Kerala Court July 2012 Judgments

Dr. Shyam Sunder, Alappuzha District Vs. Circle Inspector of Police, P ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(2)ILR(Ker)681; 2012(3)KLT698; 2012(3)KLJ669; 2012(4)LLN348

K.M. Joseph, J. 1. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: "i. Declare that the petitioner can carry out the Construction work of the residential building in his  property and loading and unloading work connected with the construction work with workers of his choice and that respondents 3 to 10 have no right to obstruct the same. ii. Direct respondents 1 and 2 to afford necessary police protection to the life of the petitioner and property of the petitioner and take appropriate action against respondents 3 to 10 in accordance with law in case of any obstruction or threat from the side of respondents 3 to 10. iii. Direct respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action on Exhibits P1 and P2 complaints filed by the petitioner." 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is a resident of Pulinkunnu Grama Panchayat. He is constructing a house in his property and he has engaged workers for the same. Petitioner has got necessary sancti...

R. Sateesan Vs. the Divisional Manager, the New India Assurance Co. Lt ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellant was the complainant in CC.97/07 in the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The complainant alleged that he was a quarry worker getting a salary of Rs.350/- per day. On 17.1.06 at about 9.50 am the complainant was walking along the Kattakkada-Anthiyoorkonam public road. When he reached at Kottappuram junction the autorikshaw bearing registration No.KL.01-AL.335 knocked him down and he sustained injuries. He sustained fracture lower third of his left forearm, multiple lacerated wounds and contusion all over the body. He was taken to the MedicalCollege Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. Manipulative reduction was done and long arm slab was applied to his left hand. He was sent to the Primary Health Centre, Malayinkil and treated there from 18.01.2006 to 12.03.2006. Since his condition worsened he was referred back to the MedicalCollege Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram and was treated as inpatient from 31.1.06 to 4.2.2006. On 31.01.2006 open reduction...

Basheer P.A. @ Abdul Basheer P.A. and Others Vs. Assistant Labour Offi ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLJ824; 2012(3)KLT892

Whether the existing Headload Workers in an area can claim a right to be heard, in the matter of consideration of an application for registration of another, as a Headload Worker? This is the question that arises for determination in this writ petition. 2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The petitioners have filed this writ petition complaining of the delay in granting registration to them under the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 ('the Act' for short). According to the petitioners they have submitted Ext.P1 to P25 applications for getting themselves registered as Headload Workers under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules 1981 ('the Rules' for short). The petitioners seek the issue of appropriate directions for the consideration of their applications expeditiously. 3. As per order in I.A.No.10125/2012 additional respondents 2 to 4 have got themselves impleaded in the writ petition. Additional respondents 2 to 4 are existing Headload Workers of the area. They ...

Prem Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala Represented by the Secretary to Gover ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(4)KLJ11; 2012(4)KLT330

1. Petitioner is the de facto complainant in a crime registered at Town North Police Station, Alappuzha. After investigation of the crime, Ext.P5 report indicting the accused persons named therein for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409 and 419 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was laid before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Alappuzha by the investigating agency. Petitioner has got serious exception to the report on the ground that some of the accused persons named in his complaint on which the crime was registered, have been left out and also that very many material pieces of evidence connected with the crime are not tendered before the court to sustain the indictment. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that the gravity of the crime imputed in his complaint has been watered down omitting grave offences borne out by the allegations and also the materials gathered by the investigating agency. Petitioner has moved an application before ...

Rev. T.i. James and Another Vs. South India Corporation and Another

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLJ777

P.S. Gopinathan, J. 1. This is a petition preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the accused in C.C.No.101 of 2006 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, seeking an order to quash Annexure-A13 complaint filed by the first respondent basing upon which the learned Magistrate took cognizance for offences under Sections 447, 457 and 427 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. 2. The brief facts leading to the prosecution are as follows: A building bearing door No.40/1890 of the Corporation of Cochin was in the possession of the first respondent as a lessee ever since 1942. C.S.I. Immanuel Church, Broadway, Ernakulam of which the petitioners are the Vicar and Secretary respectively, later acquired ownership over the above building. The first respondent attorned to the petitioners, continued as a lessee and had been duly paying the agreed rent. There was a petition as RCP No.179 of 1970 before the Rent Control Court, Ernakula...

T.P. Ajith and Another Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(4)KLJ62; 2012(4)KLT73

1. As the above two appeals are arising out of the same judgment and the facts and circumstances as well as the question of law involved are identical, these two appeals are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The judgment, under challenge in these appeals, is dated 27/08/2011 in S.C.No.468 of 2009 of the court of Sessions, Thalassery, in which, the prosecution, laid charge against altogether five accused for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 398 read with Section 34 and 414 of the I.P.C., among which A5 was absconding and out of 4 accused, who faced the prosecution, A4 is acquitted of all the charges. A1 to A3 are found guilty under Sections 392 and 398 of I.P.C. But they are acquitted for the offence under Section 414 and 34 of the I.P.C. Thus challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against A3, he preferred Crl.A.No.1922 of 2011, whereas Crl.A.No.207 of 2012 is preferred by the first accused. Suffice to say, A2 in the above case has not ...

Hameed T. Abdulla and Others Vs. Koyenco Autos Private Limited and Oth ...

Court: Kerala

1. These two original petitions, both filed under Article 227 of the Constitution are by the rival side in appending suit on the file of the Sub Court. Ernakulam. 2. O.P. (C) No.312/11 has been filed by the plaintiffs in the suit, three in number, against Ext.P6 order passed by the learned Sub Judge disallowing the application moved by them for interim attachment of an immovable property belonging to the defendants recording the averment in the affidavit filed by the 5th defendant who represented the 1st defendant company also as its Managing Director that such property will not be alienated. O.P. (C) No.429/12 has been filed by the defendants against the common order passed by the learned Sub Judge (Ext.P6 in the OP) on two applications moved by the plaintiffs directing for issue of summons to some bank managers to appear and produce the loan documents of the defendants, and from the authority concerned to produce an application purported to have been moved by the 5th defendant to rem...

Posidon Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. the Si of Police and Others

Court: Kerala

K. Harilal, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is a private limited company, engaged in the business of erecting telecommunication towers to various telecommunication companies. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is under an obligation of erecting new mobile tower in survey No.30 SY 2 Pt in Perumbavoor Village, Perumbavoor Municipality, Kunnathunad Taluk, Ernakulam, District, on behalf of M/s. Indus Towers, a registered infrastructure provider, category-I (IP-1). M/s. Indian Tower is in the business of establishment, maintenance and provision of passive telecommunication infrastructure by virtue of the registration granted by the Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications and IT, Government of India. The 4th respondent on behalf of the 3rd respondent has issued Ext.P1 permit for the construction of the said telecommunication tower under Rule II (3) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules after inspecting the site. 2. The grievance of the peti...

Xavier's Residency, Represented by Its Managing Director, D. Rajkumar ...

Court: Kerala

Antony Dominic, J. 1. The first petitioner is a partnership firm, which has established a three star hotel located within the limits of the Kollam Corporation. The second petitioner is stated to be an employee of the hotel. The hotel has been issued a FL-3 licence, which has been renewed from time to time and is valid upto 31/3/13. 2. In this writ petition, petitioners challenge the validity of Rule 28 of the Foreign Liquor Rules, which was substituted by notification dated 18th of April 2012. This rule read as under; "28 (1) FL-3 Hotels (Restaurants) functioning within a Panchayat or Municipality shall not be kept open before 8' O clock in the morning and after 11' O clock in the night. FL-3 Hotels (Restaurants) functioning within Corporation limits shall not be kept open before 9' O clock in the morning and after 12' O clock in the night. No FL-1 shop shall be kept open before 9' O clock in the morning and after 11' O clock in the night. (2) The Deputy Commissioner of Excise shall be...

Shameena Rasheed and Others Vs. Haj Committee of India and Others

Court: Kerala

Shaffique, J. 1. Petitioners in the writ petition are the appellants. Writ petition is filed inter alia for a declaration that the stipulation in clause 9(B)(i) in Ext.P1 is not applicable to Mehram accompanying the women applicants who have not performed Haj in life time and for consequential reliefs including consideration of the application of petitioners 1 to 3 along with Ext.P5 application of the Mehram. 2. The facts involved in the case disclose that petitioners applied to the 2nd respondent for performing Haj ritual in the year 2012. Since the petitioners were women, they had to be accompanied by a male member who is a close relative, termed as Mehram. They submitted their applications along with the application of the husband of the 1st petitioner Sri.Abdul Rasheed as the Mehram. Sri.Abdul Rasheed had performed Haj in the year 2004. As per the Guidelines of the 2nd respondent Haj Committee, which is produced as Ext.P1 and the Guidelines for the Haj of 2012 published by Haj Comm...