Kerala Court May 2012 Judgments

Sadasiva Panicker and Others Vs. Suresh Kumar Suman Nivas, Porodu, Viz ...

Court: Kerala

V. Chitambaresh, J. 1. This Original petition has been filed challenging the concurrent orders passed by the Courts below in an application for interim mandatory injunction. The orders direct the defendants to remove a gate kept at the entrance of the plaint 'B' schedule property. It is trite law that interim mandatory injunction can be granted only to restore the status quo ante as on the date of suit. It is evident from Ext.P11 report of the Advocate Commissioner that the gate had already been erected at the time the defendants were served with summons on the date of suit. 2. This court while admitting this Original Petition to file passed an interim order of stay on condition that the defendants keep the gate in the plaint 'B' schedule property open without locking the same. The Counsel for the defendants reiterates this plea and undertakes that he would comply with the interim order till the disposal of the suit. I therefore direct the parties to maintain the same status quo till t...

P.T. Mohandas Vs. the Kerala State Co-operative Employees Pension Boar ...

Court: Kerala

RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. 1. The appellant while functioning as Manager of the second respondent Co-operative Bank was found involved in irregularities that lead to his suspension, and enquiry into the misconduct, finding guilty and punishment by way of dismissal. However, in appeal the appellate authority converted the dismissal to one of compulsory retirement. Since compulsory retirement itself amounts to removal from service dis-entitling the employee from getting pension, the Assistant Registrar refused to forward the service papers for grant of pension to the Co-operative Pension Board. However, when the appellant questioned it in this Court, this court held that even if an employee is removed from service, he is entitled to be considered for compassionate allowance under Proviso to Clause 18(2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Employees' Self Financing Pension Scheme - 1994 (herein after called the Pension Scheme). Pursuant to the Division Bench judgement vide Ext.P7, the Pension...

C.R. Radhakrishna Pillai Vs. Bhargavi Amma and Another

Court: Kerala

V. Chitambaresh, J. 1. Is a suit maintainable for modification of a scheme already settled by court for the administration of a private religious trust? This is the interesting question that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2. The first defendant by name 'Elampalloor Devaswom Trust' is conceded by the parties to the suit to be a private religious trust. Therefore the provisions of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure do not ipso facto apply even though the principles can be extended. The scheme for administration of the trust had been settled in O.S. No. 280/1997-Sub Court, Kollam. There was a subsequent suit for modification of the said scheme in O.S. No. 408/1981 on the file of the same court. But the suit was dismissed and the decree is impugned in A.S. No. 100/2005-District court, Kollam which is stated to be pending. The present suit in O.S. No. 273/2011-Sub court, Kollam has been filed by p...

T.R. Mohana @ S. Latha Vs. Union of India, Represented by the Secretar ...

Court: Kerala

The interpretation to be placed on rules 4 and 5 of the Post Office Monthly Income Account Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the MIA Rules for short) framed and issued by the Central Government under section 15 of the Government Savings Banks Act, 1873 (hereinafter referred to as the Savings Banks Act for short), is the issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 2. The petitioner was formerly residing at Chennai with her husband Sri.Sadasiva Pai. While the petitioner and her husband were residing at Chennai, on 17.5.2004, the petitioner's husband opened five single accounts under the MIA Rules by depositing Rs.50,000/- each in his name in different Post Offices at Chennai. On 12.8.2004 he opened yet another single account under the MIA Rules in his name by depositing Rs.50,000/- in another Post Office. The petitioner and her husband opened two joint accounts by depositing Rs.1,50,000/- each and one joint account by depos...

Trivandrum Club Vs. Sales Tax Officer (Luxury Tax)

Court: Kerala

1. Whether the rent realized by a club for the rooms and cottages let out to its members and their guests is exigible to tax under the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act,1976 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for short) is the question raised by the petitioner. 2. Trivandrum Club, a Society registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955 is the petitioner and Ext.P1 is its Rules and Bye-Laws. They were issued Exts .P2 and P3 pre-assessment notices proposing to complete assessment of luxury tax under the Act for the years 2002-03 to 2005-06. In these notices, it was alleged that the petitioner is providing residential accommodation and services in their 7 A/C rooms, 5 A/C cottages and 2 Non-A/C rooms and that therefore it is liable for luxury tax under the Act. On receipt of these notices, petitioner submitted objection, a copy of which is Ext.P4, where it was mainly contended that the Act does not apply to social clubs...

Nalini Vs. A.G. Abraham

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT32; 2012(3)ILR(Ker)95; 2012(3)KLJ44

Ramakrishna Pillai, J.  The revision petitioner who succeeded tenancy after the death of her husband Gangadharan, the original tenant of the petition mentioned room, is coming up in revision before this Court for the second time.2. The respondents/landlords sought eviction of the revision petitioner and her children from the tenanted premises under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act), 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short) alleging that the tenants did not pay any rent with effect from 1.6.2005 and further that the respondents, who are residing at the rear portion of the building having two bed rooms and a kitchen, need additional accommodation for the son of the first respondent as negotiations for his marriage was going on and due to the inadequate residential convenience, nobody was willing to have an alliance with him.3. The revision petitioner, who opposed the application, admitted the continuance of tenancy as the l...

M/S India Bulls Securities Ltd. and Others Vs. Varghese Skaria and Ano ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.K. CHANDRADAS NADAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER As per the order of this Commission confirmed by the National Commission, amount is due to the Decree Holder/Complainant. Request is made to keep the cashing of draft in abeyance on the ground that the OP wants to approach the Honble Supreme Court by filing SLP. We do not feel that the amount should be kept in our custody for that purpose considering the dire need for money expressed by the complainant and the time lag between the filing of the complaint and payment of the amount. Hence petition is dismissed....

Vincent Puthoor Vs. M.R. Suresh Kumar S/O. Raman and Another

Court: Kerala

Revision petitioner is the brother of the victim who lost her life in a road accident that occurred at 4.45 PM on 6-8-1997 along the Thrissur - Kanjani public road. Regarding the incident the 1st respondent was prosecuted for offences under Sections 279 and 304 A IPC. 2. The prosecution case is that at about 4-45 PM on 8-8-1997, the first respondent drove a mini bus bearing registration No.KL 8-C 180 from west to east along Thrissur - Kanjani road in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and knocked down Lilly, sister of the petitioner, aged 50 years, while she was waiting along the northern side of the road and as a result Lilly sustained severe injuries to which she succumbed at 5-35 PM at West Fort Hospital, Thrissur where she was rushed to soon after the accident. 3. The case was registered on the basis of a First Information Statement which was marked as Ext.P1 given by PW1. PW9, the Circle Inspector of Police, Thrissur West Police Station investigated the case ...

Marimma Samuel Vs. the State of Kerala and Others

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT152

The petitioner is a widow aged 73 years. Her husband, K.M. Samuel, was a clerk in the 5th respondent's school, which is an aided school. He was present in the school for duty on 30.11.1987. But, thereafter, he went missing. The 5th respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner's husband for unauthorized absence under Rule 74 of Chapter XIV-A of KER. The notice of the disciplinary proceedings could not be served on the petitioner's husband. Therefore, the notice was published in Deepika daily on 5.8.1989. Subsequently, by Ext.P3 order, the 5th respondent imposed on the petitioner's husband the punishment of removal from service. The petitioner filed a complaint before the police that her husband is missing. The Sub Inspector of Police, Adoor issued Ext.P1 certificate to the petitioner stating that in spite of enquiry regarding the whereabouts of K.M. Samuel, the whereabouts could not be ascertained. The petitioner submits that in view of the fact that more than 7 ...

Nidhi Goel Vs. State of Kerala, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Co ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT30(SN)(C.No.30); 2012(3)KLJ65

1. Ext.P7 order passed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate refusing to return the passport of the petitioner which was seized in connection with the investigation of a crime registered against her for the offence under Section 420 of the Penal Code is impeached in the petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this court. 2. Petitioner, a lady, responded to a call for an interview to secure a job in an IT company. Later when she was given a posting to a foreign country and after a visa was also procured in her favour by the company, it is alleged, she resigned her job causing monetary loss to the employer. On a complaint filed by her employer alleging an offence under Section 420 of the Penal Code on the aforesaid circumstances surrounding her resignation from the company a crime was registered which, after investigation, resulted in filing of a refer report opining that the transaction is of a civil nature and no offence is made out against her. Pending investigation...