Kerala Court April 2011 Judgments

Damodaran Nair Vs. Muthuvat Cheriyotti Amma and Another

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(2)KLT619; 2011(2)ILR(Ker)641; 2011(2)KLJ646; 2011(2)KHC357

The petitioner applied for certified copy of the final decree in O.S.No.65 of 1953 on the file of the Sub Court, Thalassery. It is stated that the records of the case are now available before the District Court, Kozhikode. Therefore, the application was filed before the District Court, Kozhikode. The application was returned stating that Exhibit C3 plan which is part of the final decree is not legible. 2. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another application for issuing certified copy of the final decree excluding Exhibit C3 plan. That application was also returned as per the following order : "Exhibit C3 is part of the final decree. Petitioner intends to get the copy of the final decree excluding Exhibit C3. Exhibit C3 has become illegible due to old age. Part of a document is not admissible in evidence. So the request for giving the part of the final decree excluding Exhibit C3 cannot be allowed. Hence, petition rejected." 3. In this Original Petition, the petitioner challenges the or...

Thankamany, W/O.Krishnan Nair Vs. the State of Kerala and Others

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(2)KLT437; 2011(2)ILR(Ker)446; 2011(2)KLJ635; 2011(2)KHC435

Ramachandran Nair, J. Appeal is filed against judgment of the learned Single Judge declining to direct the Geologist to renew the mining permits issued to the appellant for mining sand from her property which is 31.56 ares. In view of the claim by the appellant that but for the prohibitory orders issued by the District Collector banning mining in the Taluk as a whole, the appellant would have been entitled to get the mining licence renewed by the Geologist, we directed the Government Pleader to get an inspection conducted by the Revenue Department. Government Pleader has produced the report prepared by the Deputy Collector (LR), Kottayam who inspected the site along with Surveyor who has prepared a survey report and the same is also annexed along with the report. 2. After hearing both sides and after going through the report, what we notice is that the appellant has utilised the mining permits already issued for mining 11.3 ares of land, out of which 70% mined land is already filled up...

Shriram City Union Finance and Another Vs. Shaharuddin

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC.273/09 in the file of CDRF, Kasaragod. The appellants are under orders to return the motor cycle seized from the complainant together with vehicular documents and a HP Termination Letter and cost of Rs.2,500/- and in case the RC is not returned to pay a further sum of Rs.1,000/- . The complainant is also under direction to pay a sum of Rs.14,000/- towards the amount due to the appellants. It is the case of the complainant that he had availed a loan of Rs.36,500/- from the opposite parties undertaking to repay the same at monthly equated installments of Rs.1,422/- in 36 installments and the complainant has altogether paid a sum of Rs.43,468/-. It is stated that the complainant was in judicial custody during the 26.9.09 to 22.10.09. It is alleged that the opposite parties without notice seized the vehicle, and the opposite parties are demanding Rs.36,500/- which is exorbitant. The opposite parties have refused to...

V.K. Thankappan and Another Vs. Uthiliyoda Muthukoya

Court: Kerala

1. The question involved in this revision is whether the second petitioner Bank could exercise its general lien and adjust the amount payable to the respondent under a cheque, towards an amount which was due to the bank from the respondent and in respect of which the suit filed by the Bank was dismissed as time barred. 2. An amount of Rs.19,588.50 was due from the respondent to Syndicate Bank, Kilthan Branch. The respondent is a native of Kilthan Island and is a contractor undertaking minor contract work of Lakshadweep administration under the PWD. For realisation of amount due from the respondent, the bank filed a suit. The suit was decreed by the trial court. On appeal by the respondent, the appellate court set aside the decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. 3. After dismissal of the suit, an account payee cheque for Rs.14,635/- dated 31.03.98, issued in favour of the respondent, was presented by him before the Syndicat...

The Manager, M.T.M. Higher Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by the Sec ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(2)ILR(Ker)731; 2011(2)KLT878; 2011(2)KLJ809; 2011(2)KHC625

1. The true interpretation of Rule 12 of Chapter XXIII of Kerala Education Rules, arises for consideration in this case. The writ petition is filed by the Manager of an aided Higher Secondary School. 2. We are concerned with the staff fixation of the year 2008-2009. The District Educational Officer conducted the physical verification of the students strength on 9.7.2008. It was found that the school is entitled to have one additional division in Standard V and two additional divisions in Standard VII. The matter went to the Deputy Director of Education for higher level verification which was conducted on 27.11.2008. After verifying the actual number of students physically present plus 5% of the total strength as on the said day, he did not recommend the additional divisions, as reported by the District Educational Officer. A consequent order was passed by the District Educational Officer as per Ext.P1. Even though appeal and a revision were filed, they were dismissed by the Director of...

Alice, W/O.Joy Vs. Kerala State and Another

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(4)KLT119; 2011(3)KHC756

Balakrishnan, J. The appellant in L.A.A. No.843/2006 has filed this Review Petition stating that the learned Subordinate Judge has in another case, L.A.R. No.104/2003, granted compensation refixing the land value at Rs.14,586/- per Are. The learned counsel submits that the property covered in that LAR and the property acquired from the appellant in this case are identical and so the claimant in this case is entitled to get the compensation refixed at the rate of Rs.14586/- per Are. and to that extent, the judgment of this court is to be reviewed. 2. It is important to note that the judgment sought to be relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is the judgment passed by the Reference Court in another case. It is not even certain whether that judgment has attained finality. That apart, the subsequent order/judgment rendered by the court in respect of land acquired from another claimant is not a ground to review the judgment in appeal passed by this court. The subsequent deci...

Venjaramoodu M.Ziyad Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Kerala

J. CHELAMESWAR, C.J. The petitioner claims to be an Advocate and asserts a "right and responsibility to protect the judiciary from its ridicule ..........". The petition is full of vague and omnibus statements. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the reporting of the proceedings of the various courts in this country by media on some occasions is either inaccurate and sometimes even false. According to the petitioner, such publications are likely to damage the credibility of the judiciary. At para 3 of the petition, in this regard it is stated as follows: "Any wrongful message published in the medias, regarding the court proceedings and judge's opinion, will certainly decrease the credibility of the judiciary in the society and hence the medias should not be permitted to publish the court proceedings and Judge's opinion regarding the pending cases in their own interpretation and if the media wants to publish the court proceedings and Judge's opinion in a pending...

South Indian Bank, Thiruvananthapuram Branch Vs. Sri.Jijimon K.Thomas

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC.11/09 in the file of CDRF, Kozhikode. The appellants are under orders to re-deposit the amount withdrawn by the appellant and also to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- and cost of Rs.500/-. 2. It is the case of the complainant that out of the amount deposited by him ie; Rs.4000/- on 20.4.07 The opposite party deducted Rs.1000/- each on 3 occasions without intimating the complainant. He has sought for refund of the above amount and also compensation of Rs.25,000/-. 3. It is the case of the opposite parties that the complainant is having current account in the opposite party/Bank and that he has to maintain a minimum balance of Rs.5000/- failing which a sum of Rs.1000/- will be deducted at each quarter. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, RW1 and Exts.A1 to A5 and B1 to B3. 5. The Forum has allowed the complaint as there was nothing to show that the complainant was intimated as to the present rul...

The Manager, Canara Bank, Meenangadi Branch Vs. Joy.K.V.

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant is the opposite party and respondent is the complainant in CC.64/10 on the file of CDRF, Wayanadu, Kalpetta. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party/ Manager, Canara bank, Meenangady branch in not releasing the title deed of the property which was pledged with the opposite party bank for availing agricultural loan for Rs.1,72,000/-. Thus, the complainant prayed for getting the title deed of his property released and also for compensation of Rs.25,000/- for the mental and financial loss suffered by the complainant. 2. The opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency of service. The opposite party justified his action in not releasing the title deed on the ground that a sum of Rs.1,33,585/- with interest is due from the complainant towards loan account. Thus, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 3. Before the Forum below...

Dr. Saurabh JaIn and Others Vs. State of Kerala, Rep. by the Secretary ...

Court: Kerala

Ramachandran Nair, J. Constitutional validity of the preferences and reservations given to local students by the State for admission to Super Speciality Medical courses (DM and MCH) commencing from the academic year 2010-2011 is the question decided by the learned Single Judge against which the above Writ Appeals are filed. When the prospectus for admissions was first issued, it provided for preference to students who have completed MBBS or Post-graduate courses from Medical Colleges in Kerala and also to Doctors who have Rural service in Kerala. So far as outside Kerala students who participated in the Entrance Examination are concerned, they would get chance only if there are no Kerala students falling in the two categories above stated with minimum marks in the subject in which they seek admission. Altogether there were 85 seats for the Super Speciality courses in DM and MCH, of which 19 seats were reserved for Doctors in Government service and only 66 seats were available for selec...