Kerala Court June 2012 Judgments

V.T. Mahaboob, Proprietor Vs. E. Muraleedharan

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER The sustainability of the order passed by the CDRF, Malappuram in CC No. 202/08 to pay Rs.57,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as punitive damages along with cost of Rs.2,000/-, is challenged by, the opposite party in this appeal. 2. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant purchased tiles from the opposite party on 25.07.2008 and the opposite party made him believe that the tiles are of Meridian company and of good quality. The complainant paid Rs.37,723/- towards the cost of tiles and for bathroom tiles Rs.2,350/-. An amount of Rs.1,384/- was yet to be paid by the complainant as a part of transaction. The opposite party delivered the tiles at the residence of the complainant. While laying the tiles it came to the notice of the complainant that the tiles are not of good quality and the tiles have defects, the corners of tiles were not joining. When this was brought to the notice to the opposite party, he agreed to reduce the cost of tiles to Rs...

V.M. Varkey Vs. State of Kerala Represented by the Additional Chief Se ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT1

K.T. Sankaran, J. The question involved in the Writ Petition (Criminal) is whether detention of a person under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'KAAPA') pursuant to his arrest, six months after the order of detention, is vitiated since the maximum period for which he can be detained under Section 12 of KAAPA shall not exceed six months. 2. The petitioner is the father of Binoy, who was detained pursuant to Ext.P1 order of detention dated 27.7.2011 issued under the KAAPA. Binoy, the detenu, was arrested on 3.2.2012. The order of detention was issued on the ground that the detenu was involved in several crimes and therefore, he is to be considered as 'known rowdy' as per Section 2(p)(iii) of KAAPA. The specific case of the petitioner is that the continued detention of the detenu is illegal on two grounds. (1) The order of detention was executed after six months of the date of issue of the order. The maximum period of detention contempla...

Saithukutty Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Sasidharan Nambiar, J. 1. First accused in S.C.No.125 of 2009 on the file of Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam is challenging his conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 302 of IPC in this appeal. Appellant, along with 8 other accused, was tried for the offences under Section 143, 147, 148 and 302 of IPC read with Section 149 of IPC for the murder of Shahul Hameed, the husband of PW11, Fathima. PW1 Hussain is the brother of PW11. They are residing in nearby houses. Prosecution case is that on 26.6.2006 at about 1 pm, the deceased had an altercation with second accused, Shameer and to wreck vengeance, the second accused, along with other ten accused, the last one being a juvenile, formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of murdering Shahul Hameed and in furtherance of the common object, appellant inflicted the fatal injury on his chest with Mo1 iron needle on 26.2.2006 at about 9 pm in the varandah of a shop building and caused his death. Prosecution case is ...

State of Kerala, Rep.by the Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Thiruvananth ...

Court: Kerala

Manjula Chellur,Ag. CJ., 1. State of Kerala before us is aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge wherein Rule 6 A of Rule 90 of Part III Kerala Service Rules ("KSR" for short) was interpreted. The learned Single Judge opines that the ultimate object of sub rule 6 A of Rule 90 should be read down to mean that the parents would be entitled to the family pension if the wife remarries and the wife becomes disentitled for family pension. 2. Aggrieved by the said judgment, in the present appeal, contention of the State is that when Rule 90 (6A) of Part III K.S.R. provided how family pension would be admissible to the parents of the deceased and who are all included in the family as contemplated under sub rule 6 of Rule 90. The learned counsel takes us through Note 1 of sub Rule 6 of rule 90 as well as the decision reported in The Accounts Officer (Pension Sanction) v. Mariyamma - 2010 (2) KLT 241). 3. In the present case it is not in dispute that one Sajithkumar, who was workin...

Karayi Rajan Vs. Cbi

Court: Kerala

ORDER Apprehending arrest by the C.B.I. officials in crime no.RC.2(S)/2008/CBI/SCB/Chennai, the petitioners have filed this petition for anticipatory bail. 2. It is contended that a few months ago as they were informed over phone by the CBI officials that they wanted to question the petitioners in connection with 'Fasal Murder Case', they appeared before the CBI officials and were questioned. It is contended that they had then told the officials that they had no knowledge of the assailants who committed the murder. It is stated by the petitioners that notices are issued to the petitioners again to appear before the CBI officials. So they apprehend that once they appear before the CBI officials they will be arrested, falsely implicating them as the accused in the aforesaid murder case. 3. The petitioners are stated to be the prominent leaders of the CPI(M). The 1st petitioner is stated to be the Secretary, CPI(M) Area Committee and the 2nd petitioner is stated to be the Secretary, CPI(M...

Sri. Ouseph Devassia Vs. the State Bank of Travancore, R/by Its Branch ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The order dated:31.08.09 of CDRF, Alappuzha in CC.68/07 is being challenged in this appeal by the complainant who is aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint by the Forum. 2. Before the Forum the complainant had submitted that he was a paddy cultivator of Cheruthana village and that he had availed a crop loan of Rs.10,000/- in May 2005 from the 1st opposite party and that at the time of availing the loan the bank collected the premium of crop insurance of the said year and that the complainant suffered crop loss and when he approached the 2nd opposite party for reimbursement of the amount due to him, the 2nd opposite party repudiated his claim on the ground that there was no valid insurance for the crop in which he suffered the loss. Alleging deficiency on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant prayed for directions to the opposite parties to pay the eligible amount of Rs.9000/- with interest, compensation and costs. 3. On getting notice...

N.G. Deepa, Selection Grade Assistant (Under Orders of Reversion as Se ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)LLN333

The petitioner is an Assistant Grade II in the Kerala Legislature Secretariat. She got appointment as such, under the compassionate employment scheme of the Government, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P1 in this writ petition. She was appointed under the compassionate employment scheme by Ext.P3 order dated 28.3.2001, pursuant to an application dated 5.11.1999. Pursuant to the said appointment, the petitioner joined duty on 5.4.2001. The 3rd respondent was another person who was appointed as Assistant Grade II under the Compassionate employment scheme. She submitted her application on 4.5.1999. She was appointed on 26.9.2001 and she joined duty on 3.10.2001. In between the joining of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, respondents 6 to 20 were appointed through Public Service Commission as per advice dated 3.8.2001. The petitioner's appointment was regularized with effect from 5.4.2001 and that of the 3rd respondent was regularised with effect from 3.10.2001. Now, a dispute has a...

Kerala Autorickshaw Drivers Welfare Association and Another Vs. Region ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT196; 2012(3)ILR(Ker)263; 2012(3)KLJ237

1. The questions raised in these writ petitions are identical and therefore, these writ petitions are heard and disposed of together. 2. The first petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 11644 of 2012 is the Kerala Autorickshaw Drivers' Welfare Association, Pathanamthitta and the second petitioner an autorickshaw driver. The petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 12000 of 2012 are the owner and driver of an autorickshaw. They have filed these writ petitions challenging the action of the Pathanamthitta Municipality in directing that for the grant of permit by the said authority, the front portion of the autorickshaws would have to be painted in cream yellow colour and the rest of the body in black. Only those autorickshaws so painted would be granted permits to ply within the limits of the town. According to the counsel appearing for the petitioners in these writ petitions, the stipulation of the Municipality is in violation of R.295 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 ('the Kerala Rules' for short). It i...

T.F. Sharlet Vs. the State of Kerala Represented by the Chief Secretar ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT73; 2012(3)KLJ840

Issues raised in these writ petitions are connected. Therefore, these cases were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment, treating W.P.(C). 29890/10 as the leading case. 2. Petitioners in these writ petitions challenge the land acquisition proceedings initiated at the instance of the second respondent in W.P.(C).29890/10 for the acquisition of a portion of their properties for providing a road access to the IIIrd phase of the Techno Park. 3. Ext.R2(a) is a Master Plan that was got prepared by the Techno Park for the development of its 3rd phase. It appears that based on Ext.R2(a), the third respondent sought sanction of the first respondent to acquire an extent of 20 Ares of land in R.S.No.251/part in Block No.17 of Attipra Village in Thiruvananthapuram Taluk by invoking the urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the District Collector, the third respondent in W.P.(C).29890/10, it is stated that considerin...

Babu T.G. and Others Vs. the Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice and ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)ILR(Ker)528; 2012(3)KLT709

1. A common question arises for consideration in these writ petitions. They were therefore heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. WP(C) No.15448 of 2008 is treated as the main case and unless otherwise specified, the documents referred to are those produced therein. 2. The petitioner in these writ petition belong to Wayanad district. All of them claim to be members of the Pathiyan community, which is a scheduled caste in the State of Kerala. The petitioners applied to the Tahsildar, Sultan Bathery Taluk for the issuance of a caste certificate to the effect that they belong to the Pathiyan community which is recognized as a scheduled caste in the State of Kerala. He in turn informed them that persons belonging to the Pathiyan community in Wayanad district are not members of a scheduled caste community, but are included only in the list of Other Eligible Communities and therefore, they should move the Village Officer concerned for caste certificates. The petiti...