Kerala Court June 2011 Judgments

O.V. Usman Kurikkal Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by the Secretary ...

Court: Kerala

The petitioner, O.V. Usman Kurikkal, challenges in this Writ Petition Ext.P1 order dated 20.8.2010, passed by the Government and Ext.P3 consequential proceedings of the District Educational Officer, Wandoor. 2. Thachinganadam High School (hereinafter referred to as ‘the High School’) was established by Thachinganadam School Committee (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Committee’). The property in which the High School is housed, having an extent of 3.52 acres, was purchased on behalf of the Committee as per registered sale deed dated 31.7.1975 (Ext.P4). The Committee consisting of eight members was approved by the Education Department as a Corporate Educational Agency. The fifth respondent, P. Achuthan Nair, is a founder member of the Committee. The Committee framed Ext.P5 by-laws dated 23.6.1978, for management of the High Scholl. The by-laws were approved by the Deputy Director of Education. 3. On account of the disputes among the members of the Committee and th...

The Asst. Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority Office Vs. K.V. S ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The order dated 15.10.2010 of CDRF, Kottayam in C.C. 330/09 is being challenged in this appeal by the opposite party who is under directions to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as costs. The complainants case before the Forum below was that he was a handicapped person and was running a restaurant and that he was having a water connection from the opposite party and further that 30.10.2009, the opposite party disconnected the water supply to the restaurant without any notice or any reasons and that though he had requested for the reconnection the opposite party took a recalcitrant attitude and that it was only on 11.11.09 that the supply was restored. Alleging deficiency in service the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and costs. The opposite party filed version contending that the complaint was not maintainable and that on 22.1.200...

V.J. Jacob and Another Vs. Tom Joseph and Another

Court: Kerala

ThottathilB. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. The defendants in OS No. 131/06 of the Principal Sub Court, Kottayam are the petitioners in this OP, filed invoking Art.227 of the Constitution of India. The subject - matter of that suit was valued at Rs.3,45,500/-. Obviously, going by pecuniary jurisdiction, an appeal against the decree passed by the Trial Court lie only to this Court in terms of the provisions of the Civil Courts Act. However, the petitioners filed an appeal as AS 267/09 before the District Court, Kottayam along with an application for condonation of delay in filing that appeal. They also filed certain interlocutory applications to summon witnesses in support of the application for condonation of delay. 2. It appears that the District Court did not notice the defect in the institution of the appeal on a ground referable to the pecuniary jurisdiction. It proceeded to take up the appeal with the application for condonation of delay and ultimately dismissed that application. 3. The def...

P. Rajan and Others Vs. Dr. N. Surendran, Orthopaedic Surgeon and Othe ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

COMMON JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant in Appeal 158/09 is the complainant and the appellants in Appeal No. 159/09 are opposite parties 1 and 2 in OP No. 38/04 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad. The appellants/opposite parties are under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the complainant and cost of Rs. 2,000/-. 2.The case of the complainant (the complaint was originally filed by the father on behalf of the son who was subsequently impleaded as a second complainant. The second complainant is a major is that on 25-01-2003 he was seriously injured in a road traffic accident and was taken to the second opposite party hospital (hereinafter to be mentioned as the hospital). He had sustained fracture of both bones of the right hand, lower open type III and fracture of right ulna upper 1/3 (Rt) and other injuries. He was admitted in the hospital and on the 27th external fixation was applied over the right forearm. He was having severe pain. There...

Housing Development Finance Vs. K.A.iqbal

Court: Kerala

The issue involved in this case is whether the attachment ordered over the property by a Civil Court, much after the creation of the security interest over the same in connection with a loan obtained by the borrower from the first petitioner/Bank, is having any adverse consequence with regard to the rights and liberties of the Bank and the successful bidder - who has satisfied the sale consideration, in the public auction pursuant to the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act (Act in short). 2. The sequence of events as narrated in the writ petition shows that the property in question was given as security by the owner, while availing the loan from the first petitioner/Bank. In view of the continuing defaults, the Bank proceeded with steps issuing Ext.P1 notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, on 10.10.2008. Since there was no response on the part of the defaulter, the Bank filed a petition under Section 14 of the Act, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam, and as...

Rajan V.P Vs. Saseendran

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT590; 2012(3)KLJ420; 2012(3)ILR(Ker)870

K.T. SANKARAN J. 1. The petitioner, who is the third defendant in a suit for partition filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the preliminary decree which was passed ex parte. There was a delay in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree. An application was filed to condone the delay. The trial court dismissed both the applications. The third defendant filed CMA No.141 of 2009 before the First Additional District Court, Thrissur against the order passed by the trial court. The appeal was dismissed by a one line order which reads as follows:  "CMA is dismissed as infructuous". 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the dismissal of the appeal was on the basis of the submission made by the respondent before the appellate court that the appeal had become infructuous on the ground that a final decree was passed in the partition suit. That such a submission was made, is not disputed by the learned co...

G. Krishnakumar Vs. Union of India Represented by the General Manager

Court: Kerala

Basant, J. (i) Is the right under S.124A of the Railways Act one that is personal to the one on whom the right vests and consequently not heritable? (ii) Cannot the sole legal heir of a decree holder step into his shoes after his death and claim recovery of the amount that has fallen due under Section 124A and which remains unpaid? These questions are raised for consideration in this appeal. 2. A brief reference to facts may be necessary to ascertain the precise dispute. Sreekumar - the victim, a bachelor succumbed to injury suffered by him in an untoward accident on 27.6.2008. He left behind as his kin, his father, mother and one brother. His father as one of the dependents claimed amounts under Section 124A of the Railways Act before the Railway Claims Tribunal. The claim was allowed vide order dated 24.2.2010. Prior to that, the mother of Sreekumar, the only other dependent, had expired on 6.4.2009. 3. The claimant, father of Sreekumar also expired on 9.4.2010. The amount due under ...

Arun Ramachandran Nair Vs. State of Kerala and Another

Court: Kerala

Basant, J. What does the expression 'trial' mean and signify when that expression was employed by the Division Bench in paragraph-19 of Thressiamma v State of Kerala (2010(4) KLT 598), where their Lordships held that a dispute regarding territorial jurisdiction of a Magistrate before whom he is prosecuted should be raised by the accused at the earliest - at least before starting 'trial'? 2. This is the point that arises for consideration in this revision petition which has been referred to the Division Bench as per order dated 7.12.2010 of a learned Judge (Justice V.Ramkumar) who felt that the decision if literally construed would lead to difficulties. His Lordship the Chief Justice has directed that the matter be placed before us, conscious of the fact that both judges who rendered the decision are available. We are hence proceeding to consider the matter notwithstanding the fact that we feel that ideally the question could have been considered by the Bench which rendered the de...

Harshakumar and Another Vs. State of Kerala and Others

Court: Kerala

1. Is the Court of Magistrate while discharging functions under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short, “the Act”) a Criminal Court inferior to the Court of Sessions and the High Court? Is the judgment of Court of Sessions in an appeal filed under S.29 of the Act amenable to the revisional power of the High Court under S.397(1) and S.401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”)? These questions are required to be answered in these petitions filed under S.482 of the Code by the respondents in MC 8 of 2009 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Thamarassery and MC No. 96 of 2007 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Harippad. 2. In Crl. MC No. 969 of 2011 petitioners suffered an order under S.12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short, “the Act”). That order was challenged in appeal before learned Additional Sessions Judge - II, Kozhikode in Crl. ...

Binu Vs. Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, New Delhi and O ...

Court: Kerala

“CR” 1. In this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is the first accused in Crime No. 140 of 2011 of Panangad Police Station for an offence punishable under Sec. 22 ( c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (the N.D.P.S. Act for short) read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. challenges Ext.P3 notification dated 18-11-2009 as per which a "note" has been added with effect from 18-11-2009 as "Note - 4" to the notification published as S.O. 1055 (E) dated 19-10-2001. The said Note 4 reads as follows:- "4. The quantities shown in column 5 and column 6 of the Table relating to the respective drugs shown in column 2 shall apply to the entire mixture or any solution or any one or more narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances of that particular drug in dosage form or isomers, esters, ethers and salts of these drugs, including salts of esters, ethers and isomers, wherever existence of such substance is possible and not just ...