Kerala Court July 2012 Judgments

K.C. Thampi Vs. Kunnathunad Taluk Primary Co-op. Agricultural and Rura ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT628; 2012(3)KLJ733

RamachandranNair, J. 1. The appellant borrowed funds from the 1st respondent, which is an Agricultural Rural Development Bank, and defaulted payment. The Bank referred the matter for arbitration and based on award passed, the 2nd respondent notified appellant's mortgaged property for sale against which Writ Petition was filed. The limited prayer made by the appellant before the learned Single Judge was to permit him to sell part of the mortgaged property and settle the debt due to the Bank so that he can retain balance property. In the first place, this is an equitable relief normally granted by this Court in writ proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and invariably in every such case debt is cleared within the time granted and the debtors are able to save at least part of their property. Whenever we gave freedom to borrowers to sell mortgaged property on condition of settlement of liability due to the Bank before execution of sale deed, they were able to se...

M. Satheesh Chandran Vs. the Kerala Water Authority, Represented by It ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT67(SN)(C.No.67)

The petitioner is a Draftsman in the services of the Kerala Water Authority. He is aggrieved by the Ext.P3 audit objection regarding grant of second higher grade to the petitioner. The petitioner was granted second higher grade in the scale of pay applicable to Assistant Engineer, which is a promotion post for Draftsman. Later on, the audit raised an objection that the petitioner is not entitled to the second higher grade in the scale of pay applicable to the Assistant Engineer, since he does not possess all the qualifications prescribed for the post of Asst. Engineer and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to only the intermediate scale of pay as per the Table provided in the pay revision orders as second higher grade. The petitioner is challenging the audit objection on two grounds. The first is that for grant of higher grade, no minimum period of service is prescribed as per the pay revision orders and therefore, simply because the petitioner does not have the minimum two years se...

Usman Kurikkal Vs. Parappur Achuthan Nair

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT261; 2012(3)ILR(Ker)343; 2012(3)KLJ254

Should a non-executant suing for a declaration that the deed is null or void and does not bind his share pay advalorem court fee on the consideration stated therein The answer emerges from the following discussion. 2. The suit is one for a decree of declaration that the plaintiff continues to be a Director in the Board of Management (the 'Board' for short) of a school. A decree of declaration that the sale deed executed by the Board in favour of the first defendant is not valid and binding on the plaintiff is also sought. There is a prayer for consequential injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the right of the plaintiff as Director or injuring his rights in any manner. The plaintiff valued the relief at `.1000/- and paid court fee of `.40/- under Section 25(d)(ii) of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (Kerala) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' only). 3. The assignee first defendant contended that the subject matter of the suit is capable of valuatio...

Department of General Education Represented by Its Secretary and Other ...

Court: Kerala

Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. State has filed this writ appeal challenging thejudgment of the learned single Judge directing theAppellanttoissueparticipationcertificateto theRespondent. We have heard senior Government Pleader forAppellant and also counsel appearing for the respondent.The Appellant has been organising annual competition forschool students under the name 'Kerala School Science,Mathematics and Social Science Work Experiences Fair'every year at Sub District, District and State level. There isno dispute with regard to the first level selection obtainedby the Respondent wherein he qualified to participate inthe District level competition. However, in the evaluation ofthe relative merit of those participated in the competition atthe District level held at Thiruvananthapuram districtRespondent could not come as first or second andconsequentially he was not allowed to go to the State Levelcompetition in the fair wherein representation of eachDistrict consist of two teams, of two eac...

Somasundaran S/O. Kunju Pillai Vs. Radha, D/O. Sreedharan and Another

Court: Kerala

The appellant is the complainant in C.C.785 of 1998 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam. He filed the above complaint against the first respondent alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On 14.1.2003 when the case was taken up for evidence, the appellant applied for adjournment stating that he was laid up. Alleging that there was no representation for the counsel for the appellant, the trial court by the impugned judgment dismissed the complaint under Section 256 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Assailing the above judgment of acquittal, this appeal is preferred. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the first respondent. Also perused the judgment impugned. 3. It is revealed that the case was dragged for about five years, because of the failure of the first respondent to appear before the trial court on the posting dates. Even coercive steps were initiated against the first respondent. On 14.1.2003 when ...

V.K. Ashokan Vs. the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board, Rep. by ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT723; 2012(3)KLJ715

Ramachandran Nair, J. This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge vacating Government Orders in appeal issued under Section 8(5) of the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) and restoring final adjudication of Toddy Workers Welfare Fund contribution found payable jointly by the Appellant and licensees by the Welfare Fund Inspector in terms of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 2. We have heard learned Senior counsel Shri.A.K.Jayasankar Nambiar appearing for the appellant, learned Standing Counsel Shri.Renil Anto appearing for the 1st respondent and learned Government Pleader appearing for the 2nd respondent. 3. The facts leading to the controversy are the following:- The appellant participated in auction and obtained toddy shop licence for running 42 toddy shops in Thrissur Range for a period of three years commencing from 01/04/1997 to 31/03/2000. However, on account of abkari offences committed, the appell...

M.J. Fithaly Fernando Vs. Mv Kinship Prosperity and Others

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT650; 2012(3)KLJ723

RamachandranNair, J. 1. These writ petitions are filed by two Captains, Chief Engineer and Chief Officer respectively employed in the ship owned by the first respondent challenging separate but identical orders issued by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kochi, allowing petition filed by the first respondent under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, referring the dispute on wages between the petitioners and the first respondent for arbitration. We have heard counsel appearing for the petitioners and also for the first respondent and have also gone through the impugned orders of the Magistrate. The writ petitions were posted before Division Bench along with connected Writ Appeal filed by first respondent, W.A. No.2086/2010, which was disposed of by us through separate judgment on 22.6.2012. 2. While the petitioners allege that the first respondent owes them substantial amount towards salary and allowances for the services rendered by them in the ship owned...

Biju @ Joseph Vs. State of Kerala Public Prosecutor, High Court of Ker ...

Court: Kerala

SasidharanNambiar, J. Appellant was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default imprisonment for two years, for murdering his wife, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. Appeal is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. The prosecution case in short is that deceased Thressiamma, appellant and PW6 their five year old daughter were living together. Thresiamma was owning one acre rubber estate which was exclusively given to her just before her marriage by her sister and brother, releasing their rights inherited from the father. The appellant was insisting to transfer that property to his name which was being resisted by Thressiamma. The appellant had treated her with cruelty, both physical and mental. On 10/5/2005 night after 9 p.m Thressiamma reached the house of PW3 Omana to call PW5 Ealiamma, her sister over phone. PW3 and her husband had gone out and only PW4 Shibu their son, was there. Thressiamma call...

Surabhi, Thiruvananthapuram Vs. State of Kerala Represented by Additio ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLJ428

K.T. Sankaran, J. 1. The brother of the petitioner, namely, Bhuvanachandran @ Purandaran @ Biju, has been detained under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'KAAPA'), on the ground that he is a 'known rowdy' as defined in Section 2(p)(iii) of KAAPA. The detenu was detained under KAAPA on an earlier occasion as per the order dated 2.11.2007 and he was released after the full term of detention was over. It is submitted that five crimes were taken into account while issuing the earlier order of detention. After the release of the detenu, it is alleged that, the detenu was involved in two other crimes which necessitated the issue of the present order of detention dated 11.1.2012. The order of detention was executed on 25.1.2012 by arresting the detenu and detaining him in prison. Approval under Section 3(3) of KAAPA was granted on 6.2.2012. The order of confirmation under Section 10(4) of KAAPA was issued on 22.3.2012. 2. Lea...

Karayi Chandrasekharan and Another Vs. Inspector of Police, Cbi Scb, T ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)ILR(Ker)549; 2012(3)KLT401; 2012(3)KLJ437

Petitioners are two among the accused (A7 and A8) in R.C.2 (S)/2008/CBI/SCB/Chennai, which was re-registered from Crime No.442 of 2006 of Thalassery Police Station. The Central Bureau of Investigation, for short, the 'C.B.I', after investigation, has filed report under Section 173 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short, the 'Code', against eight accused persons and the case is now pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam in committal proceedings numbered as C.P.No.1 of 2012. 2. The case involves murder of one Fasal, a NDF worker and a newspaper agent, in the early hours of 22.10.2006 in a public road, namely, 'JT Road', lying between Saidarpalli and Temple gate, Thiruvangad Amsom, Thalassery in Kannur District. Investigation of the crime registered over his murder was initially conducted by local police, which, later, on a writ petition filed by the widow of the victim, by orders of this Court was handed over to the C.B.I. The C.B.I, after investigation, ...