Kerala Court April 2012 Judgments

Union of India Rep. by Chief Engineer, Naval Works, Kochi Vs. M/S. Bha ...

Court: Kerala

Satheesachandran, J. 1. The appellant, Union of India, was the respondent in the arbitration proceedings emanating from the contract agreement, CA NO.CECZ/CHN/34 of 1989-90: Provision of an AED Hangar at INS Garuda, Naval Base, Kochi, in which a sole arbitrator was appointed as per the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.10520 of 2004. The award passed by the arbitrator was challenged by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for short, `the Act', on various grounds, before the court below, the 1st Additional District Judge, Ernakulam. The learned District Judge, repelling the challenges raised against the award, dismissed that application. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. Short facts necessary for disposal of this appeal can be summed up thus: The respondent/contractor was awarded the contract work, construction of an AED Hangar at INS Garuda, Naval Base, for a sum of Rs.1,42,58,880/-. That contract w...

C.C. Alexander Vs. Jacob Antony Palakkathadathi @ Amith, Rep. by His M ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)ILR(Ker)4; 2012(3)KLT36; 2012(3)KLJ381

K.M. Joseph J., The petitioner is the respondent in M.C. No.135 of 2011, which was filed before the Family Court, Ernakulam by two children, who are twins represented by their mother. They filed the petition invoking Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 7(1) Explanation (f) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The prayer is one for maintenance. 2. Briefly put the case of the respondents before the Family Court is as follows. The petitioner herein was a business associate of the earlier husband of mother of the respondents. The petitioner prevailed upon the respondents' mother by making her believe that there is no valid marriage between her and her husband and he may desert the respondents' mother etc. Thereafter the petitioner showed deep affection and love towards the respondents' mother and started caring for the respondents' mother very much and looking after her affairs very keenly. Believing the petitioner's words, it is stated, ...

Muhammad Thayyib and Others Vs. A.P.Abdul Khader Maulavi and Others

Court: Kerala

The Second Appeals and Cross objections arise from the common judgment and decree of learned Third Additional District Judge, Kozhikode in A.S. Nos.230 of 2008 and 217 of 2008 respectively, and the Cross Objection in A.S. No.217 of 2008. Those appeals and Cross Objection were brought from the common judgment and decree of learned Additional Munsiff, Kozhikode-I in O.S. No.568 of 2002. R.S.A. No.1279 of 2010 is at the instance of additional defendants 4 to 7 while R.S.A. No.1283 of 2010 is preferred by defendants 2 and 3 (first defendant died pending the suit). Plaintiff has preferred the Cross Objections. Parties are referred as plaintiff and defendants for convenience. 2. The plaintiff is Shri A.P. Abdul Khader Moulavi claiming to be the General Secretary of the Kerala Naduvathul Mujahideen (for short, "the KNM"), Mujahid Centre, Anniehall Road, Kozhikode. Shri Abdul Khader Moulavi filed the suit on behalf of the KNM as its General Secretary, under Rule 8 of Order I of the Code of Civ...

Baby Vs. A.P. Jose

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT789

1. This unnumbered petition poses a question whether a caveat petition under Section 148A of the Code of Civil Procedure, for short, the ‘Code’, can be entertained against a proceeding instituted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Petitioner is the 2nd respondent in an interlocutory application filed in a civil miscellaneous appeal, which had been disposed by the Sub Court, Ottapalam in his favour. An interim injunction applied for in that interlocutory application against the petitioner, the respondent in that petition, has been dismissed. Apprehending that the applicant in that interlocutory application is likely to move an original petition challenging the adverse order passed against him, before this Court, petitioner has moved the above said petition under Section 148A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for short, the ‘Code’, styling himself as a Caveator, to seek notice to him before any interim order is passed in such original petition....

State of Kerala, Represented by the Circle Inspector of Police, Kurupp ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(2)ILR(Ker)400; 2012(2)KLT928

R. BASANT, J i. Do the arrangements for free legal aid for the appellants in custody in criminal appeal really serve their laudable purpose? ii. Is there only literal and not substantive compliance with the compassionate mandate of law that every hapless and helpless accused in custody must be provided adequate legal assistance? These questions which have been vexing and disturbing us in this jurisdiction for sometime have been brought to our pointed attention by this petition filed by Adv. K.R. Krishnakumari, a counsel engaged at the cost of the State to defend the accused who is facing a sentence, of death. Her appointment has been made under Rule 183(1) of the Kerala High Court Rules. We place on record our appreciation for the efforts made by the learned counsel to bring to our pointed attention a malady that appears to be prevailing in the matter of rendering free legal aid to accused persons. 2. Death Sentence Reference 4 of 2010 pending before this Court is registered on the bas...

C.T. Jessy Martha Vs. the Proprietor, Sree Narayana Indane Service

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in CC 53/10 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad. The appeal has been allowed directing the opposite party to allot domestic gas connection within 15 days on production of the ration card. It is also specified that the order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the complainant is entitled for an amount of Rs.5,000/-. The grievance of the complainants is that the order will appear as if on failure to comply with the order the opposite party is liable to pay Rs.5,000/- only and opposite party will not be bound to comply with the order further in which case the very purpose of the complaint will be defeated. 2. The dispute is with respect to the alleged 2 domestic gas connections enjoyed by the complainant. Evidence was adduced in the matter that consisted of the testimony of PW1, Exts.A1 to A6, B1 to B6 and C1. 3. It was found that the complainant has a separate ration card ...

M/S. Nortech Infonet (P) Ltd, Nortech House, Arakkadavu Road and Anoth ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR: MEMBER This appeal is filed by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties in CC No. 39/08 before the CDRF, Kottayam who are aggrieved by the order dated: 14.2.2011 of the Forum below directing the opposite parties to replace 46 numbers of laptop computers and in failure to refund the price of Rs.17,52,600/- with 9% interest p.a from the date of filing the complaint till realization. They are also under direction to pay cost of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant. 2. The complainant had approached the Forum stating that they had purchased 46 numbers of laptop computers from the 1st opposite party for the purpose of study of MCA course in their institution and that it was assured that the minimum battery backup of the computers would be 4 hrs. It is their case that it was attracted by the battery backup assurance that they had ordered 46 numbers of laptops and paid a sum of Rs.17,52,600/- to the opposite parties. However, it is their further case that the minimum battery backup w...

The Managing Director, Kerala State Poultry Development-corporation Vs ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the 1st opposite party/Managing Director, Kerala Poultry Development Corporation who along with the 4th opposite party is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the complainant with interest at 9% from the date of complaint. 2. The case of the complainant is that 2 hens supplied to him under the IPDP (Integrated Poultry Development Programme) by the Animal Husbandry Department was having some contagious disease and as a result 400 poultry in his farm died. After examination it was found the hens died due to the disease of Ranikhet. The poultry supplied to the other beneficiaries also died due to the disease. 3. In the version filed by the 1st opposite party/appellant and that of the 2nd opposite party, District Animal Husbandry Officer, it is submitted that the complainant was beneficiary and that the poultry supplied were inoculated after procuring as per the guidelines. It is from the reputed and Governmen...

Chembra Peak Estate Limited Vs. Mariyappan and Others

Court: Kerala

1. Plaintiff in O.S.No.209 of 1977 of the Court of learned Munsiff, Kalpetta, successful in getting a decree for recovery of possession of plaint B schedule and prohibitory injunction but, unsuccessful in the appeal filed by the respondents/defendants challenge judgment and decree of the first appellate court in A.S.No.1 of 1998. 2. According to the appellant/plaintiff, plaint A schedule belonged to it and plaint B schedule forms part of plaint A schedule which the original defendant allegedly trespassed upon on 30.09.1977. Hence a prayer for recovery of possession on the strength of title. 3. Original defendant contended that he got plaint B schedule as per Ext.X1, purchase certificate dated 12.08.1977. In the purchase certificate the survey number of property was mentioned as 520/2. Later, that was corrected (being a mistake) as survey No.520/4-B7 (which is the survey number of B schedule referred to in the plaint schedule). 4. Trial court found from Ext.X2, file of the Land Tribunal...

Suo Motu Vs. CochIn Devaswom Board, Represented by Its Secretary, Thri ...

Court: Kerala

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. This matter comes up being registered suo motu in terms of the directions contained in judgment dated 30.3.2012 in W.P.(C) No.6412 and DBA Nos.1 to 9 of 2012. 2. Read the aforesaid common judgment. It contains clear directions regulating the use of "Adirvettu or Kadina" (fire works) in different temples. We do not find any differential in the yardsticks to be applied in the use of "Adirvettu or Kadina", wherever it be, in the State of Kerala. Therefore, the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) and the Malabar Devaswom Board (MDB) have rightly pointed out through their learned counsel that they have no objection in the implementation of the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment to all situations and temples falling under the control of TDB and MDB. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for MDB that there are no temples directly administered by it, except a few. Be that as it may, we find that there is no intelligible differentia to classify temples...