Kerala Court June 2012 Judgments

M.S. Abdulla Shahul Hameed and Othersr Vs. State of Kerala, Represente ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT324; 2012(3)ILR(Ker)569; 2012(3)KLJ393

ThottathilB.Radhakrishnan,J. C.R. 1. These original petitions are filed invoking Article 227 of the  Constitution of India in the wake of the fact that following  the general transfers of judicial officers in the subordinate  judiciary for the year 2012, Wakf Tribunal, Kollam lies  vacant without a regular officer and the District Judge,  Kollam is ordered to hold full additional charge of the Wakf  Tribunal/Additional District Judge III, Kollam until further  orders. There appears to be some apprehension as to whether a further notification of the State Government under Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995 is necessary for the officer so put in charge, to discharge the functions of the Wakf Tribunal. 2. Section 3(q) of the Wakf Act defines 'Tribunal' to mean the Tribunal constituted under sub-section (1) of Section 83. Section 83 provides for constitution of Tribunals. Sub-section (1) of Section 83 provides that the State Government shall, by notificatio...

Asianet Satellite Communications Limited and Another Vs. State of Kera ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLJ672

RamachandranNair, J. This WP(C) filed challenging the constitutional validity of levy of luxury tax on Cable TV Operators with effect from 01/04/2006 was dismissed by this Court along with a few other cases upholding the amendment made to the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short). However, on appeal filed before the Honourable Supreme Court, the Supreme Court remanded the case vide judgment dated 03/02/2011 giving freedom to the petitioners to amend the WP(C) raising additional grounds in addition to those raised in the WP(C). Based on direction of the Supreme Court, the petitioners were allowed to amend the WP(C) and on the amended WP(C) the respondents took notice and filed counter affidavit. 2. We have heard learned Senior counsel Shri.Dushyant Dave along with learned counsel Shri.Saji Varghese appearing for the petitioners and also learned Advocate General Shri.K.P.Dandapani along with learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) Shri.Sojan J...

Samuel Vs. Chandrakumar and Another

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT501; 2012(3)KLJ452; 2012(3)ILR(Ker)873

1. This criminal revision petition has been filed against theorder dated 9-11-2011 of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate,Thiruvananthapurampassed under Section 136 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure. The 1st respondent herein/the petitioner beforethe Sub Divisional Magistrate in M.C. No. 18 of 2010 alleged sound pollution using speakers and boxes without any valid licence in the Assemblies of God Church and thereby causing public nuisance, on the revision petitioner/the counter petitioner.The complaint regarding the same was got enquired into through the Station House Officer of Parassala Police Station. On receipt of the report and other connected records a preliminary order was passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure directing the revision petitioner herein to stop operating the Public Address System through loud speakers and boxes or to appear before that court on 17-2-2011 for showing cause as to why that order should not...

Abdul Rahiman @ B.M.A. Rahiman @ Bechu Rahiman Vs. State of Kerala and ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLJ206; 2012(3)ILR(Ker)718; 2012(4)KLT26(SN)(C.No.26)

1. This revision petition carries a challenge against the order dated 5.6.2012 passed under section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure whereby Annexure-1 charge in S.C.No.512 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Ernakulam was altered. The revision petitioner is the fourth accused therein. The petitioner along with 10 other accused admittedly charged originally as per Annexure-1 for having committed offences punishable under sections 109, 115, 216A, 354, 384, 395 and 412 read with section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The said charge was framed against them on 25.6.2011. Thereafter the parties went to the trial. Upon closing the evidence of the prosecution the accused were questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C. After closing the defence evidence hearing was conducted. Thereupon, Annexure-2 petition for amending the charge was filed by the prosecution. After hearing both sides, as per Annexure-3, that application was allowed and Annexure-1 charge ...

M.M. Mani Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Common petitioner in the above three petitions, all of them filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure {for short "the Code"}, is the District Secretary of a recognised political party viz., Communist Party of India (Marxist) {for short "CPI(M)}. A speech delivered by the petitioner in a public meeting organised by the aforesaid party at Manacaud, Thodupuzha on 25.5.2012 has led to the registration of Crime No.1196/12 for offences punishable under Sections 302, 109 and 118 of the Indian Penal Code against him. A copy of the video CD of his speech was received by the police and, after viewing it, the above crime was suo motu registered by the Sub Inspector of Police, Thodupuzha. Viewing of the CD disclosed that the petitioner in his speech had divulged information of his complicity in the commission of a series of murders of political activists which had taken place in the district from 1982 onwards, is the basis for the registration of the crime. 2. Annexure I in Crl.M.C...

Babtist Rodrigues Vs. K. Subrahmanya Sabaraya

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT69(SN)(C.No.72)

These Second Appeals are brought from the common judgment and decree of learned Sub Judge, kasaragod in A.S.Nos.8 and 7 of 2008 respectively, confirming the common judgment and decree of learned Principal Munsiff, Kasaragod in O.S.Nos.385 and 247 of 2006, respectively. 2. Appellant filed O.S.No.247 of 2006 against the respondent for specific performance of an (alleged) oral agreement for sale dated 30.05.1984. He claimed that plaint A schedule in O.S.No.247 of 2006 originally belonged to Appayya as per Ext.A1, order of assignment and the said Appayya sold it to the respondent as per Ext.A2, assignment deed No.852 of 1983. While so, there was an oral agreement between the appellant and the respondent on 30.05.1984 whereby the respondent agreed for sale of the suit property to the appellant for a consideration of `5,700/-. As the respondent was in pressing need for money appellant was persuaded to pay the entire amount on 31.05.1984. Pursuant to that, appellant was put in possession of t...

Phenominal Health Service Ltd., Managing Director Ioiu and Another Vs. ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : HON.ACTING PRESIDENT This Revision Petition prefers from the order passed in IA 344/2011 in CC No. 715/09 CDRF, Thrissur dated: 20.12.2011. 2. The Revision Petitioners are the opposite parties preferred this revision from the order from the IA 344/2011 CDRF, Thrissur. These revision petitioners are the opposite parties in the above OP due to their absence from the Forum below. The Forum below called absent and set exparte. The above said IA filed by the Revision Petitioners for set aside the exparte order passed against them which also dismissed by the Forum below with an observation that the Forum below has no jurisdiction to set aside the exparte order. 3. Heard the counsel for the revision petitioners in detail. It submitted that the complainants subscribed a phenol gold membership from the opposite parties on 19.5.2008 for a period of 9 years they are also entitled to get additional benefits of heart shield scheme. The 2nd complainant on 17.9.2008 develope...

Anju Srivastava Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by the Public Prosecu ...

Court: Kerala

This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed by the 1st accused in C.C.No.373/2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Aluva, seeking an order to quash Annexure A1 final report and Annexure A36 court charge whereby the petitioner along with another is accused for offences under Sections 406, 408, 468, 420 and 477 A read with 34 IPC, with a plea that the offences alleged are not made out. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing Annexure A1 and A36, I find that there are some allegations in Annexure A1 accusing the above offence. Almost all the allegations in Annexure A1 final report are copied in Annexure A36 and a consolidated charge was framed. I find that is not a proper procedure. It appears that no plea of discharge was advanced. Therefore, there was no occasion for the trial court to apply mind. The legislative intention discernible by Sections 211, 212 and 213 Cr.P.C and Form No.32 thereunder is...

Mujeeb Vs. State of Kerala, Represented Through the Public Prosecutor ...

Court: Kerala

S.S. Satheesachandran, J. 1. Annexure A4 order passed by the learned Magistrate dismissing an application moved by the petitioner, who is the accused in Crime No.117/2012 of Pothencode Police Station, for defreezeing his bank account which had been freezed on the steps taken by the investigation officer in the crime, is challenged in this petition invoking the inherent powers of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short, 'the Code'. 2. Petitioner in the aforesaid crime is imputed of committing offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code. The gist of the accusation is that petitioner, a broker, committed criminal breach of trust and defrauded and cheated a lady, whose immovable property was disposed with his involvement. Collecting four blank signed cheques from that lady and making use of one of such cheques he withdrew an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- from the account opened by her in a bank, as introduced by him, in which she had dep...

The Kerala State Co-operative Employees Pension Board, Rep. by Its Sec ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT820; 2012(3)KLJ680

Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. All the connected Writ Appeals are filed by the Kerala State Co-operative Employees Pension Board challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge declaring entitlement of the employees, who are already members of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and also members of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 to continue with the said Organisations even after formation of the Pension Fund under the appellant by the State Government for the employees of the Co-operative Banks in Kerala. 2. We have heard Shri.P.Ravindran, learned Senior counsel, along with Shri.K.R.Sunil, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant, Shri.Abraham Vakanal, learned Senior Counsel, Shri.Koshi George, Shri.P.N.Mohanan for the party respondents and also learned Special Government Pleader for the State. 3. There is no dispute on the applicability of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter called as the EPF Act for short) to the employees of ...