Kerala Court June 2012 Judgments

Dr. John Paul Grace Hospita Vs. Vilasini and Others

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR,JUDICIAL MEMBER The Medical Officer attached to the GraceHospital, Kelakam, Kannur District is the appellant. The opposite parties were the appellant Medical Officer and Staff of the said hospital. The original complainant died after ex-parte evidence was taken from him. Subsequently, the appellant entered appearance and filed his version. So, the original complainant was not available for cross examination. His wife and children prosecuted the complaint. 2. The allegations on which the complaint was founded were that the deceased complainant had undergone treatment for cancer at KasturbaHospital, Manipal. The doctor who treated him directed the complainant to take injections as part of chemotherapy from the hospital of the appellant. Along with the prescription, the doctor at KasturbaHospitalhad given a letter to the opposite party explaining the manner in which the injection had to be taken. So on 7.6.99, the deceased complainant approached the opposite party ...

Christu Jayanthi Hospital and Another Vs. Vincent Abraham

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The order dated 31.01.2011 of CDRF, Ernakulam in CC.515/06 is being assailed by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties who are under directions to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation within one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which the opposite parties are liable to pay interest also at 12% per annum from the date of default till payment. 2. The complainants case is that he was admitted in the 1st opposite party hospital from 8.8.2006 for treatment of viral fever and that the 2nd opposite party had administered 4 bottles of intravenous drips besides other medicines and that he had to approach the 2nd opposite party on 11.8.06 also with the complaint of severe pain on which date medicines were administered and on 14.8.06 the 2nd opposite party referred him to Lourdes Hospital for expert management. The complainant had submitted that he was admitted at Lourdes Hospital, Ernakulam on 14.8.06 and the 3rd opposite p...

Varghese George (Minor) Vs. State of Kerala Represented by the Princip ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLJ394

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. This matter is before the Division Bench on a reference by a learned single Judge. 2. We have heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Advocate General on behalf of the State. 3. The petitioner underwent the Plus Two Course in the I.C.S.E. stream with Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry and Computer Science as optional subjects. He applied for admission to the Engineering Course in terms of the Prospectus for the year 2012 and appeared for the Common Entrance Test conducted by the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations, Government of Kerala. 4. Notwithstanding that, the petitioner had, indisputably, given the prescribed declaration in terms of the Prospectus stating, among other things, that he has read and accepted all the conditions of admission to the Post Graduate Courses, 2012 as contained in the Prospectus, we would proceed to consider his plea on the interpretation of two provisions in the Prospectus and the declarations s...

The Secretary, Higher Education Department and Others Vs. V.R. Rajalak ...

Court: Kerala

Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. Writ Appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment of thelearned Single Judge directing the Government to extend the leavegranted to respondents 1 and 2 by one year for completing the Ph.D.course. We have heard Senior Government Pleader appearing for theappellants and counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The grievance of the State is that respondents 1 and 2 who areSenior Lecturers with respondents 3 and 4 respectively were grantedtwo years' leave vide Exts.P1 and P2 for undertaking Ph.D. course andfor acquiring the Degree on condition that the two years leave withsalary and allowances granted will not be extended. In fact pursuant toExts.P1 and P2, respondents 1 and 2 furnished bond to the Governmentundertaking to comply with the Government orders strictly in termsthereof. The case of the appellants is that in breach of the conditionscontained in Government Orders Ext.P1 and P2 sanctioning leave andalso in breach of the undertaking given by respon...

Wilson Chakkappan, Ernakulam Vs. the Tahsildar, Aluva

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLJ806

1. The petitioner purchased a parcel of land, 22.10 ares in extent, situate in Sy.No.142/7 of Manjapra Village, Aluva Taluk, Ernakulam District in a sale conducted on 17.9.2009 under section 49 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 at the instance of the Kerala Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation” for short). The Corporation had lent money to Sri. K.C. Joseph, to whom the land belonged, for establishing a rice mill. When he defaulted repayment of the loan, the Corporation took steps to recover the amount advanced by it, by recourse to the provisions in the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as “The Act” for short). Thereupon, the aforesaid parcel of land was attached, brought to sale and sold in public auction on 17.9.2009. The petitioner who quoted Rs.30,75,000/- was the successful bidder in the auction. 2. As per the terms of the sale proclamation, the petitioner remitted the sum of Rs.4,62,000/- on 17....

K. Ramanathan Vs. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd Branch Office, Represented ...

Court: Kerala

K. Surendra Mohan , J 1. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P5 order of the Motor Transport Claims Tribunal, Thrissur in I.A. No.1602 of 2012 in O.P.(MV) No.1099 of 2004. The wife of the petitioner was killed in a motor accident that took place on 1.04.2004. As legal heirs of the deceased, the petitioner who is her husband, two male children and her mother filed O.P.(MV) No.1099 of 2004 claiming compensation. As per common award Ext.P1, the claim was allowed and an amount of Rs.6,88,300/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Eighty Eight Thousand Three Hundred only) was awarded as compensation. One third share of each of the claimants in the said amount was directed to be deposited in a fixed deposit with a nationalized bank for a period of three years. Accordingly, the amount is lying in fixed deposit. The sons of the petitioner are now aged 30 years and 25 years respectively. The mother- in- law of the petitioner is aged 82 years. They have all executedExt.P2 Power of Attorney in favour of the...

Kinship Services (P) Ltd. Rep.by Its Director Vs. M.J. Fithaly Fernand ...

Court: Kerala

Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. The appellant is a shipping Company which has filed this Writ Appeal challenging the findings of the learned Single Judge that the Magistrate Court before which an application under Section 145 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been filed by the 1st respondent, the Captain of the Ship, for arrears of wages, has jurisdiction to order arrest and detention of the ship and her equipments or to demand security for the claim amount in terms of Section 245(2) of the Act. 2. The facts leading to the controversy are the following: The first respondent, the Captain of the Appellant's Ship, and several other seamen filed applications under Section 145 of the Act before the Magistrate Court, Kochi for arrears of wages due from the Appellant-Shipping Company. However, apprehending disposal of the ship and her equipments to defeat the claim of the 1st respondent, he approached this Court by filing WP(C) under Article 226 of...

State of Kerala and Another Vs. K.P. Kesavan

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT328; 2012(3)KLJ251

RamachandranNair, J. The common question involved in these writ appeals filed against several judgments of the learned Single Judge is whether teachers without required experience for appointment as Headmasters in LP schools and UP schools and drawing scale of pay of teachers along with supervision allowances as stated in Rule 1 of Chapter XXVI of the KER are entitled to pay revision and higher grade with reference to Headmaster's pay. The question arose is in the context of implementation of pay revision order as per GO(P).No.3000/98/Fin dt. 25.11.1998 issued by the State Government. The above Government Order provides for grade promotions to teachers on completion of 10 years, 18 years and 23 years of service. However, we are told that on 26.6.2009 the first of the above period is reduced from 10 years to 8 years entitling teachers to get first Grade promotion on completion of 8 years continuous service. Inspite of specific provision contained in Rule 1, Chapter XXVI of KER disentitl...

P.R. Rajamma Vs. the Manager, St. George High School and Others

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT137; 2012(3)KLJ477

RamachandranNair, J. The controversy is as to who between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent is eligible to be appointed as Headmistress of the High School in the regular vacancy that arose on 01/04/2011. While the case of the petitioner is that the District Educational Officer as well as the Deputy Director found petitioner's eligibility, the Government vide Ext.P12 reversed their decision and upheld the decision of the Management appointing the 3rd respondent as Headmistress and ordered approval of the same. It is against Ext.P12 the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the said order and for a declaration that she is entitled to be appointed to the post of Headmistress that arose on 01/04/2011. 2. We have heard Shri.K.G.Anil Babu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri.Abraham Vakanal, learned Senior counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and also learned Government Pleader appearing for the 2nd and 4th respondents. 3. There is no dispute that the ...

Sreenarayanan Vs. Huzain

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT326

1. The suit is one for specific performance of an agreement for sale. The trial court decreed the suit as prayed for on 17/1/2000. A period of one month was fixed therein to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.4000/-. (Rupees four thousand only). The defendant challenged the decree in appeal before this Court. It took nine long years for the appeal to be disposed of. The appeal-A.S No.174/2001 - was finally dismissed on 14-1-2010. 2. The decree holder was therefore at liberty to pay the balance sale consideration within one month from the appellate decree. This is because the trial court decree had merged with the appellate decree. The time for deposit of the balance sale consideration thus expired on 14-2-2010. But then the decree holder had filed an application for extension of time on 10-3-2008 itself. The said application was allowed on 26-10-2010 and the balance sale consideration deposited within five days therefrom on 1-11-2010. 3. The judgment debtor opposed the applicatio...