Kerala Court August 2011 Judgments

P.P. Biju Vs. the Assistant Engineer, Kseb Electrical Section and Othe ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR, MEMBER The complainant in CC.156/10 before the CDRF, Idukki is the appellant herein who is aggrieved by the order dated 30th September 2010 wherein and whereby the Forum below had dismissed the complaint. 2. The case of the complainant before the Forum below was that he had an industrial connection from the opposite parties from 2005 onwards to his plastic unit under LT IV tariff and that on 18.6.10 the APTS of the opposite parties inspected his premises and a site mahazer was prepared and found out unauthorized additional load for which a bill was issued amounting to Rs.2,67,068/-. On a petition made by the complainant, the bill was reduced to Rs.1,02,939/-. It is the case of the complainant that he is not liable to pay even that amount. Alleging deficiency in service the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite parties to cancel the additional bill and also pay compensation and costs. 3. The opposite parties filed version wherein it was c...

T. Mohanan Vs. State of Kerala and Others

Court: Kerala

1. The petitioner retired from service as Headmaster on 31-03-2004. He entered service on 07-06-1967 in the post of P.D Teacher. He was entitled for Selection Grade on 07-06-1992 on completion of 23 years of service. 2. Ext.P1 is the Government order dated 07-03-1991 whereby, with regard to Headmasters of Primary Schools and High Schools, certain norms were adopted for fixation of pay on notional basis in the Selection Grade. Para.2(1) of the same permitted persons like the petitioner to submit the option. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted option and the fixation was sanctioned. The date opted is 01-07-1992 in the selection grade. He was enjoying the benefit also. But, later, an audit objection was raised in the year 1999 as per Ext.P3, and against the same, he approached the Accountant General by Ext.P4 representation. The petitioner thereafter approached the Government also by filing Ext.P5 representation. At that point of time, he was faced with recovery proceedings also. The Go...

P. Balakrishnan, Edappally, CochIn Vs. Labour Court, Ernakulam and Ano ...

Court: Kerala

"CR" 1. Termination of service of the petitioner in 1992, on proven misconduct, upheld by the first respondent/Labour Court in Ext.P1 Award in I.D.No.191 of 1993, is the subject matter involved in this case. 2. Whether non-compliance of the statutory prescription under section 33(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) without obtaining ‘prior permission’ of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court for awarding punishment in respect of a ‘protected workman’ during the pendency of any proceeding before the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court will result in automatic reinstatement and whether the intimation given by the Trade Union, furnishing the list of ‘protected workmen’ to the Management will enable the concerned workman to be recognised as a ‘protected workman’ by the Management, without any positive act of such declaration, are the ‘legal questions’ involved. Whether the petitioner w...

CochIn Shipyard Limited Represented by Its Deputy General Manger Vs. t ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(3)ILR(Ker)904; 2011(4)KLJ276; 2011(4)KLT796; 2011(3)KHC716

1. Validity of Rule 5 of the Kerala Factories (Welfare Officers) Rules 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) is under challenge. Contention is that the same is beyond the rule making power of the State and hence ‘ultra vires’. The petitioner also seeks to set aside the incidental steps taken alleging violation of the relevant rules with regard to the appointment of Welfare Officers in the petitioner Company and the steps proposed to have prosecution proceedings. 2. The petitioner is a Government Company owned by the Central Government, coming within the purview of Sec.617 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956. It is a ‘Factory’ as well, as defined under the Factories Act employing nearly 2300 workers. By virtue of the mandate under Section 49 of the Factories Act, every Factory wherein five hundred or more workers are ordinarily employed, the Occupier shall employ in the Factory such number of Welfare Officers as may be prescribed. Sub-section(2) of Section 49...

Andichami @ Andiappan, S/O.Ochathevar Versus the Sub Inspector of Poli ...

Court: Kerala

The appellant herein, who is the sole accused in S.C. 38/2008, challenges his conviction and sentence, as per the judgment dated 4.10.2010 in S.C.No.38/2008 of the Court of Special Judge (NDPS Act Cases), Vadakara under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (herein after referred to as 'the NDPS Act' only).  2. The prosecution case is that on 15.6.2008 at about 4.55 p.m., the accused was found in possession of 2.100 kgs of ganja in front of KSRTC bus stop at Perinthalmanna and subsequently, it came to the notice of the Detecting Officer that, he had also possessed another 30 kgs of ganja and thus seized altogether 32 kgs of ganja from his possession and thus he had committed the offence punishable u/s. 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. 3. On the basis of the said allegation, Crime No.474/08 was registered in the Perinthalmanna Police Station. After completing the investigation, the report was filed in the Special Court on 11.12.2008. After...

Ajinees Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(4)KLT39; 2011(4)ILR(Ker)96; 2011(4)KLJ92; 2011(3)KHC898

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.558 of 2011 of Kannur Town Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Ss.143, 147, 148, 341, 324 and 308 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is the following: The de facto complainant, who is a BBM student, while traveling in a car with his brother, father and others to the new bus stand Thavakkara, Kannur, they stopped the car near a mosque waiting for his friend. At that time, about 10 persons came on bikes and should at the de facto complainant as to whether he did not know that it was a hartal day and they questioned him as to how he could take a vehicle on that day. The accused persons caught hold of the de facto complainant and he was beaten by them. When attached with an iron rod on his head, the de facto complainant evaded and he sustained injuries on his left eye brow. The de facto...

K.N. Sathyavathi and Others Vs. Sarojini

Court: Kerala

1. Defendants in OS 935/1997 on the file of Munsiff Court - II, Kozhikode are the appellants. Respondent is the plaintiff. Respondent instituted the suit for decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the appellants from interfering with his peaceful enjoyment of plaint B schedule property. Plaint B schedule property is a way starting from the way leading to Naithukulam T. V. Kumaran Nair road and proceeds towards the east and reaches the plaint A schedule property belonging to the respondent. It was contended that plaint A schedule property originally belonged to Unichirakutty alias Kuttiamalu, mother - in - law of the respondent by virtue of document No. 1170/1947 of SRO, Chevayoor and item No. 3 therein was set apart to the share of the respondent and her children. Respondent has been in possession of plaint A schedule property. The only access to plaint A schedule property is plaint B schedule way. It was contended that respondent and his predecessors have been using p...

T. Santhosh Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Kerala

C. N. Ramachandra Menon, J. 1. Imposition of punishment of ‘removal from service’ inflicted upon the appellant, who was a member of the disciplined force like CRPF, is the subject matter of challenge in this Writ Appeal. 2. Case of the appellant is that, he was a serving constable of CRPF and while on duty on 16/09/2009 he had to leave the camp without getting permission from the authorities concerned because of some contingencies. Later, the appellant was proceeded against by way of disciplinary proceedings, placing him under suspension as per Ext. P4; followed by Ext. P5 charge - sheet. The appellant participated in the enquiry and the enquiry officer submitted Ext. P7 enquiry report, finding him guilty. After analyzing the materials on record, the disciplinary authority found the appellant guilty and the punishment of ‘removal from the service’ was imposed on the appellant as per Ext. P8, which was subjected to challenge before the appellate authority. Since ...

The Administrator, Holy Cross Hospital, Kottiyam and Another Vs. Joshn ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

COMMON JUDGMENT M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeals are preferred from the order dated 17th November, 2005 passed by CDRF, Kollam in O.P. No. 268/02. The complaint therein was filed by the minor complainant Joshna then aged 1 year. She was represented by her guardian Joseph .W. It was alleged that the opposite party, the Administrator, Holly Cross Hospital, Kottiyam, Kollam was negligent in administering time expired Ampicillin 500gram injection to the mother of the complainant while the minor complainant; was in the womb of her mother. It was further alleged that due to administration of time expired Ampicillin resulted in causing loss of vision to the complainant. Thereby, the complainant claimed compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs for negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party,. 2. The opposite party entered appearance before the Forum below and filed written version denying the alleged negligence and deficiency in service. It was contended that...

Mir Realtors Pvt.Ltd. and Another Vs. Baji Koshy Thomas and Others

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Revision petitioners are the opposite parties/Builders/ respondents in IA 246/2011 in CC.216/11 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. Revision petitioners are under orders to hand over the flat alongwith parking space to the complainant after executing the sale deed at the expense of the complainant and also to deposit Rs.2,41,757/- in the Forum. 2. The dispute is with respect to the delay in handing over the flat vide agreement dated 18.8.07 As per the agreement the flat was to be handed over on 31.10.08. Out of the total consideration of Rs.27.5 lakh the complainant had paid Rs.25.1 lakh. The complaint has been filed on 26..4.11. The complaint has been filed seeking a compensation of Rs.17,74,582/- for the lapse on the part of the opposite parties to hand over the flat as well as for a direction to hand over the flat. 3. On the otherhand the opposite party/revision petitioner has contended that he had sent an E.mail on 22.1.09 intimating that the fl...