Kerala Court August 2011 Judgments

Aboobacker Vs. District Collector

Court: Kerala

This reference is made by the learned Judge for an authoritative pronouncement of the Division Bench in view of the conflicting views taken b this court in Jameson V. State of Kerala (2006 (3) KLT 186) and in Narayani Amma V. Special Tahsildar (2008 (2) KLT 206). 2. In Jameson’s case (cited supra) this court decided that R.16A of the Land Acquisition (Kerala) Rules, 1990 is ultra vires to the extent it insists that every application for reference to the courts, both under S.18(1) and 28A(3), shall be made in Form No.22A. In Narayani Amma’s case (cited supra) a learned Judge of this Court took the view that, from 1.9.2008 onwards the Land Acquisition Officers shall insist that application under S.18(1) and 22A(3) shall be submitted in Form No.22A, supported by informations prescribed by the Schedules in Form Nos.16 and 17. Since the above views are conflicting each other, pronouncement of a Division Bench is sought for. 3. In Jameson’s case the learned Judge had taken ...

ing Vysya Bank Ltd. Vs. M.V. Mathew and Another

Court: Kerala

Thomas P. Joseph, J. 1. In these Original Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is to Ext.P4, order dated 27.07.2009 (In O.P(C) No.2234 of 2011), Ext.P2(a). judgment dated 04.03.2009 and Ext.P3, order dated. 07.04.2009 respectively In O.P(C) No.2241 of 2011 and Ext.P3, order dated 17.06.2009 In O.P(C) No.2242 of 2011. The said Original Petitions concern O.S.No.460 of 2006 of the First Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam, O.S.- No.384 of 2008 of the Principal Sub Court, Ernakulam and O.S.No.748 of 2008 of the First Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam, respectively. Those suits are for recovery of money due from the respondents-defendants on the strength of loan transactions. Exhibit PI In the Original Petitions- is the plaint In each case. Petitioner/plaintiff is the ING Vysya Bank Ltd, a Registered Banking Company having its Head Office at Bangalore and branch, among other places, at M.G. Road, Ravipuram, Ernakulam. Plaints referred to the loan transactions ...

Shamila P. Iqbal, Kochi Vs. Anes P. Iqbal, Kochi and Others

Court: Kerala

BALAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Both appeals are filed by Smt. Shamila P. Iqbal, the 4th defendant in O.S.49/2000 who is the plaintiff in O.S.128/2000. O.S.49/2000 was filed by the first respondent Anas P. Iqbal who is the eldest son of Mohammed Iqbal for a declaration that Ext.B25 Will executed by his father P.A. Mohammed Iqbal is vitiated by fraud, undue influence and coercion and also for partition of the properties left behind of his father who died on 7.9.99. 2nd respondent, Hajira Beevi who is the first defendant in O.S.49/00, is the wife of Mohammed Iqbal. Respondents 3 and 4 (D2 and D3 in O.S.49/00) are the other two sons of late Mohammed Iqbal. 2. O.S.49/00 was dismissed by the learned Subordinated Judge holding that Ext.B25 Will is true and genuine and that all the legal heirs have accepted and acted upon that Will. The plea raised by the appellant that she was the naturally born daughter of Mohammed Iqbal and Hajira Beevi was turned down. Based on the judgment in O.S.49/00 the suit O.S....

Dr. Mathew .V and Another Vs. University of Kerala Rep. by Its Registr ...

Court: Kerala

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. 1. In W.P.(C) No.25672/2009 two Lecturers of St. Michael’s College, Cherthala, have approached this Court seeking to quash Exts.P3 and P4 and to direct the second respondent to sanction and disburse salary due to the petitioners in the Selection Grade with effect from 21.12.2004 and 10.10.2001 respectively. As per Ext.P3 the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education informed that there is no sufficient workload and the same reason is stated in Ext.P4 also. The case of the petitioners is that by Exts.P1 and P2 the University has granted approval for promotion/placement to Selection Grade. 2. W.P.(C) No.20834/2010 is filed by the State of Kerala challenging the orders granting approval by the University. Since Exts.P1 and P2 produced in the writ petition filed by the Lecturers, are under challenge in W.P.(C) No.20834/2010, first I will consider the contentions raised therein. 3. The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.25672/2009 are arrayed as respondents 1 and 2 in ...

Bharathan and Others Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(4)KLJ270; 2011(4)KLT655; 2011(4)KHC173

P.S. Gopinathan, J. 1. Revision Petitioners are accused 1, 3, 4 and 5 in C.C.448 of 1997 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kodungallur. They, along with the second accused, were prosecuted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Valapad, in Crime No.236 of 1997 alleging offence under Sections 143, 147, 447, 427 r/s 149 I.P.C. After trial, the second accused was found not guilty and the petitioners were found guilty. Taking into account of the facts and circumstances of the case and that petitioners 3 to 5 are ladies, the learned Magistrate was pleased to release the petitioners under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The first revision petitioner was ordered to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation to the complainant under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Feeling aggrieved, they went in appeal before the Sessions Judge, Thrissur. The IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, to whom the appeal was made over, by judgment dated 26.4.2002 allowed the appeal in...

St. Sebastinand#8217;s Visitation Hospital Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. 1. The question raised is whether the Government was justified in declining building tax exemption to petitioner’s hospital building for the reason that medical service is not rendered free of cost in such building. We have heard counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader for the respondents. 2. Counsel for the petitioner has relied on Division Bench judgment of this court in Mercy (Sr.) v. Secretary to Govt. of Kerala reported in (2011-(2) KLT 15=2011 (1) KHC 769) where the Division Bench has allowed exemption in respect of a hospital building owned by a charitable institution even though medical relief was not rendered free of cost. Government Pleader, however, referred to Full Bench judgment of this Court in Unity Hospital (P) Ltd. and Anr. V. State of Kerala and Ors. Reported in (2011 (1) KLT 236 (F.B.)=2011 (1) KHC 125) wherein the Full Bench has held as follows: “Under clause (b) of S.3(1) of the Act, buildings that qualify for exempt...

Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation, Thiruvananthapuram, R ...

Court: Kerala

BALAKRISHNAN, J. 1. The requisitioning authority-K.S.I.D.C, represented by the Secretary, (impleaded as the 2nd respondent in LAR 153/98) has filed this appeal challenging the quantum of compensation determined by the Reference Court. An extent of 1.8894 hectares of land comprised in R.S.No.16/2 and 4.8686 hectares of land in R.S.No.17 of Panacaud village Panacaud block of Malappuram District were acquired for setting up of IGC, Panacaud Block I. The notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 14.9.1995. The entire property was categorized as block A and block B. For the property, include block ‘A’, the land value was fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs.4,200/- per cent. For the land categorized and shown in block-B, the land value was fixed at Rs.3,360/- per cent. An amount of Rs.24,74,818/- was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer as compensation for the land measuring 1.8894 hectares comprised in Sy.No.16/2. A sum of Rs.63,96,487/- was a...

Arthungal Women’s Integrated - Development Society (Wides Credit ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER It is aggrieved by the directions contained in the order dated 20-4-06 of CDRF Alappuzha in OP No. 14 of 2005 that the present appeal is filed by the opposite party calling for the interference of this Commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below. By the impugned order the opposite party is under directions to pay to the complainant the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with 9% interest from the date of the order till the date of payment with cost of Rs. 6,00/-. 2. The case of the complainant before the Forum is that he is the husband of deceased Savithri Parameswaran; who was the member of Paraspara Sahaya Marana Nidhi run by the opposite party and that the member died on 21-8-2004 and when the complainant made the claim for the Sahaya Marana Nidhi, the sum was rejected by the opposite party stating untenable reasons. It is stated by the complainant that even though lawyers notice was issued on 10.12.2004, the opposite party did not...

The Secretary, Kerala State Housing Board, Thiruvananthapuram and Othe ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR: MEMBER The opposite parties in CC.60/02 before the CDRF, Kasaragod are the appellants herein who are aggrieved by the directions of the Forum below. By the impugned order, the opposite parties are under directions to execute the sale deed within a period of 6 weeks without demanding any additional amount and to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.3000/- within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the order. 2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that as per her application a flat was allotted to her vide letter dated:1.7.92 and that she had paid an initial payment of Rs.96,400/- on 15.11.92 and the balance amounts were paid by instalments. It is her case that though she has paid all the amounts as per the agreement, the opposite parties failed in executing the sale deed in time. Alleging deficiency of service, the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite parties to execute the sale deed and to pay compensation and co...

Jayrajan Vs. Sabitha

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(4)KLJ256; 2011(4)ILR(Ker)306; 2011(4)KLT262; 2011(4)KHC174

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. “C.R.” 1. This appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, “FC Act”, for short, is treated by the Registry as defective on the ground that the certified copy of the impugned order is not produced by the appellant. 2. The matter was sent up to the Bench on the request of the appellant’s advocate, who answered the noted defect by stating that “certified copy of the order is not received”. By order dated 17.8.2011, the Registry was required to say as to why the appeal is treated as defective. 3. Thereupon, Registry states that all copies furnished by the court shall be certified to be true copies by the officer appointed for the purpose and shall be sealed with the seal of the court in terms of Rule 253 of the Civil Rules of Practice, referred to hereinafter as “CRP”, for short, and that Rule 254 of those Rules states that every copy shall bear an endorsement initially by the Fair Copy Superi...