Kerala Court September 2012 Judgments

M.V. Varghese Vs. P. Vijayakumar

Court: Kerala

ManjulaChellur, Ag. C.J. The present reference became inevitable on account of two divergent views expressed by two Division Benches while interpreting the award of the Industrial Tribunal which was referred to in I.D. No.27 of 2002 dated 15.12.2004. Having regard to the facts on record which led to the present situation, it would only be proper to narrate the brief history of the past litigation. 2. When a dispute arose between Petty Contract Workers and Contract Line Workers on one side and the Kerala State Electricity Board (for short 'Board') on other side in respect of regularisation of service of Petty Contract Workers and Contract Line Workers, Government as per G.O.(Rt) No.2929/2002/LBR dated 27.09.2002 referred the following question for consideration to the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad:- "whether the demand for regularisation of the services of petty contract workers and contract line workers by KSEB is justifiable?If so what relief they are entitled to?"This reference of th...

Sainaba Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by the District Collector, Pa ...

Court: Kerala

1. The decree holder in O.S.No.433 of 2001 on the file of the Munsiff’s Court, Palakkad is the petitioner. The suit was for a mandatory injunction. 2. In the decree, the second respondent has been directed to renew the license issued to the petitioner to conduct a juice shop, as per the orders of the Government from time to time subject to the revision of the rent as per the norms prescribed by the Government with effect from the date of the last renewal. According to the petitioner, she was forced to remit a total sum of Rs.1,05,120/- as she was threatened by the respondents that in case the amount was not remitted, they would cancel the licence. According to the petitioner, actually there was excess payment which had to be adjusted towards future rent. Thus the petitioner filed E.P. before the court below for violation of decree and also for the implementation of the decree. 3. The execution petition was resisted by the respondents contending that it was the petitioner who had ...

Raju Thomas @ John Thomas Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by Public P ...

Court: Kerala

1. Petitioner is the accused in a pending case on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kunnamangalam. He is being prosecuted for offences punishable under Section 153 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “the IPC”), on a report filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Medical College Police Station, Kozhikode. Gist of the accusation is that he had destroyed a notice board put up by some social activists at a public place with intend to commit disruption of public peace, and, by his acts he caused loss of Rs.500/- to the de facto complainant. Annexure A2 is a copy of the final report laid before the magistrate. Cognizance of the offences in the report taken against the accused, the case now awaits further steps for trial. Petitioner has filed the above petition to quash the criminal proceedings against him invoking under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”). 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner a...

St.John the Baptist Church Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by Its Pri ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(4)KLT50; 2012(4)KLJ223

1. This writ petition is filed by St.John Baptist Church, Kanjirathanam P.O. As part of its centenary celebrations, utilizing the contributions made by its parishioners, the Church constructed a centenary hall, described as "Centenary Prayer Hall". It appears that when building tax payable under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1976 was demanded, the Church resisted the demand contending that the hall in question is a building used principally for religious purposes and therefore, is entitled to exemption under Section 3 of the Act. 2. The matter was referred to the Government for decision as provided in Section 3(2) of the Act. The Government after hearing the parties and considering the materials available, rejected the claim by Ext.P6 order on the ground that the building is used for commercial purposes and is not principally used for any religious purposes. Petitioner thereupon made a representation seeking review of the decision. That was also considered and rejected by Ext.P8 order o...

M/S Heinz India (P) Ltd. Vs. Kishore D. Chandak

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : HON.ACTING PRESIDENT This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam in CC.No.91/08 dated 15.11.2010. The appellant is the opposite party prefers this appeal under the direction of the Forum below that; opposite party shall pay the balance insurance claim to the complainant subject to the sum insured to Ext.B1 policy schedule together with interests at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of he complaint till payment. The respondent is the complainant. 2. On this day this appeal came before this Commission for final hearing both the counsel for the appellant and the respondent are present and they argued their own cases in detail on the basis of the facts, law and evidence. This is a dispute regarding settlement of the claim on a medi claim insurance policy which given to the respondent by the appellant. The complainant was having a case that he had undergone treatment for triple vessel coronary artery disease at Amrita Institute of Medical S...

S. Subhash, Son of Sreedharan and Others Vs. Patharam (Sooranad South) ...

Court: Kerala

1. Can third parties be impleaded as proper parties to a Regular Second Appeal when they were not parties either to the suit or to the appeal therefrom? The jurisdiction under Order I Rule 10 (2) to add parties in the context of the powers of the appellate court under Section 107 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the CPC for short) arises for consideration. 2. The suit is for a declaration that the amendment made to the bye-laws of a Society are null and void and for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to administer it as per the original bye-laws. The Society registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955 is the educational agency of a school governed by the Kerala Education Act. The amendment made to the bye-laws of the Society concerns the admission of patron members on payment of `1,000/- and the appointment of one amongst them as a permanent Manager of the school. The trial court dismissed the suit wh...

John Vs. Abraham Varghese

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(4)KLT274

K.T. Sankaran, J. 1. The respondent filed RCP Nos. 75/2007, 76/2007 and 77/2007 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The tenants occupy rooms in an old line building. The tenants in RCP No.75/2007 are in occupation of two rooms while the tenants in other two cases occupy one room each. There are three other rooms in the line building, two of which were occupied by the Rubber Marketing Co-operative Society. The landlord got vacant possession of the two rooms which were occupied by the Rubber Marketing Co-operative Society. The other room is also in the possession of the landlord. Thus out of total number of seven rooms, the landlord has got vacant possession of three rooms. 2. The landlord did not press the contention under Section 11(2)(b) and therefore the only point that was considered by the courts below was under Section 11(3) of the Act. The Rent Control Court and the appellate autho...

Ashok Kumar Vs. the State of Kerala, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(4)ILR(Ker)236; 2012(4)KLJ220

S.S. Satheesachandran, J. 1. Petitioner is the de facto complainant in a crime case registered at Kondotty Police Station. 2. After house breaking in night valuable properties including gold ornaments were stolen from his house, was the case for registration of the crime. Investigation of that crime led to indictment of three accused persons for offences punishable under Section 457, 380 and 461 of the Indian Penal Code. When the trial proceeded one among the accused (A3) remained at large. While the trial proceeded against A1 and A2, presence of A1 could not be secured since he was severely indisposed of, though he was in jail. Case against A1 and A3 were split up, and proceeded against A2 alone which led to the acquittal of that accused. Subsequently trial proceeded against A1 and it led to his conviction for the offences. Split up case against the remaining accused, A3, renumbered as C.C.No.1210/2011 is still awaiting disposal as the presence of that accused who is the sole accused ...

Pareed Salim Vs. State of Kerala, Rep. by Land Revenue Commissioner an ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(4)KLT211

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. The issue that arises for consideration is whether, for effecting mutation the description of the property has to be changed by executing a rectification deed. The petitioner purchased by Exts.P1 and P1(a), 18 cents and 1 acre 73 cents of properties in Sy. Nos.195/16/2, 195/11, 195/5 and 195/6 with two old buildings numbered as X/209 and X/210 in Thodupuzha Village. Stamp duty was remitted as per the fair value fixed by the Government, wherein the property is classified as a commercially important one. In the registered deed, the description of the property is given as 'purayidam' instead of 'nilam' as stated in the old Basic Tax Register. It is averred that when the application for effecting mutation was submitted, the Revenue Divisional Officer conducted an enquiry and found that the properties are commercial and not agricultural and submitted a report accordingly and thereafter the District Collector conducted a further enquiry through the Deputy Tahsil...

Zainaba Vs. T.A. Abdul Rasheed

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(4)KLT35(SN)(C.No.33); 2012(4)ILR(Ker)217; 2012(4)KLJ167

Joseph Francis, J. 1. Mat. Appeal 896 of 2011 is filed by the respondent/husband in O.P.No.251 of 2010 on the file of the Family Court, Kasaragod. The respondent is the petitioner/wife in that Original Petition, which was filed by her under Section 7 (1)(a) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and Section 2(ii), (viii)(a) and (d) and (ix) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 (for short, 'the Act'). Mat. Appeal No.245 of 2008 is filed by the respondent/wife in O.P.No.85 of 2007 on the file of the Family Court, Kasaragod. The respondent is the petitioner/husband in that Original Petition, which was filed by him for restitution of conjugal rights. Since the parties in both the appeals are the same and the questions involved are interconnected, the above appeals are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The averments of the petitioner/wife in O.P.251 of 2010 are briefly as follows : The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 18.5.2003 as per the c...