Kerala Court April 2011 Judgments

Hamsath Beevi Vs. Saffiyath Beevi

Court: Kerala

1. All these Civil Revision Petitions are filed by Hamsath Beevi, the second judgment debtor in E.P.No.235 of 1985 in O.S.No.103 of 1980, on the file of the Sub Court, Mavelikkara. 2. One Mathew Philip filed the suit against Muhammed Khan Rawther and Hamsath Beevi (revision petitioner) for realisation of money. The suit was decreed on 14.8.1981. Pending suit, the immovable properties belonging to the defendants were attached before judgment. In execution of the decree, six items of properties were sold in auction. The decree holder purchased property in auction. The sale was conducted on 20.1.1988 and it was confirmed on 25.2.1988. 3. Before the sale was conducted, the plaintiff died on 25.2.1986 and his legal representatives, namely, Graceamma Philip, Mohan K.Philip and Anila Philip were impleaded as additional parties. 4. The second judgment debtor, Hamsath Beevi, filed E.A.No.470 of 1997 under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the sale. That application was dism...

A. Sreedharan Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(2)ILR(Ker)918; 2011(3)KLT6(SN)(C.No.4); 2011(3)KLJ42

Common Judgment 1. The appellant is the fifth accused in C.C.Nos.82, 83, 84, 85 and 86/2007 on the file of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. He was the Inspector attached to District Co-operative Bank, Pathanamthitta. He was prosecuted along with 6 others, by the Deputy Superintendent of Police Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Pathanamthitta, alleging offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (c) and (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as PC Act) and Section 409, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. The prosecution case is that the appellant was working as the Inspector attached to District Co- operative Bank, Pathanamthitta. The District Co-operative Bank, Pathanamthitta has a Branch at Adoor, wherein PW5 was the Manager. Under the Adoor Branch, there is a Service Co-operative Bank (Primary Bank) by name Erath Service Co-operative Bank of which the first accused was the Cashier and Accountant, the second accused was the Secretary, the third ac...

K. Sajeesh Babu Vs. N.K. Santhosh and Others

Court: Kerala

J. Chelameswar, C. J. 1. Aggrieved by judgment dated 16/03/2011 in WP (C) No. 7622 of 2010, the 2nd respondent in the writ petition preferred the instant appeal. 2. The dispute revolves round the LPG distributorship of the 1st respondent Company for an outlet at Edavanna in Malappuram District. The appellant herein and the writ petitioner were applicants along with others. Eventually, the appellant was chosen by the 1st respondent company to be its dealer, which decision came to be challenged in the abovementioned writ petition. 3. The ground of challenge is that as per the terms of the notification inviting applications, there is a requirement of work experience. To satisfy the said requirement, the appellant produced certain certificates from the various private employers. The writ petitioner challenged the genuineness of those certificates on various grounds and by the judgment under appeal the learned Judge accepted the challenge. The learned Judge opined that the appellant who was...

Wireless - Tt Info Services Limited Vs. the S.i. of Police and Others

Court: Kerala

K.M.Joseph, J. In all these writ petitions except as herein after stated the petitioners have approached this Court seeking writ of mandamus to grant police protection for construction of mobile towers on the strength of what is described as deemed permits. In there is a prayer for police protection for operation of the mobile tower and also to give protection to the workers of the petitioner and its assets. In W.P.(C) No.14313/2010 there is a prayer to give protection for installation and energisation of the mobile tower. 2. The respondents would oppose the prayers. They would point out health hazards. Various other objections are also raised. They include whether apart from the permit any other permission is required Whether a mobile tower is a workplace? Whether the component parts are machinery under Section 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act? Whether the tower is a building? We heard these matters along with a batch of other writ petitions. We have already in a batch of writ peti...

Dr.Ambika Kumary and Others Vs. State of Kerala and Others

Court: Kerala

Ramachandran Nair, J. The short question arising for our decision in this case is on the nature of jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat established under Section 22B of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter called "the Act"). The issue cropped up in a claim for damages filed before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Trivandrum by the wife and children of the deceased Sri.Murugan, alleging the death of the latter as on account of medical negligence by the appellants, few of whom are Doctors in the E.S.I. Hospital, Peroorkada, Trivandrum and the last one the Insurance Officer therein. On receipt of notice of claim petition, the appellants raised a preliminary objection before the Permanent Lok Adalat contending that the PLA has no jurisdiction to decide a claim disputed by the appellants by conducting a trial like a Civil Court. At the request of the appellants the preliminary objection on jurisdiction was heard and decided by the PLA against the appellants by holding that the...

Davis. C.J., Vs. Thrissur Corporation and Others

Court: Kerala

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. 1. The petitioner is running a workshop after obtaining licence from the first respondent Corporation. This writ petition has been filed with the prayers to quash Exts.P9 and P11 and also to direct the second respondent not to proceed further pursuant to Exts.P9 and P11. Ext.P9 is a notice issued by second respondent, the Health Officer of the Thrissur Corporation under Sections 447 and 448 of the Kerala Municipality Act to the petitioner, requiring him to close down the workshop, within 7 days of receipt of the same. On receipt of Ext.P9, he has submitted Exts.P10 reply and P10(a) representation. Thereupon, Ext.P11 order was passed by the second respondent. 2. The core contention of the petitioner is that the second respondent is incompetent to issue Exts.P9 and P11. That apart, it is contended that the Ext.P11 was passed without affording him an opportunity of being heard. The first and second respondents have jointly filed counter affidavit in this writ petition. ...

M.M.Mathai Vs. Elizabeth Xavier and Others

Court: Kerala

Ramachandran Nair, J. The question raised in the Review Petition and in the connected Writ Petitions is whether the petitioners who are members of the teaching staff namely, Lecturers, Assistant Professors, Professors and Principals of Government Colleges and Aided Colleges in Kerala, are entitled to get a direction from this court to the Government to extend the retirement age of teaching staff in colleges in Kerala from 55 years to 65 years in terms of UGC Regulations dated 30.6.2010 and Central Government Orders annexed thereto. Issue came up before us in a batch of Writ Appeals filed against judgments of the learned Single Judges and in the batch cases we rejected the claim for the reason that retirement age is a policy decision of the State Government and the court cannot interfere in it, much less to issue positive direction to the Government to increase the retirement age of teaching staff in colleges affiliated to Universities in Kerala. We have dismissed the Writ Appeals by ta...

Kunju Kunjamma Saraswathi Amma Vs. Kumari Thankachi and Others

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(2)KLT300; 2011(2)ILR(Ker)399; 2011(2)KLJ661; 2011(2)KHC969

1. Though respondents 1 to 3 were served with notice, there is no appearance. 2. The petitioner is the first respondent in A.S.No.32 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Court - II, Kollam. The Appeal was originally filed as A.S.No.131 of 2007 on the file of the court of the District Judge of Kollam. As per Exhibit P6 judgment dated 3rd June, 2010 in W.P.(C) No.17261 of 2010, this Court directed the District Court, Kollam to dispose of A.S.No.131 of 2007 as expeditiously as possible, giving priority for hearing. Thereafter, the Appeal was transferred to the Sub Court. The prayer in this Original Petition is to issue a direction to the Sub Court, Kollam to dispose of the Appeal expeditiously. 3. The direction issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No.17261 of 2010 is applicable to the transferee court as well. It is not necessary to issue directions every time when a case is transferred from one court to the other. If a direction is issued by the High Court to dispose of a suit or Appeal expeditious...

M/S Kpm Hospital Private Limited Vs. M/S Larson and Toubro Ltd. and Ot ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.K.R. UDYABHANU : PRESIDENT The complainant/private hospital represented by its Managing Director has sought for a compensation of Rs.20.lakhs for the alleged deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties with respect to the functioning of a C.T Scanner and also sought for a direction to replace the alleged defective C.T Scanner with a new one with an extended period of warranty. The case of the complainant is that carried away by the assurances of the 1st opposite party/dealer they placed orders for the Shimadzu Whole Body C.T Scanner C.T.4800 TE and paid an advance of Rs.2.lakhs on 19/5/1997. It was agreed to deliver the same within 16 weeks. Three rooms of the hospital was arranged for installing the C.T Scanner and a sum of Rs.30.lakhs was spent for arranging the facilities like air conditioners etc. The amount agreed was Rs.70.lakhs less advance of Rs.2.lakhs. Although the amount quoted in the quotation was Rs.71.lakhs, after negotiations it was agreed to be suppli...

The Federal Bank and Another Vs. Cherian Eapen

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/Federal Bank in CC.111/08 in the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta. The appellants are under orders to return the title deeds submitted for the loan availed by the complainants and also to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- and cost of Rs.2000/-. 2. The matter is with respect to the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties/appellants in not returning the title deeds after issuing the loan closure served to the complainant with respect to the loan availed by the complainant, the son of the complainant and the partnership firm of the complainant. It is seen that the parties had agreed on the basis of a compromise to pay the balance amount of Rs.15.50 lakhs. A sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- dated 30.6.06 and Rs.12,00,000/- on 17.3.06, and Rs.1 lakh on 1.7.06 and Rs.50,546/- on 30.11.06 were paid. According to the bank a sum of Rs.8,809/- is still due. 3. Evidence adduced consisted of PW1, DW1, Exs.A1 to A7 and B...