Kerala Court January 2012 Judgments

Petronet Cck Ltd Vs. Thresiamma and Another

Court: Kerala

1. Petroleum pipeline was drawn through the land belonging to the first respondent, which has an extent of 2.46 Acres. An extent of 10.82 Ares of land was actually used for laying pipeline underneath the soil. Compensation was awarded by the competent authority under The Petroleum and Minerals, Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (Act No.50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Dissatisfied with the award, the first respondent filed O.P.No.152 of 2000 before the Court of the District Judge, Palakkad. The court below enhanced the compensation. Petronet C.C.K. Co. Ltd., the requisitioning authority, is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District Judge. 2. Out of the total extent of 10.82 Ares used for laying pipeline, an extent of 6.16 Ares is a dry land and an extent of 4.66 Ares is part of a rubber plantation. For laying pipeline, 54 rubber trees and three teak trees were cut and removed. The competent authority held that the first respondent...

Jose Antony Thottassery Vs. Anil Kuruvilla and Others

Court: Kerala

1. The main question urged for a decision in this Original Petition is whether a suit could be withdrawn form the civil court and transferred to the Debit Recovery Tribunal (for short, “the DRT”) constituted under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short, “the DRT Act”) for disposal along with an application made to the DRT under Sec.17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, “the SARFAESI Act”)?. Incidentally, the question whether trial of the suits pending in the civil court should be stayed until the application is disposed of by the DRT or vice versa also raised for a decision. 2. The 2nd respondent is said to have sold 16.350 cents out of a total of 18.40 Ares tot eh 1st respondent as per two sales deed dated 29.07.2005 and 30.06.2007. 1st respondent filed suit in the Munsiff’s Court, Thiruvalla (later transferred to th...

Jeemon V.R. Vs. State of Kerala, Rep. by the Secretary to Government, ...

Court: Kerala

1. The fate of these writ petitions depends upon the impact of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others reported in [(2006) 4 SCC 1], commonly referred to as Umadevi (3) case, on their factual matrices and contextual situations. Depending upon its answer, the question whether the orders canceling regularisation of the petitioners in service call for interference in the light of Umadevi (3) case, on account of violation of the principles of natural justice also crops up for consideration in W.P.(C) Nos.20687 and 22014 of 2011. In WP(C).Nos.18036 and 22810 of 2011 the question whether the petitioners are legally entitled to claim for reengagement and regularisation in service in the light of Umadevi (3) decision also would arise. Narration of facts, shorn of details, is required for deciding the aforesaid questions. WP(C).No.20687/2011 2. The Institute of Parliamentary Affairs (for short ‘Institute’) wa...

A. Siyavudeen and Others Vs. State of Kerala and Others

Court: Kerala

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J. 1. The appellants, who are the petitioners, filed the writ petition challenging the assessment of the building comprising of the flats constructed by them individually; as a single building. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioners having not filed an appeal as provided under the Kerala Building Tax Act within the period or the extended period provided therein, the petitioners cannot seek resurrection of a time barred cause of action under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The Kerala Building Tax Act has provided a period of limitation of thirty days for the filing of an appeal and has provided a further extended period of six months for entertaining a belated appeal with sufficient cause for the delay. The delay of limitation having run out, a Division Bench of this Court in Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise v. Krishna Poduval [2005 (4) KLT 947] has held that the discretionary remedy under Article 2...

Sreekumar Menon, and Others Vs. Baby Container Terminal Pvt Ltd and An ...

Court: Kerala

1. Petitioners have approached this Court challenging the re-investigation/further investigation ordered by the learned Magistrate. Originally the first respondent herein filed a complaint against these petitioners alleging commission of offences under Secs.120B, 405, 420 and 468 r/w 34 IPC. After conducting investigation, final report was filed by the police against four accused alleging offence under Sec.420 r/w 34 IPC. Before taking cognizance, another complaint was filed by the first respondent herein alleging that proper investigation was not conducted and that re- investigation/further investigation is to be conducted in the matter. That complaint was forwarded by the learned Magistrate under Secs.156(3) and 173(8) of Cr.P.C. This order is challenged by the person shown as accused in the final report filed earlier by the Investigating Officer. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no re-investigation can be ordered by the court suo motu or even at the instance of th...

Jewel Homes Pvt. Ltd., Kochi, Rep. by Its Managing Director Vs. Employ ...

Court: Kerala

1. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the business of construction and sale of apartments. It is an establishment covered under the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) and the Schemes framed thereunder. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges Ext.P3 order issued by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Kochi levying the sum of Rs.17,236/- as interest under section 7Q of the Act for delayed payment of contribution to the employees Provident Fund Scheme 1952, the employees Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme, 1976 and the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 during the period from March 2007 to December 2009. The petitioner also seeks a declaration that interest can be levied under paragraph 38 of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 only from the 21st day of the month following the month i...

The Federal Bank Ltd. Vs. P.J. Baby @ Joy and Others

Court: Kerala

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. Writ Appeals are filed by the same Bank challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge declaring eligibility for debt relief to the respondents under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008. We have heard Standing Counsel appearing for the Bank and counsel appearing for respondents. 2. Since the facts in the connected cases are similar, there is no need for us to narrate the facts in respect of all the cases. So much so, we briefly state the common features of all the connected cases pertaining to which the claim of the respondents have to be decided. 3. The party respondents are 4 in number who availed one loan each ranging from Rs.1 lakh to Rs.1,80,000/- from the appellant-Bank on 26.12.2005. The loan account (produced as Ex.P1 in all the Writ Petitions) show that the loan is repayable after three years i.e. on or before 26.12.2008. So far as interest is concerned, it is specifically provided in the agreement that interest is at 10...

K. Sudha Chandrasekharan Vs. Sasikala and Others

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)ILR(Ker)941; 2012(4)KLJ7; 2012(4)KLT58

1. The questions of law involved in this Writ Petition are the following: (1) Whether a suit which was dismissed under Rule 5 of Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure can be restored to file? (2) Whether the Court can dismiss a suit under Rule 5 of Order IX as against a defendant who was served with summons, for failure of the plaintiff to apply for fresh summons to the defendants who were not served with summons? and (3) Whether Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be resorted to, to restore a suit which was dismissed under Rule 5 of Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure? 2. Petitioner is the first defendant in O.S.No.130 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Kochi. The suit was filed by respondents 1 to 3 for declaration of title over the plaint B schedule property by adverse possession and for a permanent prohibitory injunction. The first defendant was served with summons. However, defendants 2 and 3 were not served with summons. The Court grante...

Beena Kaniyankunnel, Arunagapally and Another Vs. Kerala State Electio ...

Court: Kerala

1. The petitioners in these writ petitions are members elected to different Local Self Government Institutions who contested/proposed to contest the election to the different Standing Committees in different Grama Panchayats. Whether a Returning Officer can refuse to treat the candidature of a woman member of a Local Self Government Institution, who failed to mark her intention to contest the election to a particular Standing Committee in the woman reserved seat, against the woman reserved seat in the said Standing Committee and the, treat her candidature against the unreserved seats to the said Standing Committee and the legality of such actions are the issues to be resolved in W.P.(C)Nos.34854, 35131, 35557 of 2010 and 119 of 2011. Whether the State Election Commission is having the power to extend the time or date fixed for receipt of nominations when once a notice has been issued by the Returning Officer under Rule 4(1) in terms of Rule 4(4), of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Standing C...

Shibukumar Vs. Athira

Court: Kerala

K.M. Joseph, J. 1. Petitioner is the husband of the respondent. Petitioner filed a petition under Section 13 (ia), 13 (1) (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage under Ext.P1, Ext.P2 is the petition filed by the respondent for recovery of gold and Ext.P3 is M.C. filed by the respondent for maintenance. The respondent also filed a transfer petition which was allowed. Subsequently it is stated that the parties have amicably settled the entire issues and decided to exchange their belongings. Thereafter they filed compromise petition which is produced as Ext.P4. It is stated that they have also filed Ext.P5 which is a joint petition for divorce under Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The petition is allegedly filed in June, 2011. It appears that the Family Court, Kottarakkara had posted the O.P. for disposal on 27.12.2011. On 27.12.2011 both the petitioner and respondent were present before the Family Court for giving depositions in accordance with Ext.P5 petition...