Kerala Court April 2012 Judgments

Hindustan Motors Ltd. and Another Vs. Baburaj P.B, Paramel Houseand An ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The petition is filed for condonation of delay of 420 days in filing the appeal over the order in CC.292/08 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. In the affidavit filed by the Senior Manager, Legal of the 2nd opposite party/appellant it is mentioned that the delay was occasioned on account of the fact that the concerned lawyer did not follow up the matter properly and that the company came to know of the order only when the notice in the execution petition was received. It is also mentioned that the 2nd respondent/dealer had filed an appeal. The above appeal was dismissed on 10.10.2011. In the meanwhile application for certified copy of the order in CC was filed and the copy was received on 5.2.2007. The 1st respondent/complainant has filed objection pointing out that the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner is incomplete as the name of the lawyer is not mentioned. It is also pointed out that it is not mentioned as to who received the copy of th...

Paravur Puttingal Devaswom and Another Vs. K.K. Madhavan and Others

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(2)KLT756; 2012(2)ILR(Ker)623; 2012(2)KLJ656

1. Under challenge in this petition is the order passed by the trial court referring a preliminary issue to the Land Tribunal concerned for consideration. 2. The facts may be briefly noted: The petitioners representing the Paravur Puttungal Devaswom approached the Munsiff's Court, Paravur for a decree of mandatory injunction to remove plaint 'B' schedule shed put up in Plaint A schedule property by the respondents who, according to the petitioners, have been attempting to proclaim their rights over A schedule property. According to the petitioners, A schedule property which was in the custody of the receiver appointed by the District Court, Kollam in O.S.No.129/1956 was handed over to the Devaswom by the receiver and they are in absolute possession and enjoyment of the same. The Devaswom is being administered as per a scheme framed in the aforesaid case. There is an Althara (Retaining wall surrounding a Banyan tree) in plaint-A schedule property where evening lamps are lit. Knowing the...

M/S. Neptune Trade Links Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, in the ...

Court: Kerala

Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. This is an appeal filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal with a delay of 705 days. The reason for the inordinate delay is the filing of appeal against the order of the Tribunal before the Karnataka High Court thinking that since the Tribunal which issued the order is located at Bangalore, jurisdiction over it is in the Karnataka High Court. Even though Standing Counsel opposed the delay condonation petition stating that delay is beyond condonable limit under the provisions of the Customs Act, we feel since the provisions of CPC are made applicable for appeals filed under the Customs Act, this court has the authority to condone delay. It is seen from the judgment of the Karnataka High Court that within the statutory period appellant filed the appeal and the matter was pending there for long period. We, therefore, condone the delay and proceed to consider the appeal on merits. We have...

Prof. (Dr.) A. Ramachandran, Registrar Vs. Indian Council for Agricult ...

Court: Kerala

K.M. Joseph. J. 1. These two writ petitions arise out of an unsuccessful challenge before the Central Administrative Tribunal to the selection made to the post of Director, Central Institute of Fisheries Technology (CIFT for short) and Director, Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI for short). W.P.(C) No.2561/2009 relates to the challenge to the post of Director, CIFT while W.P.(C) No.28670/2009 relates to the challenge to the post of Director, CMFRI. 2. W.P.(C) No.2561/2009: Petitioner was an applicant to the post of Director, CIFT. Ext.P1 is the notification inviting applications for various posts including the post of Director, CIFT. Following were the qualifications prescribed. “3. Director (One post) Qualification Essential: 1. Doctoral degree in Fisheries Technology/Fisheries Science/ Marine Biology/Aquatic Econlgy/Zoology/Microbiology/Bio-Chemistry/Biotechnology/Mechnacical Engineering applied to fishing, fish processing and related aspects including relevant...

Puthiyapura Sheik Koya Thangal and Another Vs. P.P. Koyammakoya and Ot ...

Court: Kerala

1. Who are the appellants? The plaintiff (Puthiyapura Sheik Koya Thangal) in the suit O.S. No. 4 of 1989 on the file of the Subordinate Judges' Court, Lakshadweep at Kavaratti Island filed this intra-court appeal under Sec. 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958. Pending this appeal, the said appellant/original plaintiff died on 27-1-2003. Thereupon Puthiyapura Syed Mohammed Jalaluddin Thangal filed I.A. No. 1750/2003 for substituting his name in the place of the original appellant and the same was allowed on 11-8-2005. Subsequently, one Kunhi Seethi Koya claiming himself to be the Karanavan of the second tavazhi of Puthiyapura tarwad filed I.A. No. 2922/03 to implead him as the second appellant. The said application was allowed on 24-01-2012 without prejudice to the contentions of the first respondent. NATURE OF THE SUIT one:- 2. The aforementioned suit instituted on 3-5-1989 was (i) For a declaration that the plaintiff namely, Puthiyapura Sheik Koya Thangal has been, and is, the Muthaw...

K.P. Mani, Rep. by Her Next Friend and Elder Brother K.P. Jeevan and O ...

Court: Kerala

Thomas P. Joseph, J. 1. Plaintiffs and the 6th defendant in O.S.No.84 of 2006 of the court of learned Additional Munsiff, Kozhikode-I are the appellants, aggrieved by that part of the judgment and decree of learned Additional Sub Judge-I, Kozhikode in A.S.No.185 of 2009 to the extent that claim of 2nd appellant/2nd plaintiff and 6th defendant for partition of the suit property was not allowed. 2. The suit property belonged to one Perachan as per kanam assignment deed No.2636 of 1927. On the death of Perachan, the lease hold right devolved on his sons, Lakshmanan and Raghavan. The said Raghavan died bachelor. Thus the entire property belonged to Lakshmanan. On the death of Lakshmanan, plaintiffs and other legal heirs acquired right over the property. Plaintiffs claimed that they have 2/6th shares in the suit property. While so, their sister, Syamala assigned her 1/6th share to Prabhakaran Nair and Sathiyamma as per document No.595 of 1974. That was followed by the mother of appellants/p...

The Mulloor Rural Co-operative Society Ltd. Rep. by Its Secretary Vs. ...

Court: Kerala

Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. This Writ Appeal is filed against judgment of the learned Single Judge holding that a Co-operative Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter called "the KCS Act") answers the definition of "public authority" as defined under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter called "the RTI Act") and hence the Registrar of Co-operative Societies was within his powers in issuing the order impugned in the Writ Petition directing all societies to constitute authorities under the RTI Act for furnishing information sought about societies. When the Writ Appeal filed by the appellant- society against the judgment of the learned Single Judge came up before the Division Bench of two of us(CNR and BPR (JJ)), we were referred to another Division Bench decision of this court in THALAPPALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in 2009(3) KHC 901 wherein that Bench took the view that a society wo...

Dr. Tresa Radhakrishnan Vs. Government of Kerala, Rep. by Secretary an ...

Court: Kerala

1. The petitioner mainly challenges Ext.P4 order issued by the Government directing the petitioner to hand over charge of the Registrar of the second respondent University, to the third respondent herein. According to the petitioner, her appointment is for a period of five years as per Ext.P1 and hence the said order cannot be supported in law.  2. The second respondent, viz. Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies, was established as per the Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies Act, 2010 (Act 5 of 2011) (for short 'the Act'). At the time of appointment as Registrar, the petitioner was working as Professor and Head of the Department of Aquatic Biology and Fisheries, in the University of Kerala. 3. The contentions raised by the petitioner in a nutshell are the following: The petitioner's appointment by the Government under Section 37(9) of the Act is evidenced by Ext.P1 order and the appointment is for a period of five years from the date of assumption of offic...

Nadakkal Chandran Vs. Mandeyan Yeshoda and Another

Court: Kerala

Thomas P. Joseph, J. 1. Plaintiff in O.S.No.562 of 2001 of the court of learned Additional Munsiff, Kannur sued the respondents, his wife and son for a decree for prohibitory injunction claiming that he is in possession of the shoproom described in the plaint schedule and that respondents are attempting to trespass into the said shoproom. He claimed that he is engaged in stationary business in the said shoproom. He produced Exts.A1 and A2, profession tax receipt dated 27.12.1995 and building tax receipt dated 09.02.2001 in support of his claim of possession. 2. 2nd respondent did not contest the suit. 1st respondent contended that appellant has no title or possession of the shoproom. She claimed that appellant had executed an agreement for sale of the shoproom in favour of one Balakrishnan who filed O.S.No.129 of 1998 and obtained a decree for specific performance of the said agreement for sale. As per that decree, the court executed sale deed in favour of the said Balakrishnan concern...

The Church of South India, Represented by Its General Secretary and An ...

Court: Kerala

S.S. Satheesachandran, J. 1. Challenge in the original petition is against Ext.P4 order passed by the learned District Judge, Ernakulam granting leave to institute a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for short, the 'Code' against the petitioners, the first among whom is a trust created for public purposes of charitable and religious nature and the second, its trustee. 2. The respondents, two in number, who claimed to be persons having interest in the 1st defendant, moved Ext.P1 application seeking leave to sue the petitioners under Section 92 of the Code producing a draft copy of the plaint, in which, alleging breach of trust, removal of the trustee, preparation of a scheme for administration of the trust, settlement of accounts etc. were canvassed as reliefs. The application for leave was opposed by filing of a counter affidavit (Ext.P2) by the General Secretary of the 1st petitioner, who also claimed to be the Secretary of the 2nd petitioner. An additional objecti...