Kerala Court June 2012 Judgments

National Insurance Company Limited, Represented by Its Manager Vs. Ann ...

Court: Kerala

Pius C. Kuriakose, J The Insurance Company is the appellant and they are challenging in this appeal the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal by which a total amount of ` 3,79,000/- was awarded as against a claim for much larger amounts. 2. Even though various grounds have been raised in this memorandum of appeal challenging award of compensation by the learned Tribunal under various heads, at the time of arguments Sri.Lal George, the learned counsel for the appellant would give thrust to the argument based on the ground that the award of ` 46,000/- towards air fare expended, to respondent No.5 Shaji Thomas, the only son of the deceased Thomas who came down from London to Cochin by an Air India flight for participating in the funeral of his deceased father is not sustainable. 3. Even though Sri.Lal George, the learned counsel for the appellant addressed very emphatic and persuasive submissions and argued that the journey of Sri.Shaji Thomas from London to Kerala by air is not st...

S. Suresh, Lecturer Vs. Mahatma Gandhi University, Represented by Its ...

Court: Kerala

P.N. Ravindran, J. 1. The petitioner underwent the two year MSc degree course in Biochemistry from the School of Medical Education run by Mahatma Gandhi University during the year 1991-93. He appeared for the MSc degree Previous Examination held by Mahatma Gandhi University in July, 1993 and secured 367 marks out of 700 in Papers I to IV. He appeared for the MSc degree Final Examination held in July 1994 and secured 482 marks out of 800 in paper V to VIII. Thereupon Ext.P1 consolidated mark list dated 20.10.1994 was issued. Later, Ext.P2 provisional certificate was issued certifying that the petitioner has passed the MSc degree examination in the second class. Later the original of Ext.P3 degree certificate was issued certifying that the petitioner has passed MSc degree examination in Biochemistry in the IInd class in the examinations held in July 1993 and July 1994. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in the School of Medical Education run by the Mahatma Gandhi University in t...

P.D. Chacko Vs. Jayaraj T. Joseph and Another

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLJ435; 2012(3)KLT107(SN)(C.NO.109)

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. MFA.No.38 of 2011 is by the first opposite party and MFA.No.242 of 2010 by the second opposite party in a workmen's compensation case. 2. No issue relatable to the quantum of compensation fixed arises for decision, at any rate, as a substantial question of law. Similarly, the plea as to liability to pay interest from the date of accident at 12% has only to be answered in favour of the workman in terms of Section 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act as dilated upon by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in MFA.No.59 of 2011 assimilating the law laid in that regard by the Apex Court. That issue also does not survive. 3. The appellant in MFA.No.242 of 2010, a retired school teacher, whom we refer to as the "owner", started construction of a commercial building which is leased out now to different institutions or establishments, including a bank. For the purpose of that construction, he entered into a contract with the appellant in MFA.No.38 ...

Sreelakshmi Anand, Ernakulam Vs. the Sub Inspector of Police, Panangad ...

Court: Kerala

1. The above petition has been filed by a girl, who is working as a Programme Coordinator and Radio Jockey in Radio Mango, Thrissur. On a complaint filed by her father that she is missing the police has registered a crime under the caption ‘man missing’. Now, she has filed the above petition stating that she is in love with one Najil C. Manuel, who is working with her, and they have decided to marry and live as husband and wife. They have already submitted an application for conducting their marriage before the Marriage Officer at Maradu, Ernakulam to solemnize and register their marriage under the Special Marriage Act, is her further case. The limited prayer canvassed in the petition is to issue a direction to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thrissur to record her statement on her appearance before him, and thereafter permit her to go with any person of her choice. The aforesaid magistrate has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the crime numbered as Crime No.109...

DarlIn @ Babu and Others Vs. State of Kerala, Rep. by the Chief Secret ...

Court: Kerala

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. The petitioners and the 4th respondent are siblings.There are some disputes between them in relation to property.If the petitioners place a complaint about the unauthorized exercise of authority, in violation of law, by any policeman orofficer, provisions of the Kerala Police Act provides adequatealternate remedy. The petitioners could take recourse to thePolice Complaints Authority and the measures availablethrough that authority. This is available at the district leveland the state level. The law governs this as per the Police Acthas been discussed in detail in the judgment of this Courtreported in Aslam and another v. State of Kerala and Others[2011 (2) KLT 601]. In view of such alternate remedy beingavailable and because civil disputes are pending before thecivil court, we do not find any ground to issue any orderdirecting the police not to `harass' the petitioners. The writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the petitioners' taking recour...

Beji Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

K.T. Sankaran, J. 1. Henry Jose, the husband of the petitioner was detained under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, hereinafter referred to as 'the KAAPA'. The order of detention was issued on 17-12-2011. The detenu was arrested on 21-12-2011. In exercise of the powers under Sec.10(4) of the KAAPA, the Government confirmed the order of detention. The Advisory Board opined that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the detenu. It is not in dispute that the detenu was detained under the KAAPA on an earlier occasion, as per the order of detention dated 05-11-2009. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of detention is bad in law and therefore, the continued detention of the detenu is illegal. The counsel raised two points; (1) In Crime No.1096/11 referred to in the order of detention, the detenu was in judicial custody at the time when the detention order was issued. Though the detaining authority mentioned in the order of dete...

M/S. Kishco Ltd Vs. K.A. Vincent @ Wilson Alex and Another

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)ILR(Ker)790; 2012(3)KLT112(SN)(C.No.113); 2012(3)KLJ827

1. This revision petition is directed against order dated 15.12.2011 in C.M.P.No.2576 of 2011 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda. C.M.P.No.2576 of 2011 has been filed by one Shijo T.S. Lakshmi Vihar, Azad Road, Kaloor, Kochi who was the Area Sales Manager in Kishco Ltd., Mumbai alleging commission of offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the first respondent herein. The case was that the accused issued cheque bearing No.001487 dated 14.6.2010 and the same was dishonoured on presentation owing to insufficiency of funds, on 3.8.2010. There was a delay of 110 days in filing the said complaint before the Court. The petitioner company was represented through its authorised person as well as the Area Sales Manager Mr. Shijo T.S. C.M.P.No.2575 of 2011 was filed by him under section 142(b) of the N.I. Act for condoning the delay citing the reason of his extensive travelling in connection with employment for not making the complaint within t...

Achuthan Nair and Others Vs. Union of India, Represented by General Ma ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)ILR(Ker)490; 2012(3)KLT514; 2012(3)KLJ337

ThottathilB. Radhakrishnan,J: 1. This appeal by the claimants is against an order dismissing an application for compensation filed under Section 125 of the Railways Act, 1989, for short, 'Act'. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the respective learned standing counsel for the East Coast Railway and the Southern Railway. 3. The application was for compensation for loss occasioned by death on account of untoward incident. Deceased Aneesh Kumar, the son of appellants 1 and 2 and the brother of the 3rd appellant, was a passenger in Coach No.12, a reserved compartment, of Howrah-Chennai "Coromandal Express" on 1.12.2008. Local passengers who had not reserved seats intruded into that compartment, leading to an altercation between them and those who had reserved seats and were occupying them. In the course of that, Aneesh Kumar, a member of the Gourkha Regiment, on being provoked, pulled out his Bhujali (Khurpi). Some local passengers who, going by law, were ineligible to tra...

Buildare Engineers, Guruvayur, Represented by Proprietor Valsan Vs. Bh ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER Aggrieved by the order passed by the CDRF, Thrissur in CC No. 500/08, the opposite party came up in this appeal. 2. When this appeal came up for hearing on the question of admission, the counsel for the appellant submitted that the opposite party was exparte before the Forum below. The complainant and opposite party entered into an agreement for construction of a residential building which is to be completed within 8 months and to pay Rs.10,75,000/- at different stages. The complainant paid only 7,50,000/- out of the agreed amount. It is also the grievance that the complainant contrary to the agreement changed the plan of the building. Further the agreed amount was not paid in full to the opposite party. On filing the complaint, the Forum below allowed the complaint placing reliance on the commission report. 3. The grievance of the opposite party is that he was not given sufficient opportunity to contest his case to substantiate his grievance. The counsel for the...

Baisil Attipetty @ Baisil A.G. Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT28

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. Senior Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 1 and 2. Counsel takes notice for 9th respondent. Notice to others will be considered later. 2. This is a public interest litigation filed by an Advocate as party in person challenging Ext. P1 issued by the Government assigning jurisdiction of the State Administrative Tribunal between the Principal Bench at Trivandrum and Additional Bench at Ernakulam. The petitioner has sought urgent posting for interim orders because sitting at the Ernakulam Bench is expected to commence next month and the Tribunal will be making posting of cases based on area of jurisdiction assigned under the impugned order. We have heard petitioner in person, Senior Government Pleader for the State and counsel appearing for 9th respondent. 3. After hearing both sides and on going through Exts. P1 and P2, what we notice is that the original proposal as contained in Ext. P2 was to give jurisdiction to the Bench at Ernakulam on all m...