Kerala Court February 2011 Judgments

Sri.V.Shivaprasad Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2011(1)Ker697

1. Important questions concerning the interpretation of Part IX-A of theConstitution of India, the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 and the TownPlanning Act,1939 arise in these two writ petitions. Since commonquestions arise, they have been heard together and are disposed ofaccordingly.W.P.(C) No.24526/2009 2. The issue raised herein pertains to the Town Planning Schemes for Thiruvananthapuram Corporation, especially the Plamoodu area. Thepetitioner is the owner of properties in Sy. Nos.2101/2.1.1, 2079/1, 2079/1-1-1 of Kawdiar Village, Thiruvananthapuram Taluk. Ext.P1 series are thetrue copies of the applications for building permit, location plan, site plan,etc. which relate to the construction of a shopping mall comprising of 2lakhs sq. ft. The Corporation rejected the application as per Ext.P2 orderstating that the proposed site comes under the residential zone of theGovernment sanctioned General Town Planning Scheme (Master plan) forThiruvananthapuram and also the property comes unde...

M/S. Muthoot Leasing and Finance Ltd. Vs. N.P.Asiya

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2011(1)Ker809

1. On the allegation that respondents 2 to 4 entered into an hypothecation agreement for purchase of a vehicle, under which the second respondent is the borrower and respondents 3 and 4 are the guarantors, and alleging that an amount of Rs.4,40,921/= is due and further alleging the existence of an arbitration agreement, the appellant moved the District Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), claiming attachment of the properties of the respondent therein. The Court ordered attachment on 11.11.2008. The attachment was effected, however, only on 29.11.2008. The first respondent thereupon filed a petition styled under Order 21 Rule 58 of the CPC and Section 9 of the Act, praying that the attachment was effected only on 29.11.2008 and she had purchased the property on 22.11.2008 by way of registered Sale Deed and she prayed that the attachment may be lifted. The learned District Judge found that before effecting attachment, ...

Sunitha Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2011(1)Ker152

1. These petitions are filed by the common petitioner who is involved in two cases for offences punishable under the Abkari Act (for short, "the Act"). She complains that the Excise Officials/Police Officers who detected and investigated the offence are enmical towards her for various reasons, there is no impartial investigation of the case and hence the innocence of petitioner could not be brought out. Hence, intervention of this Court is prayed for under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct investigation by an impartial agency. 2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. According to learned Public Prosecutor there is no reason why the investigation should change hands having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.3. In W.P.(C) No.37711 of 2009 petitioner is involved in CR.No.59 of 2009 of Punalur Excise Range Office for offences punishable under Sections 55 (g), 8(1) and 8(2) of the Act. Prosecution case is that petitioner allege...

State of Kerala Vs. Lali.M.S

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2011(1)Ker1041

1. This Writ Appeal is filed by the State challenging judgment of the learned Single Judge declaring eligibility of 1st respondent for counting her leave period during service as a substitute teacher in a leave vacancy for the purpose of higher grade, under Government Orders. 2. We have heard learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. A regular teacher in the 2nd respondent School took leave for five years giving rise to a leave vacancy. The 1st respondent, who was in an advanced stage of pregnancy, was appointed by the Manager in the leave vacancy on 15/07/1999 for a period up to 21/06/2003. However on the very next day, the 1st respondent applied for and obtained two months' medical leave. Even though she reported for duty after availing two months' medical leave, within two weeks thereafter she was granted maternity leave for four months, which was also availed of by the 1st respondent. It is stated that on 12/02/200...

A.M.Varghese Vs. Government of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2011(1)Ker884

1. Question raised for a decision in this petition is whether cases pending in the criminal courts in the State with reference to the lands in `Munnar area' would stand transferred to the Tribunal constituted under the Munnar Special Tribunal Act, 2010 (for short, "the Tribunal Act")?. 2. Petitioner is accused in C.C.Nos.49 of 2009, 50 of 2009, 51 of 2009, 52 of 2009, 53 of 2009 and 54 of 2009 on the file of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam (for short, "the Special Judge"), C.C.No.171 of 2005 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Devikulam and Crime No.121 of 2005 of Pala Police Station. Of the above, Crime No.121 of 2005 of Pala Police Station and C.C.No.171 of 2005 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Devikulam are cases instituted on complaints preferred by the aggrieved persons while, the other cases are chargesheeted by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau alleging various offences under the Prevention of Corruption Ac...

Thuppilikkadan Sulaiman, Hotel Almas, Edakkara P.O and Others Vs. Assi ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

S. Chandramohan Nair: MEMBER It is against the dismissal of the complaint in O.P. 182/03, 183/03 and 184/03 of CDRF, Malappuram that the above appeals are filed by the complainants themselves who are aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaints. The Forum below has disposed of the 3 complaints by a common order as the issues involved in the complaints are the same and the complaints are tried together as per the order in I.A. 554/09 of the Forum below. Hence these appeals are also disposed of by this common order. Appeal 233/10 has been preferred from the order in O.P. 182/03, appeal 234/10 has been preferred from the order in O.P. 183/03 and appeal 235/10 is preferred from the order in O.P. 184/03. The case of the complainants in the 3 complaints is almost the same. In O.P. 182/03, it was averred that the complainant was regularly paying the electricity charges and on 9.7.2003 he was served with a bill for Rs. 54,000/- alleging that there was unauthorized extension of electrical energ...