Kerala Court June 2011 Judgments

Puthusseri Valiya Veettil Thambayi Amma Vs. Union of India and Another

Court: Kerala

The issue involved in this writ petition is whether the pension under the 'Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme' promulgated by the Central Government is payable with effect from the date of receipt of the application or with effect from the date of passing the order or the Judgment, as the case may be. 2. The factual matrix is as follows: The husband of the petitioner was a participant in the 'Kavumbai Movement' which was declared as a freedom struggle only on 20-01-1998. In connection with the freedom struggle as above, the petitioner's husband happened to undergo confinement for a period of more than 6 months. As a matter of fact, the husband of the petitioner who took the last breath on 29-08-1982, was infact charge sheeted for various offences i.e., under Section 147, 148, 332 and 307, I.P.C and was remanded to jail on 28-01-1947. He was convicted by the Special First Class Magistrate's Court, Tellicherry on 14-06-1947. The confinement continued till 16-08-1948 and it was in d...

James Punnapuzha Vs. Sabitha Rahim and Others

Court: Kerala

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. 1. A question of some importance arises in this revision filed by the tenant challenging the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming a summary order of eviction passed under Section 12(3) of Act 2 of 1965 by the Rent Control Court. 2. We are adverting to the facts only to the extent necessary for deciding this revision. The revision petitioner tenant was sought to be evicted on the grounds of arrears of rent and the ground of bona fide need for own occupation (Section 11(2) and Section 11(3). As it was noticed that the tenant had not paid the arrears of rent which had fallen due subsequent to the filing of the RCP and the rate of rent which was beyond dispute, the landlord filed IA No.8594 of 2007 under Section 12 seeking a direction for deposit of the admitted arrears and for consequential orders including summary order of eviction under Section 12(3). To that IA, the revision petitioner tenant filed counter contending that the contract rent i...

N.J. Mathew Vs. the State of Kerala and Others

Court: Kerala

Could an Officer empowered under Section 68 of the Kerala Forest Act (for short, "the Act") compound an offence (other than offence under Secs.62 and 65 of the Act) when the case is pending before the criminal court? What is the effect of such composition on the pending case? These questions are urged for a decision in this proceeding initiated under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code"). 2. Petitioner is accused in O.R. No.1 of 2009 of Forest Range Office, Kanhangad and C.C. No.245 of 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Hosdurg for offences punishable under Sec.27(1) (e) (iii) and (iv) of the Act. Case against petitioner is that he trespassed into the reserve forest, cut and removed 17 bamboo poles and caused loss of `500/- to the State Government. Petitioner moved an application before the Divisional Forest Officer, Kannur (for short, "the DFO") to compound the offence as provided under Sec.68 of the Act. That application w...

A.R. Nishad Vs. State of Kerala, Rep.Secretary and Others

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(3)KLT39; 2011(3)KLJ224; 2011(2)KHC774

Ext.P2, special summons for a petty offence issued by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thrissur in S.T.No.3011 of 2011 is under challenge in this proceeding at the instance of the accused. 2. Vide Ext,P2, petitioner was summoned to appear before learned Magistrate on 02.06.2011 to answer a charge under 'Section 138 of the Motor Vehicles Act' (for short, "the Act"). According to the learned counsel, allegation against him is that he drove vehicle bearing registration No.KL-8-T-7257 without wearing seat belt on 26.04.2011 at about 5.30 p.m.. The Ollur Police registered S.T.No.3011 of 2011 for the said, alleged offence. It is contended that on that day, petitioner was at Chennai as could be seen from Ext.P3, photocopy of attendance register. The more forcible argument is that 'Section 138 of the Act' does not prescribe any offence, instead it only conferred power on the State Government to make rules for enforcing provisions contained in Chapter VIII of the said Act other ...

United India Insurance Co. Ltd, Vs. George Kozhy and Another

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/Insurance Company in CC No. 114/2009 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,400/- with 9% interest from 05-03-2007 till realization and costs of Rs. 2,000/-. 2. The matter is with respect to repudiation of the claim made under the medi-claim policy issued by the appellant to the second opposite party. According to the complainant on 25-01-2007 while he was in the Republic of Maldives he developed the symptoms of suffocation. He consulted a local doctor and returned to India for detailed medical check up. On 12-02-2007 he consulted the doctor at St. Gregorios Vascular Centre at Parumala and was diagnosed as having Coronary Artery Disease, Renal Dysfunction, Triple Vessel Disease, Hypertension and NIDDM. He underwent surgery on 27-02-2007 and discharged on 05-03-2007. The claim was repudiated. 3. It is the case of the opposite parties/insurers that t...

B. Suresh Rai Vs. Joboy Thomson and Another

Court: Kerala

1. First respondent has received notice but there is no response. Learned Public Prosecutor takes notice for second respondent. 2. Challenge in this proceeding is to Annexure-IV, order dated February 22, 2011 on C.M.P.No.2002 of 2010 in S.T.No.1616 of 2006 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Pala. Petitioner faced trial for offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. There were attempts to settle the matter outside Court and a request was made in that behalf by both sides on 06.08.2010. Learned Magistrate adjourned the case to 21.08.2010 for settlement. On that day petitioner sought further time for settlement but that was rejected, document produced along with the proof affidavit of first respondent was marked and since counsel for petitioner was not ready to cross examine the first respondent, evidence was closed. Petitioner was questioned under Sec.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code") on 26.08.2010 and the case...

A.John, Ansons Group, Architects Vs. the Changanacherry Municipality a ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(3)KLT5

The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.33422 of 2010 has filed this review petition seeking a review of the judgment delivered by me on 10.11.2010. By the said judgment, I dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, reserving liberty with the petitioner to institute a suit in the court of competent jurisdiction seeking the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition. 2. The writ petition was filed on 2.11.2010 seeking the following reliefs:- i. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to respondents 1 and 2, directing them to pay the admitted balance bill amount of Rs.250512/- and Rs.36027/- due to petitioner in connection with the architectural jobs executed for the fish market building and Town-Hall of Changanacherry Municipality, along with reasonable interest from 10.3.09 and 18.5.02 respectively. ii. to declare that the petitioner is entitled to get service-tax from first respondent at the prevailing rate for the architectural fee payable to him in connection ...

Tata Motors Finance Ltd. Vs. M. Nazeer and Another

Court: Kerala

R. Basant, J. This appeal, under S.37(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is filed by the appellant who was the claimant before the arbitrator. At a time when the arbitral proceedings had not commenced, the appellant had gone to the District Court claiming relief under S.9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The appellant is a financier and the respondent had available a loan from the appellant for purpose of vehicle under a hypothecation agreement which contained a stipulation regarding repossession. There was default in payment of monthly installments due. Invoking the provisions in the loan/hypothecation agreement for arbitration, the dispute was referred for arbitration. Inter alia the relief of appointment of a receiver to repossess the vehicle was claimed by the appellant under S.9 of the Act. The District Court by the impugned order granted the lesser relief claimed - of injunction against alienation. It is brought to our notice that even on the...

K. Gopakumar Vs. the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing, Committee Rep by th ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(3)KLT7; 2011(3)KLJ69

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Petitioner participated in an auction proceedings, for which Ext.P1 is a tender notice. According to the petitioner, he is the second highest bidder. He impeaches the eligibility of the 5th respondent, which is the highest bidder to get the contract. 2. Ext.P1 is an invitation of tenders in connection with the running of footwear counters in the East and West Nadas and cloak room in the East Nada of Guruvayoor Temple for a period of 12 months. The aim is that footwear counters and cloak rooms are available for the benefit of devotees for safe keeping of footwears, mobile phones, cameras etc. Indisputably, these structures provide the service of footwear counters and cloak rooms outside the premises of Guruvayoor Temple encircled by a compound wall into which, entry of non-Hindus is prohibited. There is prohibition to use footwears inside such premises of the Temple. Therefore, the devotees will have to leave their footwears outside. Equally, they may ...

Abdul Razak Vs. Union of India, Rep by the Secretary and Others

Court: Kerala

RamachandranNair, J. 1. This Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge declining to grant the relief prayed for i.e. to direct respondents 2 and 3 to release smuggled gold seized and confiscated by the Department on payment of redemption fine and duty under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short). 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The appellant who landed from the Middle East (Riyadh) in a flight on 02/02/1996 without declaring any goods that attracts customs duty passed through the green channel at the Karipur Airport, Kozhikkode. The Customs officers intercepted the appellant at the gate and examined the goods that the appellant had brought along with him from abroad. It was seen that the appellant tried to smuggle out over 8 KGs of gold (69 gold biscuits of 10 tolas each) by concealing it in emergency light, mixie, grinder,...