Kerala Court September 2012 Judgments

Easwar Gangaram Patil Vs. Uduppi Madhava Mandiram Trust

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(4)KLT1; 2012(4)KLJ184

K.T. Sankaran J., 1. The respondent filed Rent Control Petition No.151 of 2011 against the petitioner before the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam under Sections 11(7) and 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The petition schedule room is occupied by the tenant and he is doing business in silver in that building. According to the landlord, a temple is situated in the ground floor of the building and the space occupied by the petition schedule room is required for the purpose mentioned in the Rent Control Petition.2. Before filing the Rent Control Petition, a notice was issued by the landlord on 28.7.2011 [Ext.R1(a)]. In that notice, mention was made about the shrine of Sree Anjaneya housed in the building. In the reply notice sent by the tenant, there is no dispute regarding the nature of the shrine in the place. However, in the counter filed by the tenant in the Rent Control Petition, the tenant stated thus: "There is no public or private temple inside the premises....

The Chief Post Master General, Kerala Circle and Others Vs. N.C. Viswa ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI.K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellants were the opposite parties in CC/634/08 in the CDRF, Thrissur. The sole respondent was the complainant. His case was that on 25.6.07 he had deposited Rs.2,00,000/- each under the Kisan Vikas Pathra deposit scheme floated by the opposite parties, in the names of his minor children Athulya and Vaisakh. As per this scheme when the deposit matured on 25.4.12 every 1000 rupees would get Rs.207.95 by way of interest in addition to the deposited amount. The 3rd opposite party assured this. But the 3rd opposite party informed the complainant on 25.9.06 that being a NRI the complainant was not entitled to get any interest and requested to him to withdraw the deposit. So the complainant demanded Rs.4,83,180/- including interest for three years. But the opposite parties refunded only the deposited amount saying that NRI was not eligible to get interest under the scheme. The opposite parties have not informed about such a government order den...

Akhil P. Pushkar and Others Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by the Pr ...

Court: Kerala

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. These writ petitions are before the Division Bench following an order of reference made by the learned single Judge in four of them. The others are tagged along. 2. The short issue arising for decision is as to whether SC/ST and OEC students undergoing courses of study for MBBS in Self Financing Colleges are eligible for educational concessions without reference to their source of admission, to wit, whether they were admitted through competitive entrance examination conducted by the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations under the Government of Kerala or through entrance examination conducted by the Association of the Managements of the Self Financing Colleges. By judgment dated 21st August, 2009 in WP(C).No.27905 of 2008 [copy of which is Ext.R2(d) in WP(C). No.34545 of 2009], the learned single Judge had taken the view that the benefits of educational concessions extended to those communities would not be available if the admission is against managem...

S. Nambinarayanan Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(4)KLT221

RamachandranNair, J. 1. These three connected writ appeals are filed against same judgment of the learned single Judge in a writ petition filed by the State challenging the order passed on 14-03-2001 by the National Human Rights Commission under Section 18 (3) of the Human Rights Act, 1963 (hereinafter called 'the Act') granting Rs.10 lakhs interim compensation to the complainant before them who was a Senior Scientist in the Indian Space Research Organisation at Valiyamala for implicating him in a false criminal case of espionage and the consequent suffering he had. 2. We have heard Government Pleader for State which filed one writ appeal and both the counsel appearing for the appellants in other two writ appeals and one filed by the victim, the complainant before NHRC and the other by the then D.I.G of State Police who was heading the investigation team and also Additional Solicitor General for the Central Government Parties arrayed and the documents referred to in this judgment are t...

P.S. Satheesh Chandran Nair Vs. Mini Panicker

Court: Kerala

Does it require a written demand with reference to 'Section 34' of the Revenue Recovery Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to intercept the conveyance effected after the 'arrear of public revenue due on land' has fallen due by invoking Section 44 of the Act or is it enough, if demand had already been made under Section 7 before effecting the conveyance? Does the amount payable to the respondent KSFE constitute any 'arrear of public revenue due on land' merely on notifying the institution under Section 71 of the Act, to attract and invoke Section 44, is another question. Is it open for the 'purchaser' of the property to raise such a contention with reference to the written demand under Section 34 of the Act, when there is no such case for the 'vendor'/defaulter, who effected the conveyance and is he a 'bonafide purchaser' as proclaimed? Can the guarantors raise a contention that deduction from their salary, by virtue of prohibitory orders issued at the instance of the KSFE is not ...

The Branch Manager, Reliance General – Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ano ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : HON: ACTING PRESIDENT This revision petition preferred from the order passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam in IA No.398/2012 in CC No.66/2012 dated: 19.6.2012. The revision petitioner is the 1st and 2nd opposite parties in the original consumer case and the respondent is the complainant respectively. 2. This Revision petition preferred under the order that the part of the cause of action falls within the ambit of the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum below and consequently the complaint is admitted for further proceedings. The revision petitioners filed an IA No.398/2012 in CC No.66/2012 for challenging the maintainability of the complaint filed by the complainant on the basis of the lack of territorial jurisdiction. The case of the revision petitioners are the complaint cannot be entertained in the Forum below because the cause of action has not arisen within the ambit of the territorial limit of the Forum. But on the other hand, the complainant had taken an arg...

A.R. Rajith Vs. Rajeev Gandhi Better Living-co-operative Society Ltd.

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : HON: ACTING PRESIDENT This first appeal came before this Commission for admission and hearing on today. The counsel for the appellant moved this appeal and argued on the basis of the appeal memorandum. 2. This appeal preferred by the complainant under the order of the Forum below that they dismissed the complaint. 3. In short, complainant is having a case that he deposited Rs.5,000/- on 15.01.01 in the opposite party society for a period of 75 months. It was assured that compound interest at the rate of 11.5% will be calculated and on attaining maturity on 15.4.07 Rs.10,200/- will be refunded. But when demanded on maturity it was told that only Rs.8906/- will be given. It was promised to give double the deposited amount for 75 months. Hence the complaint. 4. The opposite parties filed their version and they denied that they didnt offer an interest of 11.5% for the deposited amount of Rs.5,000/- only they admitted that the respondents are ready to give 11.5% in...

Vinod S. Panicker Vs. Sub Inspector of Police and Another

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(4)KLT314

S.S. Satheesachandran, J. 1. Petitioner is the accused in a pending case on the file of the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram. He is being prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 26 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, for short, 'the Act'. 2. Petitioner is operating a bakery. He employed in that bakery a juvenile, aged 17 years, who hailed from Nepal, is the gist of the accusation to proceed against him for the aforesaid offence, on a report filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Peroorkada Police Station. During the course of law and order patrol duty, the aforesaid Sub Inspector got information of the employment of a juvenile in the bakery of petitioner. He reached that bakery and, then, found a juvenile employed in that business concern, is the case of the prosecution for registration of the crime and, later, indictment of the petitioner for the offence under Section 26 of the Act. Petitioner has filed the above petition for quashing the ...

Geraldine Jacob Vs. Brenda Babara Francis and Others

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(4)KLT54

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. OS No:34/1999 of the Principal Sub Court led to RFA No:744/2010. That was decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 25.05.2011. The doctrine of merger repeatedly reflected in jurisprudence governing multi-tier adjudicatory processes advises that the trial court could not have thereafter touched the decree that it had passed and which was subject of RFA No:744/2010. We also notice that the said first appeal was decided by this Court on merits. Yet, the 3rd defendant moved an application to set aside the decree of the trial court on the ground that it is passed exparte. For reasons stated by the learned Subordinate Judge in the impugned order, that application under Order IX Rule 13 was dismissed. This FAO is filed against that order. Aforesaid is sufficient to state that no application under Order IX Rule 13 could have been filed before the trial court after its decree had merged in the decree of this Court in RFA No:744/2010. Series of precedents...

Rajesh Vs. Shiji

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(4)KLJ108; 2012(4)KLT311

Babu Mathew P. Joseph, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.11.2009 on O.P.No.406 of 2006 of the Family Court, Malappuram. By the impugned order, the learned Judge of the Family Court dismissed the O.P. filed by the appellant under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short 'the Act') for declaring the marriage between the appellant and the respondent as null and void. 2. Heard both the sides. The parties are admittedly Hindus by religion. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that even though the O.P. was styled as one preferred under Section 11 of the Act, it has to be treated as one filed under Section 11 read with Section 5(ii)(a), (b) and (c) of the Act. A plain reading of Selection 11 of the Act would show that a petition under Section 11 read with Section 5(ii)(a), (b) and (c) for declaring a marriage as null and void is not maintainable. Section 11 of the Act reads as follows: "11. Void marriages.—Any marriage solemnised after the commencement...