Kerala Court July 2012 Judgments

P.T. Karunakaran Nambiar and Another Vs. the Syndicate Bank

Court: Kerala

V. Chitambaresh, J. 1. I am surprised as to how the Registry could number the review petition filed to review an order passed on another review petition filed to review a judgment in an original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The papers have been placed before me since the learned judge who pronounced the judgment in the original petition and later the order in the review petition has since demitted office. 2. The respondent bank filed a suit against the loanees for realisation of money by sale of the property mortgaged. The suit was decreed for realization of money alone without specifying the entitlement of interest on the amount so found due to the bank. There was also an omission in the decree to create a charge over the property to enable the bank to sell the same in execution. The bank thereupon filed an application for correction of the judgment and decree under Section 152 of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908 (CPC for short). 3. The court below allowed...

B. Surendra Das Vs. the State of Kerala, Represented by the Secretary ...

Court: Kerala

RamachandranNair, J. The appellants in the Writ Appeals and the petitioners in the Writ Petitions are all star hotels with categorization above "Three star" given by the Ministry of Tourism, Government of India. All star hotels above three star classification were entitled to get bar licence for retail sale of liquor in the hotels under Rule 13(3) of the Foreign Liquor Rules (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules" for short) prescribed under the Kerala Abkari Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short). However, an amendment was introduced in the year 2011 by SRO No.779/2011 dated 09/12/2011 [GO(P) No.192/2011/TD] deleting "three star" from the category of hotels entitled for bar licence under the above Rules. Later through another amendment by SRO No.202/2012 dated 27-03-2012 [GO(P) No.48/2012/TD] another prohibition was introduced by inserting sub-rule (3E) to Rule 13 whereunder even four star and above category hotels constructed within a radius of 3 Kms. in Grama Panchayat...

Perumal and Another Vs. the State of Kerala Represented by the Public ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT618; 2012(3)KLJ632

Petitioners are the two accused in Crime No:109/2012 of Vazhikkadavu Police Station, Malappuram District. The offence alleged is under section 5 of Explosive Substances Act. Petitioners have been in custody since 08.07.2012. Hence they request for bail. 2. It is alleged that on 08.07.2012 at 10.00 p.m., when the lorry KA-05-AB-6258 was intercepted and examined by the Police officials, the said lorry was found to contain 340 bags, each bag containing 50 kilograms of Ammonium Nitrate. The petitioners were the driver and cleaner then seen in the said lorry. The total weight of the Ammonium Nitrate was found to be 17,000 kilograms. The lorry with Ammonium Nitrate, was seized. During investigation it was revealed that though the Ammonium Nitrate was brought in the name of an establishment called Alungal Chemicals, it was actually brought by one Ismail S/o. Ibrahimkutty. His address and other particulars are seen mentioned in the Case Diary. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemen...

Kuriachan Chacko, Managing Partnesr, Lis (Regd.), Palackal Court, Erna ...

Court: Kerala

1. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the alleged unauthorised endorsement of attachment made against the property of the petitioner, in the encumbrance certificate. The question raised is whether the Sub Registrar is competent to make an endorsement regarding attachment of immovable property on the basis of a request made by an investigating officer, who is conducting an investigation into certain crimes, involving the owner of the property. 2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the case, are the following: The petitioner is the Managing Partner of a registered partnership firm 'LIS'. The firm purchased 10 cents of property included in Survey No.380/2 of Ernakulam Village, as per Ext.P1 registered assignment deed. The petitioner obtained Ext.P2 encumbrance certificate for the purpose of obtaining a loan from a bank. An attachment has been shown in the encumbrance certificate and when enquiries were made, the petitioner was supplied with the copy of a letter ...

Shanavas Babu Vs. the State of Kerala, Represented by the Public Prose ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT701; 2012(3)KLJ701; 2012(3)ILR(Ker)880

S.S. Satheesachandran, J. 1. Petitioner is the 1st accused in a case pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Perinthalmanna. He is being prosecuted with some others for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on a crime registered over a complaint filed by his wife. 2. On registration of the crime, petitioner and the other accused moved for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code before the Sessions Judge, Manjeri. Their application was allowed vide Annexure A2 order with directions to move for regular bail before the magistrate within the time fixed, imposing some other conditions also, which included a direction to the accused to surrender their passports before the magistrate, and if not in possession of passports, then, to file affidavit stating that fact. Petitioner appeared before the magistrate within the time fixed and moved for regular bail with an affidavit stating that his passport ha...

Sreedevi Vs. State of Kerala Represented by the Chief Secretary and Ot ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLJ480; 2012(3)KLT528

1. Petitioner, the mother of Vishnu @ Motta Vishnu, who has been detained in Central Prison, Viyyur, pursuant to an order of detention dated 9.3.2012 issued under the Kerala Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the KAAPA’), challenges the order of detention. 2. The order of detention was issued on 9.3.2012. The detenu was arrested on 11.3.2012. The Government approved the order of detention under Section 3(3) of the KAAPA, on 20.3.2012. The order was confirmed under Section 10(4) of the KAAPA, on 17.5.2012. 3. In the order of detention, it is stated that the detenu is involved in 5 criminal cases and therefore, he satisfies the definition of “known rowdy” under 2(p)(iii) of the KAAPA. In the grounds of detention, the details of the cases in which the detenu is involved are stated. The following are the cases in which the detenu is an accused: Crime Number and Police StationOffencesCurrent Status951/2010 – Kollam East P...

S. Shajeed Vs. Commissioner of Entrance Examinations Office of the Com ...

Court: Kerala

Babumathew P. Joseph, J. 1. This Writ Petition is filed with the prayers (1) for a direction to the first respondent, the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, Thiruvananthapuram, to issue allotment memo to the petitioner enabling him to join the Government Law College, Ernakulam, for the five year LL.B course, (2) for a direction to the third respondent, the Principal, Government Law College, Ernakulam, to admit the petitioner to his College for the five year LL.B course and (3) for a direction to the second respondent, the Controller of Examinations, University of Kerala, to issue a pass certificate with the percentage of marks secured by the petitioner in the Pre-degree Examination. 2. The first respondent issued Ext.P3 notification dated 5.5.2008 inviting applications for entrance examination for admission to five year LL.B course in the Government Law Colleges in Kerala. The educational qualification prescribed was a pass, with 40% marks, in the Plus Two Examination conducted by...

Dr. Dorphy P.D., Chalakudy Vs. State of Kerala, Rep. by Secretary to G ...

Court: Kerala

1. Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P3, P7 and P8 orders. The petitioner along with his wife had applied for building permit for construction of a Hospital building in a property situated within the limits of the second respondent Municipality. Through Ext.P3 letter the application was rejected and the petitioner was required to submit fresh plan, adhering to various stipulations contained in the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘KMBR’ for short). One of the main grounds on which the application was rejected is that the building contains more than 4 floors including the basement floor and hence it is a ‘High Rise Building’ coming within Rule 110 of KMBR. Therefore the applicants were required to satisfy all conditions and specifications enumerated in chapter XVII, especially in Rule 112 to 120. 2. The petitioner challenged Ext.P3 in appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. The appeal...

T.T. Kuruvilla Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Kerala

1. Petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. Aleppey Parcel Service, a proprietary concern having branches in different parts in the state of Kerala. Hereinafter, the said proprietary concern is referred to as the ‘establishment”. The establishment is registered under the Motor Transport Workers Act (for short the ‘Act’) with No.LBR-04-08-2/2000. There are 311 employees working in the establishment in different categories such as office staff, booking clerk, cash clear, depot clerk, watch man, attendant, drivers and cleaners of the motor vehicles belonging to the establishment, according to the petitioner. The further contentions of the petitioner are as hereunder:- M/s. Aleppey Parcel service is a Motor Transport Undertaking as defined under section 2(g) of the Act. The drivers and cleaners working in the lorries owned by the establishment were enrolled under the provisions of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers’ Welfare Fund Act (for short ‘Welfare Fund ...

A.K. Tangerine and Others Vs. M/S. Vantage Marketing and Others

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT520; 2012(3)KLJ532; 2012(3)ILR(Ker)976

1. A desperate bid by the wife and children of a ‘missing’ man to salvage their residential house from being proceeded against in execution of a decree for money. 2. The allegation is that the defendant was an employee of the plaintiff firm and had misappropriated money while in service. The suit was filed for realization of a sum of Rs.1,60,980/- with interest on the further allegation that the cheque later issued by the defendant was dishonoured. Crime No.263/1997 on the file of the Kasaba Police Station was registered for the alleged defalcation of money. It is conceded that the defendant who is the accused in the case is absconding and the criminal case remains long pending. The defendant reportedly did not return home from office on 16.09.1997 and the search for the missing person by his friends and relatives did not yield any result. 3. The whereabouts of the defendant had not been known since 16.09.1997 according to his wife and children who are the revision petition...