Kerala Court September 2011 Judgments

P.S. Gopi and Another Vs. Sub Inspector of Police, Chevayoor Police St ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(4)KLJ298; 2011(4)ILR(Ker)387; 2011(4)KLT277; 2011(4)KHC95

K. Surendra Mohan, J. 1. Student indiscipline has reared its ugly head again This time, in the campus of the Government Law College, Kozhikode, forcing the Principal of the College to rush to this Court seeking orders for Police protection to restore normalcy. Meanwhile, Incidents of violence and destruction of public property have followed. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, the situation has been brought under control. But some questions still remain. Who should pay for the destruction of public property that has ensured? Are the petitioners entitled to their costs? But, before we lock horns with those questions, a brief resume of the facts is necessary. 2. The Government Law College, Kozhikode is a very prestigious educational institution that has maintained at all times an impressive track record of academic excellence. An institution that has been imparting legal education of the highest order to succeeding generations of law students who have passed out of its portals over the...

A.V. Joseph Vs. Joshy T. Joseph

Court: Kerala

“C.R.” THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. The plaintiff in a suit for directing the winding up of a partnership firm; for settlement of accounts and for direction to the defendant to render accounts, is the appellant. He sued alleging that he and the defendant are partners of a firm run with a firm name, engaged in quarrying and stone crushing business activities. 2. According to the plaintiff, that is a partnership at will and he and the defendant have equal shares, with right to share the profit and loss of the partnership equally. The plaintiff pleaded that the unit was initially commenced by the defendant as a proprietary concern and thereafter, he was brought in on negotiations. He pleaded that the partnership business stood dissolved as on 25.2.2011, when a notice of termination was issued. Along with the plaint, among other things, Ext.A1, the agreement (in original) dated 16.4.2000, Ext.A2, a copy of notice dated 22.2.2011 and Ext.A3, defendant’s reply (in ori...

Shliyal Beevi, Chennai Vs. the State of Kerala, Represented by the Add ...

Court: Kerala

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Ibrahim, Murugan, Abu Gani and Kareem Sadhik Basha detained under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, for short, “COFEPOSA Act” are the beneficiaries of these writ petitions filed seeking issuance of writs, directions or orders in the nature of habeas corpus on the ground that the orders for their detention and their continued detention in terms of those orders are in violation of Article 22(5) of the constitution and the different provisions of COFEPOSA Act. The detention orders are also sought to be quashed. 2. Adv. S. Palanikumar appearing on behalf of the petitioners in these cases, Adv. Govindu P. Renuka, the Central Government Counsel appearing for Union of India which is the second respondent and Adv. P.K. Babu, the Senior Government Pleader appearing for the State of Kerala and the Superintendent of the Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram, who are respondents 1 and...

V.A. Arun Kumar Vs. State of Kerala, Rep. by the Additional Chief Secr ...

Court: Kerala

Issues raised in these writ petitions and the parties are common and therefore these cases were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. W.P.(C).No.20125/2011 is adopted as the leading case and documents produced therein are referred to in this judgment. 2. From May 2006 till May 2011 the petitioner’s father was the Chief Minister of the State and the 3rd respondent was the Opposition Leader in the Legislative Assembly. During the said period, on the floor of the Legislative Assembly and outside, members of the opposition raised several allegations against the petitioner and his father. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent sent Ext.P1 letter dated 01.03.2011 containing as many as the 11 allegations against the petitioner, against the Chief Minister himself and his office. The contents of this letter being relevant to decide the issues raised in these writ petitions, the letter is extracted for ready reference; “Malayalam” 3. The files produced by the le...

Ramachandran Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer

Court: Kerala

1. By Ext.P1 document of 26.6.2006, petitioner purchased 2.62 acres of land scheduled to the said document. A portion of the property was acquired for the purpose of National Highway, which is evident from Ext.P2 and the balance is still owned by the petitioner. Ext.P3 is the possession certificate and Ext.P4 is the receipt evidencing payment of tax. 2. By Ext.P5 dated 20.12.2003, a. notification issued under S.4 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961, the property in question was proposed to be declared as a reserved forest. Subsequently, Forest Settlement Officer issued Ext.P6 notification. In terms of S.6 of the Act. This notification was issued on 10.8.2010 and includes the property of the petitioner covered by Ext.P1 title deed. This proclamation states that it will come into effect from the date of its publication in the gazette and that whoever claims any right over the lands mentioned therein, shall within four months appear or file written statement before the Forest Settlement Office...

Dr.Reena Varghese Ms(Ent), Lisie Hospital and Another Vs. Ammini Jose ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties the doctor and the hospital respectively in OP.169/04 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.40000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as cost. 2. The complainants are the mother aged 55 and her daughter. It is the case that on 5.2.04 the 1st complainant/mother was taken to the 2nd opposite party hospital for a removal of fish bone stuck in her throat. It is stated that the 1st opposite party ENT Surgeon after examination found that there is no fishbone and discharged the patient on the next day with advice to come for review after 8 days. Due to severe pain and inflammation in throat after 4 days 1st complainant was again taken to 2nd opposite partys hospital on 10.2.04 and was admitted. On the next day she conducted the procedure of oesophagoscopy under general anaesthesia and the fishbone was removed. She was an inpatient therein upto 15.2.04 on which date she was r...

M/S M.O.S.C. Medical Mission-eye Hospital, Kariambadi and Others Vs. A ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

COMMON JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant in Appeal.406/06 is the 1st opposite party hospital and the appellant in Appeal 424/06 is the 2nd opposite party, Director cum Head of the unit and the appellant in Appeal.489/06 is the 3rd opposite party doctor in OP.111/2000 in the file of CDRF, Wayanadu. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- as compensation with interest at 9% from 17.4.2006 and cost of Rs.3000/-. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he is working as an A/C Mechanic at Qatarfrom 1988 onwards. While working he was hit in the eye by a flying piece of nail. Initially he was treated at Dr.Susans Clinic, Doha. He was advised to undergo further treatment and surgery. He returned to India for the above purpose as the treatment at Qatar was very expensive. He arrived at Calicut on 8.9.99 and got treated at the 1st opposite party hospital. After examination he was told that there is only a wound in the eye and he underwent tr...

The Secretary Devikulam Taluk Co-operative-agricultural and Developmen ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The order dated : 30.5.11 of CDRF, Idukki in CC No. 46/11 is assailed in this appeal by the opposite party who is aggrieved by the directions of the Forum below to return the original title deed of the complainant in respect of 56 cents of land belonging to the complainant and to pay Rs. 2,000/- as cost of the petition within 15 days of receipt of a copy of the order, failing with the opposite party is under further direction to pay 12% interest per annum from the date of default. 2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he had availed a loan of Rs.90,000/- from the opposite party bank in the year 1990 and that he has repaid an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- as principal and interest towards the loan. It is the case of the complainant that inspite of paying the amount the opposite party demanded further payments from the complainant and hence he approached the State Farmers Debt Relief Commission in the year 2007 and by the order dated: 25....

K.V. Jacob Vs. the Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam in O.P. No. 757/03 order dated 10.3.2005. The complainant is the appellant and the respondent is the opposite party in the above O.P. respectively. The appellant/complainant prefers this appeal from the dismissal order of the complainant by the Forum below. In the case of the complainant is that the complainant has decided to construct a new residential building consisting of two floors. The construction was with the financial assistance of the Federal Bank ltd. Puthencruz branch. In the first phase of the construction of the building the ground floor was completed on 10.11.2001. After the completion of the ground floor that portion was insured with the opposite party by the bank for a period of 25.4.2002 to 24.4.2003. The sum assured was Rs. 3,00,000/- The first Floor work was started on 2.5.2002. The concreting of the first floor roof was on 2.6.2002. On 7.6.2002 early morning, the resid...

Purushothaman K., (Retired Assistant Secretary) and Another Vs. the Ke ...

Court: Kerala

The appellants are the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.16953/2011. Having failed before the learned Single Judge, they have come up in appeal. The brief facts leading to the case are as follows: Appellants 1 and 2 entered the service of the 2nd respondent, a duly constituted Co-operative Society as per the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, on 6.5.1981 and 27.7.1981 respectively. On completing their probation, they were regularized, continued in the service and retired from service on superannuation while working as Assistant Secretary and Head Clerk on 30.11.2010 and 31.12.2010 respectively. At the time of their entry in service, there was no provision for pension. With effect from 3.6.1993, Contributory Pension was introduced as per the Kerala Co-operative Societies Employees’ Self Financing Pension Scheme, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Pension Scheme’). Upon commencement of the Pension Scheme, they were enrolled on 1.5.1982 and 1.10.1983 respectively, the d...