Court : Kerala
Decided on : Nov-04-2010
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 203 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of November, 2010 O R D E R 1. The revision petitioner is the respondent/tenant in the RCP No. 45/2007 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam. The respondents herein, who are landlords of the revision petitioner, instituted the above petition seeking an order of eviction in respect of the petition schedule building under Section 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). As per the pleadings in the petition and by the judgment impugned, it is revealed that a building facing east towards the Chittur Road is owned by the respondents. A portion in the upstairs, which is the petition schedule building was let out to the revision petitioner and he had been occupying the same as a lessee. On the southern side of the petition schedule building and towards the back side, the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Mar-19-2010
Reported in : 2010(2)KLT180
ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J.1. Under challenge in this revision under Section 20 is the order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Chengannur in the assumed capacity of Rent Control Appellate Authority, Chengannur dismissing an application for condoning the delay of 9 days caused in the matter of filing a Rent Control Appeal under Section 18 and the judgment consequently rejecting the appeal as time barred. On considering the revision for admission, this Court directed the Registry to enquire of the learned Subordinate Judge as to whether any notification has been issued notifying the Sub Judge, Chengannur as Appellate Authority under Section 18 of the Rent Control Act. The learned Subordinate Judge would inform the Registry that he has not come across any notification notifying the Sub Judge, Chengannur as Appellate Authority under Section 18 of the Rent Control Act. He however, referred to the judgment of this Court in Vijayappa Kurup v. Padmanabhan 2009 (2) KLT 939 for justifying the acti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Sep-02-2010
Reported in : ILR2010(4)Ker134
1. Could the authorized officer confiscate a property which is either admitted or proved to be not belonging to the Government of Kerala together with the vehicle etc used to transport such property under Section 61A(2) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act")? That is the question I am called upon to answer in this revision arising from judgment of learned District Judge in C.M.A.No.8 of 2006 confirming order No.W4-3397 of 2004 dated 27-06-2005 of the Wild Life Warden, Waynad Wild Life Division, Sulthan Bathery, (for short, "the Authorized Officer"). 2. Short facts necessary for a decision of the question are: On 08-08-2004 at about 9.30 p.m the forest officials intercepted lorry bearing reg. No. KL-11/E 4995 carrying bunches of banana covered with banana leaves at the forest check post at Tholpetty. On examination it was found that the lorry was carrying sawn and sized rosewood logs. The driver took to his heels. The lorry and rosewood logs were seized on preparing a m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Mar-17-2010
Reported in : 2010(2)KLT71
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. (i) Does a divorce valid under the Muslim Law ipso facto extinguish the liability of the husband under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') to pay maintenance to his wife even when it is admitted or proved that amounts due under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') have not been paid?(ii) Is unilateral pronouncement of divorce without offering any reason and without any attempt for reconciliation by the arbiters as mandated by Ayat 35 of Sura IV of the Holy Quran valid under the Muslim Law after the decision of the Supreme Court in Shamim Ara v. State of U.P. 2002 (3) KLT 537 SC?2. These two questions of crucial relevance and contextual significance arise for consideration in this RP(FC) which has been referred to a Division Bench under Section 3 of the Kerala High Court Act by a Single Judge (one of us). The learned Counsel for the contestants have been ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jan-06-2010
A.K. Basheer, J.1. These two writ petitions are being disposed of through this common judgment, since the issues involved in them are closely inter-related.2. Petitioners in these two writ petitions are two Trade Unions representing the employees working in the Kerala Minerals and Metals Limited, a company owned by the Government of Kerala. While the petitioner-Union in Writ Petition No. 11502/09 seeks 'an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation into the allegations of corruption and irregularities in the awarding of consultancy contracts and other transactions of the Company', the rival Union which is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 18783/09 prays for 'issue of writ in the nature of mandamus or such other appropriate writ or direction to the State Government to proceed with the expansion work of the Company which has been kept in abeyance or cancelled.'3. The Company which is admittedly owned by the Government of Kerala is engaged in production of Titanium Dioxide Pig...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Mar-05-2010
Reported in : 2010(1)KLJ787
ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. This application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed by Subair alias Subeer, accused No. 3 in Crime No. 73 of 2007, CBCID, Kozhikode. The crime was originally registered as Crime No. 279 of 2005 of Kasaba Police Station, Kozhikode. Later, the case was transferred to CB CID in the year 2007.2. The offences alleged against the accused persons (Mohammad Rafeeq, Shafeeq and Subair) are under Sections 4 and 20 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and Sections 3 and 6 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933.3. The Crime was registered on the basis of an intimation sent by the A.D.E.T. (Vigilance Telecom Monitoring), Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications and IT., Chennai to the Sub Inspector of Police, Kasaba Police Station, Kozhikode. The allegation made in the petition was that an illegal telecom set up at M/s. Smart Tech, Faura Complex, Mavoor Road, Calicut was being misused for illegal operations for receiving int...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Apr-06-2010
Reported in : 2010(2)KLT563
P. Bhavadasan, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 219 of 1989, who suffered a decree at the hands of the first Appellate Court is the appellant. The parties and facts are hereinafter referred to as they were available before the Trial Court.2. The plaintiff alleged that he had pledged gold ornaments of five sovereigns on 11.11.1981 with the defendant Bank and borrowed a sum of Rs. 2500/- on the security of those gold ornaments. The plaintiff paid Rs. 1918.70 on 8.4.1985 towards the loan amount. The Bank issued a notice dated 4.2.1986 to the plaintiff recalling the loan and informing him that if he failed to discharge the debt, the ornaments would be sold in auction on 27.2.1986. The plaintiff claimed to have paid Rs. 500/- in response to the notice and thereafter he expressed his willingness to discharge the balance amount. But the gold ornaments were not returned to him. A notice was issued by the plaintiff, which caused the defendant to send a reply containing false allegations. The defe...
Tag this Judgment!