Kerala Court June 2012 Judgments

Biju Gopalan, S/O Gopalakrishnan and Others Vs. K.S. Sivasankaran, S/O ...

Court: Kerala

Joseph Francis, J. This appeal is filed by the respondents 1 to 3 in O.P.478/2009 on the file of the Family Court, Thiruvalla. Respondents 1 and 2 herein were the petitioners in that O.P., which was filed by them under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act for recovery of an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- towards the value of gold ornaments and value of movables. 2. The case of the petitioners in the O.P. is briefly as follows : Petitioners 1 and 2 are the parents of deceased O.S.Bindu. The first respondent married Bindu on 3.11.2002 at Lakshmi Auditorium near the residence of the petitioners, as per the custom of Ezhava community. The said Bindu was working as an L.D. Clerk in the Revenue Department and the first respondent was working as a teacher. There are no issues out of the wedlock. Respondents 2 and 3 are the father and mother of the first respondent respectively. In connection with the marriage, Bindu was given 408 gms. of gold ornaments, out of which 280 grams were entrusted to the 2nd...

K. Subair Vs. Asma and Others

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT271; 2012(3)ILR(Ker)238; 2012(3)KLJ243

M.L. Joseph Francis, J. 1. This Original Petition (Family Court), under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the respondent in C.M.P.No.748/10 in M.C.141/2008 on the file of the Family Court, Kasaragod. Respondents 1 to 4 herein were the petitioners in that C.M.P. 2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows : Respondents 1 to 4 herein, being the wife and minor children of the petitioner, were the petitioners in M.C.141/08 on the file of the Family Court, Kasaragod. The said proceedings were initiated by them against the petitioner herein, claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'). In that M.C., the petitioners therein claimed Rs.4,000/- per month, as maintenance. The respondent in the M.C. filed counter. PW1 and RW1 were examined and Ext.A1 was marked before the Family Court. The respondent offered to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month each to the first and 4th petitioners. The Family Court o...

Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Kseb, Mayyil and Others Vs. K. ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellants were the opposite parties in CC No.34/2010 in the CDRF, Kannur. The respondent was the complainant. His case in brief was that he had been running an industry with the electrical power supplied by the opposite parties. He was regularly paying the electricity charges as and when it became due. Anti Power Theft Squad inspected the premises of the complainant on 29.03.03. His consumer No. was 3516. But no irregularity was revealed. He was directed to install one more capacitor. He was also directed to pay Rs.2,700/- as fine. The complainant paid the amount. On receipt of notice to rectify the defect of the capacitor within 7 days, the complainant did the rectification. The complainant continued to pay the electricity charges on the basis of the meter reading. Meter reading was taken by the employees of the opposite party. But the complainant received notice on 06.01.2010 directing him to pay Rs.57,978/-. As per the bill, the compl...

Preeti Yohannan Vs. Abraham K. Mathen

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT111; 2012(3)ILR(Ker)202; 2012(3)KLJ187

1. The Registry has noted a defect and has objected to the numbering of the Transfer Petition (Civil) filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The objection is that separate petitions need to be filed to transfer independent proceedings pending in the court below. The petitioner seeks transfer of the following proceedings from the Family Court, Nedumangad to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. (i) O.P. No. 630/2012 filed for dissolution of marriage. (ii) O.P. No. 488/2012 filed for declaration of guardianship. (iii) O.P. No. 527/2012 filed for recovery of money and articles. (iv) O.P. No. 636/2012 filed for custody of minor child. 2. The High Court Rules, 1971 (Kerala) of course do not specify as to whether separate petitions should be filed for transfer of independent proceedings. But we get the necessary cue from the Civil Rules of Practice (Kerala) though they are intended to regulate the procedure in the Subordinate Civil Court in the State. The relevant rule ...

Sri. R.Krishnan Nair Vs. Sri.R. Sanal Kumar

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. K.CHANDRADAS NADAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellant was the complainant in CC.332/09 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The complainant alleged that he entered into an agreement with the opposite party on 22.4.08 whereby the latter agreed to construct a residential building with measurement of 56.5M at a cost of Rs.5,15,000/-. The opposite party accepted an advance sum of Rs.1.lakh from the son of the complainant. The opposite party started the construction work on 7.6.08. Since the quality of steel rods purchased by him was not up to the standard, the complainant purchased 71.Kgs of 10 MM steel bars for Rs.3600/- and entrusted the same with the opposite party. The basement was completed as per the direction of the opposite party and it was not as per plan. There was defect in constructing foundation basement. Required steel and cement were not used for the construction of pillar. The over all foundation work of the building is highly defective and weak. On inspection through a Civil ...

Fousiya Vs. State of Kerala and Others

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT232; 2012(3)KLJ325

K.T. Sankaran J. 1. Altlhaf @ Issac, the son of the petitioner, was detained in execution of the order of detention dated 30-01-2012 issued under Sec. 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the KAAPA'), on his arrest on 04-02-2012. The order of detention is under challenge in the Writ Petition. (The order of detention is not produced along with the Writ Petition. The grounds of detention are produced as Ext.P1 in the Writ Petition. The prayer in the Writ Petition is to quash Ext.P1. However, after perusing the original records and taking into account the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are inclined to consider the validity of the order of detention). 2. There is no dispute that the approval of the order of detention under Sec. 3(3) and confirmation of the order of detention under Sec. 10(4) of the KAAPA were duly made within the time stipulated. 3. In the order of the detention, mention is made about f...

T.R. Peethambaran Vs. the Additional Licensing Authority and Another

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT622; 2012(3)KLJ547

The petitioner, a driver by profession, has filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P1 order of the 1st respondent by which, the petitioner has been disqualified from holding the driving licence issued to him, for a period of one year, from 20.03.2012 to 19.03.2013. The petitioner while driving a bus was involved in a motor accident. The bus collided with a goods autorickshaw on 16.02.2012 and the driver of the autorickshaw was killed. The bus also rammed into a nearby house destroying the walls thereof. Crime No.174 of 2012 has been registered by the North Paravur Police in respect of the incident, charge sheeting the petitioner for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304 A of the Indian Penal Code. 2. In view of the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner, the 1st respondent also initiated action and by Ext.P1 the petitioner has been disqualified from holding a driving licence as stated above. The order Ext.P1 states that a show cause notice had been issued to the pet...

Jomy Vs. the Secretary, Rta, Ernakulam and Another

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT180; 2012(3)ILR(Ker)305; 2012(3)KLJ62

1. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P3 proceedings of the first respondent rejecting an application for temporary permit submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner is a stage carriage operator. He had applied for the grant of a temporary permit of four months duration on the route Don Bosco Junction- Aluva HMT Junction. The temporary permit was sought for in the vacancy of stage carriage bearing registration No: KL-04/K6787, with respect to which vehicle, the petitioner himself had been granted a regular permit, Ext.P1. However, according to him, the permit was not renewed thereafter. 2. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that, the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC for short) has not been granted a permit to conduct services on the route. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to seek for the issue of a permit under Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The ground on which the application for temporary permit has been rejected in Ext.P3 is ...

Ammukkutty Amma Krishnakumari Vs. Rajasekharan Nair

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT183; 2012(3)ILR(Ker)228

This is a piquant situation where the legal heirs claim that their predecessor-in-interest would be a 'kudikidappukaran' had been alive on the date on which the right got crystallized in law. It was a delight to hear Mr. G.S. Raghunath, Advocate on behalf of the revision petitioner and Mr. R.D. Shenoy, Senior Advocate on behalf of the respondent on this stimulating question. 2. The suit in O.S. No. 312/1984 on the file of the court of the Munsiff of Neyyattinkara is one for redemption of a mortgage dated 11.07.1122 M.E. The plaint 'A' schedule property is 15 cents of land and the plaint 'B' schedule property is a thatched house therein. The property belonged to one Krishnan Nair who mortgaged the same in favour of Padmanabha Pillai and Lakshmi Amma under Ext.A3 deed. The mortgagees assigned their right in favour of Velayudhan Pillai and Rajamma in the year 1950. Velayudhan Pillai released his one half mortgage right in favour of Rajamma in the year 1954. Rajamma in turn assigned the wh...

P.K. Mumthaz, Rajasthan Emporium, Kodungallur Vs. the Addl Sales Tax O ...

Court: Kerala

Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. This Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge holding that bed sheets made of cloth woven on powerloom is a separate commodity and is not entitled to sales tax exemption under Item 10 of the Third Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter called as the KGST Act for short). 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and also learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and have also gone through the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. 3. The assessments involved in this case are for the years 1996-97 and 1997-98. The appellant's case is that bed sheet made of powerloom cloth is essentially cloth as such and it is entitled to exemption under the specific entry provided under Item 10 of the Third Schedule to the KGST Act. However, the finding of the Assessing Officer confirmed by the learned Single Judge following the decision of the Supreme Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. ...