Kerala Court July 2011 Judgments

Poolakandy Malayil Vijayan Vs. Sakeena

Court: Kerala

N.K.Balakrishnan, J 1. The tenant is in revision. An order of eviction was passed against him by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority under Section 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, 'the Act'), in reversal of the order of the Rent Control Court declining eviction. Brief facts necessary for the case are as follows. The petition schedule building was originally obtained by Choyi, the father of the revision petitioner from the original landlord. The respondent Sakeena and one Nazar purchased the petition schedule building from the original owner as per Ext.A1 document dated 17/10/1995. Nazar mentioned above, assigned his undivided half right in favour of the revision petitioner and his brother Santhosh Kumar. The respondent sought eviction contending that the revision petitioner being the tenant used the building in such a manner as to reduce its value and utility materially and permanently. The specific allegation made in paragraph (...

Mar Augusthinose College Vs. Mahatma Gandhi University

Court: Kerala

W.P.(C) No.22530/2011 is filed by the Kerala Arts and Science Unaided College Management Association and W.P.(C).No.14553/2011 is filed by the Managers of two unaided colleges. These colleges are affiliated to Mahatma Gandhi University which is governed by the provisions of Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985, (in short ‘the Act’). 2. In W.P.(C) No.22530/2010, petitioner challenges the Centralized Allotment Process (CAP) Rules and Regulations, 2010, framed by the University for the purpose of Centralized allotment of students for Post Graduate Courses for the year 2010. 3. In W.P.(C) No.14553/2011, petitioners are challenging the Centralized Allotment Process (CAP) for Under Graduate (UG) Courses Regulations framed by the respondent University for Centralized allotment of students to colleges affiliated to the Mahatma Gandhi University. 4. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M.R. Rajendran Nair, the learned senior counsel appearing for the University. 5....

Ravi Vs. State of Kerala and Another

Court: Kerala

V. Ramkumar, J. In this appeal filed under Sec.374 (2) Cr.P.C. the appellant, who was the accused in S.C.No.495/2000 on the file of the Addl. Sessions Court (Fast Track-II), Kozhikode for an offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for the said offence. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of `1,00,000/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. 2. When this appeal came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge (K.Hema, J.), it was contended that the delay of 16 days in producing the seized properties before the court was fatal in view of Section 102(3) Cr.P.C. The decisions in Dominic v. State of Kerala ( 1989(1) KLT 601), Alex v. State of Kerala (2003(1) KLT SN 9), Kunhikannan v. State of Kerala (2006(4) KLT 469) and Vikraman v. State of Kerala (2007(1)KLT 1010) were relied on. Adverting to the aforesaid decisions the learne...

V.E. Jossie and Others Vs. the Flag Officers Commanding in Chief Headq ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(3)KLT730; 2011(3)ILR(Ker)976; 2011(4)KLJ31; 2011(5)LLN306; 2011(3)KHC599

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.  This original petition is filed challenging the order of the Central administrative Tribunal (CAT), Ernakulam Bench, upholding the orders issued by the respondents to discontinue overtime wages was being paid on House Rent Allowance (HRA), City Compensatory Allowance (CCA), Transport Allowance (TA), Small Family Norm Allowance (SFA) etc. We have heard Senior Counsel Sri. N.N. Sugunapalan, appearing for the petitioner and have also gone through the orders of the CAT, impugned in the original petition.2. Petitioners are civilian employees or union representatives of such employees, employed in the Naval Establishment at Kochi. They have been getting extra wages for over-time work under Section 59(1) of the Factories Act, 1948, which is at twice the ordinary rates of wages. For payment of overtime wages in terms of Section 59(2) of the Act, respondents have been reckoning the above four items of compensatory allowances as forming part of ordinary rate of w...

Lenovo India Private Limited Vs. Joseph Antony Thottunkal House and An ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC.223/10 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The order is an exparte order. 2. It is pointed out by the counsel for the appellant that the appellants/opposite parties received notice only on 29/11/2010 and the Forum has passed the order on 30/11/2010. The appellants have also produced documents in this regard ie, the registered postal cover and the tapal register kept by the appellant. We find that the complaint is seen filed on 22/9/2010. It appears that there is delay in dispatching the notice to the opposite parties from the Forum. In the circumstances, the order of the Forum is set aside. The Forum is directed to permit the opposite parties to contest the matter and dispose of the case on merits. The Forum will issue notice to the complainant. The matter stands posted before the Forum on 26/8/2011. Office will forward a copy of this order to the Forum....

The Secretary, Kesari Arts and Science College Vs. Anto Vinu Yesudasan ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR, MEMBER The opposite party in CC.11/07 of CDRF, Ernakulam is the appellant herein who is aggrieved by the order dated 28/03/07 wherein and whereby the Forum has directed them to refund to the complainant a sum of Rs.7477/- towards half of the fee collected by them from the complainant with cost of Rs.500/-. 2. The complainant had approached the Forum stating that he had joined for the B.Sc Bio-technology course on 18.7.06 and that he discontinued studies with effect from 17.11.06 since he got admission for B.Tech course in another college. It is his case that he had to pay fee of Rs.22,252/- to the opposite party for joining the course and as he had left the course he is entitled to refund of fee of Rs.302/- towards University fee, Rs.5,000/- towards infrastructural facilities, Rs.3,100/- towards special fee and 1 /4 of the tuition fee of Rs.12,500/-. 3. It is admitted that he had received Rs. 1,000/- collected by the opposite party towards the caution deposi...

N. Vasumathi and Another Vs. Valsan, V.P.K. Bhaskaran and Another

Court: Kerala

Basant, J 1. How are the words "suit or other proceedings for an order or injunction in circumstances arising out of a marital relationship" in explanation (d) to Sec.7 to be understood? Does the unsatisfactory language deserve and need clarification by this Court before the legislature intervenes to amend the statutory provision? These questions disturb us in this appeal. 2. These petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution by the petitioners asserting that the dispute involved in O.S.No.173 of 2006 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Thalassery and O.P.No.322 of 2006 before the Family Court, Kannur are to be settled and decided by the Family Court alone and not by any other court. 3. A brief resume of events which have led to these two petitions may be relevant and vital to correctly comprehend the disputes. We are referring to the parties and documents as they are ranked/marked in O.P.No.976 of 2010. 4. Petitioner No.1 is the wife of respondent No.1. Their marriage too...

Madhu K.V and Others Vs. the Director General of Police(Kerala Police ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(3)ILR(Ker)723; 2011(3)KLJ750; 2011(4)KLT26(SN)(C.No.25); 2011(3)KHC462

1. Untimely transfers would undoubtedly cause unrest, umbrage and above all, unbounded difficulties and inconveniences to service personnel. At times, the transferring authorities use the power of transfer as a weapon to wield at erring employees in lieu of initiation of disciplinary proceedings and sometimes, it is used to accommodate favourites. Recognizing recurrence of such profane exercise of transfer-power and with a view to eliminate the element of arbitrariness in its exercise and to have a uniform policy as far as possible Government have formulated norms and framed guidelines to be followed by transferring authorities in the matter of transfer. General transfer, transfer on public or administrative grounds, punishment transfer and request transfer are various known forms of transfer. Courts cannot adopt nonchalance when circumstances call for such interference and at times, may also have to lift the veil to see its real nature. With this prelude, I may examine the contentions...

Thavarayil Salim Vs. thekkeveettil Karuvantevalappil Saru

Court: Kerala

The question of law involved in this Original Petition is whether the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale can seek to implead the attesting witness to the agreement as additional defendant in the suit, invoking Rule 10 (2) of Order I of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the ground that she is likely to deny her signature in the agreement. 2. The petitioner filed O.S. No. 297 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Kuthuparamba against the respondent for specific performance of an agreement for sale in respect of the plaint schedule property. The defendant denied the agreement and her signature in the agreement. She contended that there was no agreement for sale between her and the plaintiff. The defendant also denied the signature of her daughter as an attesting witness in the agreement. According the defendant, the agreement produced alongwith the plaint is a "false and fabricated document created by the plaintiff by forging the signature of th...

P.T. Rajan Babu and Another Vs. Anitha Chandra Babu and Another

Court: Kerala

Could a person who removes standing timber from the property in his possession even after the civil court has declared title of the complainant and allowed him to recover possession of the said property be charged with the offence of 'theft', is the question arising for a decision in this case. 2. A resume of facts necessary for a decision of the question is: The first respondent secured a decree from the court of learned Munsiff, Punalur in O.S. No.420 of 1997 on 09.07.2008 declaring her title over 33= cents of land in Sy.No.475/9B, 475/9B/21, 475/8A1 and 475/8A20 in Punalur Village, directing petitioners to surrender possession of the said property to the first respondent within one month of the date of decree and failing which, allowing the latter to recover possession of the property through court. Petitioners challenged that decree in the appellate court and obtained stay of execution of the decree for recovery of possession. On 17.02.2011 the first respondent filed a complaint be...