12(3) and also that show cause notice has been issued to the tenant as to why he should not be summarily evicted. The order dated 8/4/2010 is obviously passed by the Rent Control Court noticing that no satisfactory caus...

Sandhya Kurumthottickal Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker44

1. Having regard to the directions issued earlier, we are sure that the petitioner would be vigilant to bring any complaint about any cruelty to animals before competent jurisdiction. She may also place any such complaint before the learned Ombudsman for Travancore Devaswom Board if it becomes necessary. With such clarification, we affirm the earlier orders. 2. This proceedings is closed. ...