Kerala Court August 2012 Judgments

Varghese Antony Vs. Frantony Kochuveettil and Others

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT692

1. Is a conditional order to pay costs while allowing an application to restore the suit dismissed for default or to set aside the ex-parte decree appealable? Can an Original Petition be entertained when the challenge is confined to the liability to pay costs or its quantum? Can the discretion of the trial court in fixing the costs be tinkered with in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India? 2. Several original petitions are being filed challenging the conditional order to pay costs while allowing applications of the following nature under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the ‘CPC’ for short): (i) An application under Rule 9 of Order IX CPC for an order to set aside the dismissal of a suit. (ii) An application under Rule 13 of Order IX CPC for an order to set aside the decree passed ex-parte. The liability to pay costs or its quantum is often challenged contending that the same was unwarranted and unjustified under the circumstances. It...

E.A. Abdu Vs. State of Kerala, Public Prosecutor

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(4)KLJ287

This is a petition preferred by the 1st accused in C.C.No.73/2000 on the file of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Kollam, in Crime No.15/1996, filed a final report accusing the petitioner, who was formerly the Chief Engineer of the Kerala Water Authority, and 13 others offences under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'PC Act') and Section 120B read with 34 IPC. The petitioner preferred Crl.M.P.No.32/2002 before the Special Judge, seeking an order of discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) with a plea that there is no sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. And that the offences alleged are not made out. After hearing either side, Crl.M.P.No.32/2002 was dismissed by Annexure-A2 order dated 26.3.2002. Thereafter, the learned Special Judge framed Annexure-A3 charge on 3.4.2002. Assailing Annexures-A2 and A3...

Kumaran and Others Vs. State of Kerala and Others

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(4)KLT178; 2012(4)KLJ85

Sasidharan Nambiar, J. 1. When the sentence awarded includes payment of compensation under Section 357 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, with a default sentence and the accused undergoes the default sentence, whether the compensation awarded could be recovered by issuing a distress warrant under Section 421 of Code of Criminal Procedure? 2. Crl.M.C.No.2083 of 2011 was filed by an accused who was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months each for the offences under Section 279, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code. In Crl.R.P.No.1445 of 2001 filed by the petitioner, while confirming the conviction, this court modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court in addition to compensation under Section 357(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, to the injured at the rate of Rs.10,000/- each to Pws 1 and 2 and Rs.8000/- to PW3 and Rs.5000/- each to Pws 4 and 6 with a default sentence of imprisonment for one month each. Petitioner did undergo the substantive sentence b...

Chandrasekharan Vs. Union of India

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLJ864; 2012(3)KLT897

ThottathilB.Radhakrishnan, J. C.R. 1. The appellant was injured on 16.9.1995, in an untoward incident as defined in the Railways Act, 1989. Though the Tribunal noted that as per the entries at items 5 and 9 in Part III of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, for short, the "Compensation Rules"; he was entitled to a total compensation of Rupees One Lakh, for loss of a thumb and two fingers, it awarded only Rs.58,000/- with 6% interest per annum from 10.10.1996, the date of registration of the case, till payment, on the premise that the applicant had claimed only such amount in his application for compensation filed under section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, for short, the "Tribunal Act". He challenges the quantum. 2. Supporting the appeal, it is argued that the Tribunal ought not to have restricted the compensation amount from what is provided as per the Compensation Rules, merely on the premise that the applicant had not applied for a...

U. Ayyappan and Another Vs. Mullurkara Grama Panchayath Mullurkara P.O ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT642

AntonyDominic, J. 1. Petitioners are residents of the 1st respondent Panchayat and their residential premises are near to Mullurkara Panchayat market. It appears that by Ext.P1 resolution passed by the Panchayat on 14/5/12, it was resolved to invite tenders for wholesale fish vending in the market. Accordingly, the tenders were received and by resolution dated 25/5/2012, Panchayat resolved to accept the offer made by the 5th respondent and to permit him to execute the agreement and to commence business on obtaining licence and deposit of security. 2. Ext.P2 dated 26/5/12 is the agreement that the 5th respondent has entered into with the 1st respondent Panchayat in pursuance to the resolutions mentioned above. It appears that immediately thereafter w.e.f. 27/5/12, 5th respondent started business which was without obtaining licence from the Panchayat or an NOC from the District Medical Officer. Complaints were made by the neighbouring residents and Ext.P3 is one of the representations ma...

St. Joseph's Hospital Trust Vs. the Kerala University Of Health Scienc ...

Court: Kerala

K.M. Joseph, J. 1. Both the Writ Petitions being connected, they are disposed of by this common Judgment. 2. Petitioner claims to be an educational agency of a self financing pharmacy college. Petitioner's college fell under the purview of the Kerala University. By Ext.P1, on application, the petitioner was issued with a letter of consent by the Kerala University dated 24.4.2010 for the establishment of a new course M. Pharm - Pharmacuetical Chemistry. The Governor of Kerala initially promulgated an Ordinance, called the Kerala University of Health and Allied Sciences, 2009 which came into force in November, 2009. The Ordinance came to be replaced by an Act in the year 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the University Act). All the colleges coming under the medical and allied fields of education which were affiliated to any of the Universities in Kerala stood affiliated to the new University, 2010 - 2011. The first respondent vide Ext.P2 order, approved the consent of affiliation in resp...

Saju Sasidharan Vs. Dhanya and Another

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(4)ILR(Ker)121; 2012(4)KLT303; 2012(4)KLJ203

K.T. Sankaran J., 1. The question involved in this Original Petition is whether an application is required to claim maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 2. The respondents filed O.P. No.205/2012 on the file of the Family Court, Kottarakkara against the petitioner for return of gold ornaments and money as well as for maintenance, past and future. After counselling, the case was posted before the Family Court on 01.06.2012. On that day, the petitioner/husband (respondent before the Family Court) filed written statement and he also put forward a counter claim. On 01.06.2012 itself, the Family Court passed an order directing the petitioner to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) each to his wife and child. That order is under challenge in this OP(FC). No application was filed by the wife and the child of the petitioner claiming interim maintenance. From the order impugned, it is seen that ...

Prasanna Vs. the Superintendent of Police, Pala Police Station and Ano ...

Court: Kerala

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. Petitioner, who says that she, a music teacher, lives with her husband and two minor children, complains of harassment by the second respondent alleging that he, a senior citizen, is in the habit of consuming alcohol and then being in public; with objectionable conduct, using abusive language and otherwise publicly harassing the women folk. Petitioner also says that the second respondent is now living with a woman not connected to him in marriage. We do not take cognizance of that particular allegation. 2. We are astonished to hear the Government version that in terms of Ext.P6,an earlier judgment by this Court, the police took it upon themselves to give continuous police cover to the second respondent by making a constable escort him always that, according to us was wholly unnecessary. Ext.P6 does not contain any such direction. 3. When the High Court issues an order to provide protection for life, that is not a direction to make available a police cons...

The Kumarakom Lime Shell, Co-operative Society Ltd Vs. State of Kerala ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT696; 2012(3)KLJ690; 2012(3)ILR(Ker)844

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. Tenure of the managing committee of the appellant society will be over by 12-09-2012. Therefore a resolution was passed by the managing committee in terms of Rule 35 requesting the Joint Registrar to conduct election on 09-09-2012. However, resolution was returned for the reason that the election proposed is without any seat reserved for women which is a violation of Section 28A of the Co-operative Societies Act. When this was challenged before the learned Single Judge, the Single Judge gave time to pass fresh resolution consistent with Section 28A which obviously means that the society has to enroll women members to provide for their representation. It is against this judgment writ appeal is filed. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellant and special Government Pleader for respondent. 2. Representation for woman in the managing committee of every society is mandatory under Section 28A of the Co-operative Societies Act. Obviously Section pre-suppo...

M/S. Aluminium Glass Ware Emporium (A.G.E), Represented by Its Partner ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(4)KLT17(SN)(C.No.18)

K.T. Sankaran, J. 1. The respondents filed R.C.P.No.114 of 2008 before the Court of the III Additional Munsiff and Rent Control Court, Ernakulam against the revision petitioners under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, ‘the Act’). The Rent Control Court allowed the application under Section 11(3), but rejected the claim under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act. The petitioners/tenants filed R.C.A.NO.67 of 2010 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam, challenging the order passed by the Rent Control Court. The Appellate Authority confirmed the finding under Section 11(3) of the Act. The Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Control Court under Section 11 (4)(iii) of the Act and the prayer for eviction on that ground was also allowed. Challenging the judgment of the Appellate Authority, the tenants have filed this Revision. 2. The case of the respondents is that the first petitioner fir...