Nandini Jayarajan vs The Insurance Ombudsman on 17 February, 2011

Last Updated on

Kerala High Court
Nandini Jayarajan vs The Insurance Ombudsman on 17 February, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 32243 of 2008(L)


1. NANDINI JAYARAJAN,W/O.LATE P.B.JAYARAJAN
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN, PULINAT
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL

3. DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE,

4. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (HR),BHARAT

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH

                For Respondent  :SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :17/02/2011

 O R D E R
                       S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
               - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                  W.P.(C)No. 32243 of 2008
               - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
          Dated this the 17th day of January, 2011

                         J U D G M E N T

The petitioner in this writ petition is the widow of an

employee by name P.B. Jayarajan of the 4th respondent-

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, who died in an

industrial accident on 30.12.2005 at 10.15 am. On the

fateful day he, a general workman in the plant of the

4th respondent, was deputed by the Senior Maintenance

Engineer to attend to a hydrogen sulphide gas leak of the

Sulpher Recovery Plant. He was accompanied by another

workman by name Prasanth. The plant is a big building

having the height of a three storied building and the

workman had to climb a ladder to reach the platform to

attend to the leakage. He and the co-employee climbed the

ladder and examined the point of leakage in the presence of

another workman. According to the petitioner, while

tightening a bolt, the workman fell unconscious on the

W.P.(C)No. 32243 of 2008
-2-

platform and he was taken to the Occupational Health

Centre of the BPCL and the duty doctor referred him to a

full fledged hospital. He was taken to the Vijayakumaran

Memorial Hospital, where he was declared dead. All the

workmen of the plant were covered by a Group Personnel

Accident Insurance Policy, Ext.P1. The widow of the

deceased workman, the petitioner herein, preferred an

insurance claim which was repudiated by the Oriental

Insurance Company on the ground that, the chemical

analyst’s report showed that the workman was under the

influence of liquor. After the postmortem, the viscera was

sent for Chemical Examiner’s analysis and in the report it

was mentioned that the blood sample contains presence of

liquor. Therefore relying on Clause 5 of Ext.P1, which

excluded payment of compensation if the accident occurred

while the workman was under the influence of intoxicating

liquor or drugs, the claim was repudiated. The petitioner

filed a complaint before the Insurance Ombudsman, Kochi-

the 1st respondent herein. The Insurance company also

W.P.(C)No. 32243 of 2008
-3-

agreed for resolution of the dispute before the Insurance

Ombudsman. The petitioner filed a detailed complaint

dated 02.04.2008, Ext.P14, before the Insurance

Ombudsman producing along with the same 9 documents in

support of her case. According to the petitioner, the matter

came up before the Ombudsman for hearing on 30.04.2008

and on the same day Ext.P15 award was passed accepting

the contention of the Insurance Company that the workman

was under the influence of liquor and therefore by virtue of

Clause 5 of Ext.P1, the liability of the Insurance Company

was excluded. The petitioner is challenging the said order

in this writ petition. The petitioner has produced a host of

materials to show that the Chemical Examiner’s report

could only have been a mistake insofar as it is next to

impossible that the blood sample of the workman would

contain alcohol. According to the petitioner, the workman

entered duty on the fateful day at 8.30 am in the morning

and he was deputed for the fateful duty at 10.15 am. The

employer never had any case that he was under the

W.P.(C)No. 32243 of 2008
-4-

influence of alcohol. Moreover the workman was doing the

work along with a co-employee deputed along with him, in

the presence of another employee also. There is no

material anywhere to show that the workman was under the

influence of liquor at the relevant time. Therefore the

repudiation by the Insurance Company as well as the

rejection of the complaint by the Insurance Ombudsman is

clearly vitiated is the contention of the petitioner. Inter alia

the petitioner contends that the Ombudsman had not

considered the complaint of the petitioner in the right

perspective and on the date when the complaint came up

for hearing itself passed the award without affording an

opportunity to the parties to adduce and rebut evidence.

The petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

“i) to call for the records leading to the Ext.P10, P11 and
P15 order of the Insurance Ombudsman, and quash the
same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ or order by this Hon’ble Court, on the
ground that the finding is totally perverse, illegal and not
supported by any evidence.

ii) to declare that the invocation of the exclusion clause of
Ext.P1 policy, to repudiate the claim of insurance made
by the petitioner consequent to the death of her husband
is illegal, wrong and bad in law.

W.P.(C)No. 32243 of 2008
-5-

iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ
directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to withdraw the
repudiation and to honour the claim of the petitioner
relating to her deceased husband in the BPCL company
as per the terms of policy conditions and grant all
monitory benefit within a time frame with reasonable
interest.”

2. The Insurance Company as well as the employer

has filed counter affidavit/statement. The employer in their

statement states that there was no abnormal behaviour in

the workman when he attended to duty. The petitioner also

relies on expert material in her attempt to prove that the

chemical analysis report can only be a mistake in the

peculiar circumstances of the case. A reply to that effect

has also been filed.

3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.

4. Ordinarily it is highly unlikely that the superior

officer would not detect a person coming for duty under the

influence of alcohol that too to the extent stated to have

been found in the blood sample. Fellow workman who

accompanied the particular workman could not have been

unaware of the fact, if the workman was actually under the

W.P.(C)No. 32243 of 2008
-6-

influence of liquor. The lethal character of hydrogen

sulphide is not in dispute. In such circumstances no

prudent employer would depute a person who was under

the influence of alcohol for such a dangerous assignment. It

must be remembered that the time was 10.15 in the

morning and the workman had entered duty at 8.30 in the

morning. Ordinarily unless the workman is an alcoholic he

would not consume liquor before 8.30 in the morning. If he

was in fact an alcoholic then it is not possible that the

superior officer and other employees would not detect such

habit of the workman. At least fellow workmen would have

noticed it and reported to the superior officer. Nothing of

that sort is in evidence in this case. In view of the materials

supplied by the petitioner there is reason to doubt the

correctness of the Chemical Examiner’s report also. But a

conclusive opinion regarding the same cannot be lightly

taken without examining in detail evidence to be adduced

by the parties including expert evidence, evidence of the

employer and the fellow workmen as well. In such

W.P.(C)No. 32243 of 2008
-7-

circumstances it was not proper on the part of the

Insurance Ombudsman to treat the case lightly and dispose

of the matter within a month of filing of the complaint itself

without giving an opportunity to the parties to adduce

evidence for and against. In view of my above finding, I feel

that, the parties should be given another opportunity,

especially in view of the fact that the petitioner has lost the

bread winner of the family and admittedly the workman is

covered by Ext.P1 insurance policy. In the above

circumstances Ext.P15 order of the 1st respondent-

Insurance Ombudsman is quashed. The Insurance

Ombudsman shall reconsider the complaint after affording

an opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence for and

against including oral evidence of experts as well as that of

the superior officer of the deceased workman and co-

workers. Fresh award, after taking evidence and hearing

the parties, shall be passed as expeditiously as possible at

any rate within six months from the date of receipt of a copy

of this judgment.

W.P.(C)No. 32243 of 2008
-8-

5. A doubt has been expressed before me by counsel

as to whether the Ombudsman can take such elaborate

evidence in view of Rule 14 of the Redressal of Public

Grievances Rules, 1998 under which the Ombudsman has

been appointed. Rule 14 reads thus:

“14. Ombudsman to act fairly and equitably.-
(1) The Ombudsman may, if he deems fit, adopt a procedure
other than mentioned in sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 13 for
dealing with a claim:

Provided that the Ombudsman may ask the parties for
necessary papers in support of their respective claims and
where he considers necessary, he may collect facutal
information available with the insurance company.

(2) The Ombudsman shall dispose of a complaint fairly
and equitably.”

I am of opinion that, the Rule does not exclude power

of the Ombudsman to take any form of evidence

whatsoever. In fact for a fair and equitable consideration of

the case Ombudsman should have the power to take

evidence in appropriate cases. Therefore I am of opinion

that in a particular case where it is necessary to take oral

evidence apart from documentary evidence in order to come

to a just and equitable conclusion, the Ombudsman has the

W.P.(C)No. 32243 of 2008
-9-

power to take such evidence. As such, I do not think that

there is any basis for the apprehension of the parties

regarding the power of the Ombudsman to take oral

evidence as well.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

S. SIRI JAGAN
JUDGE
//True copy//

P.A. TO JUDGE

shg/

Vijayan Pillai vs State Of Kerala on 16 February, 2011

Last Updated on

Kerala High Court
Vijayan Pillai vs State Of Kerala on 16 February, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 1037 of 2011()


1. VIJAYAN PILLAI,S/O.SANKU PILLAI,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY PUBLIC
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.AJAYA KUMAR. G

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :16/02/2011

 O R D E R
                           V. RAMKUMAR, J.
               ....................................................
                 Bail Application No. 1037 of 2011
               .....................................................
          Dated this the 16th day of February, 2011.

                                   ORDER

Petitioner, who is the sole accused in Crime No.79 of 2011

of Kundara Police Station for offences punishable under Sections

511 of 376, 506(i), 324, 450, 377 and 201 I.P.C., seeks his

enlargement on bail. The petitioner was arrested on 15.01.2011.

2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application

contending inter alia that the petitioner who is the uncle of the

victim aged 11 years, had sexually abused the child.

3. Having regard to the gravity of the offences, nature

of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, the relative

conduct of the parties, the extent of the injury sustained, the

propensities of the petitioner, the sentiments of the near

relatives of the victim and the other facts and circumstances of

the case, I am of the view that if the petitioner is released on

bail, he will definitely influence and intimidate the prosecution

witnesses. There is also the likelihood of the petitioner making

himself scarce and fleeing from justice. I am, therefore, not

inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

This petition is accordingly dismissed.

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

rv

Sivaraman.K.M. vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 16 February, 2011

Last Updated on

Kerala High Court
Sivaraman.K.M. vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 16 February, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 1346 of 2011(P)


1. SIVARAMAN.K.M., S/O.K.M.MNIKKAM,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR OG PANCHAYATH,

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.V.MILTON

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :16/02/2011

 O R D E R
                             S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
                      ==================
                       W.P.(C).No.1346 of 2011
                      ==================
               Dated this the 16th day of February, 2011
                             J U D G M E N T

The petitioner retired from service on 31.3.2010 while working

as Secretary Special Grade of Engandiyoor Grama Panchayat in

Thrissur district. The petitioner’s grievance in this writ petition is that

his retirement benefits have not been disbursed to him yet.

The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that

the delay is on account of the fact that the service book of the

petitioner, which has been returned to the authorised officer for

correction of certain mistakes, has not been resubmitted after

correction. Insofar as the same is not a mistake of the petitioner, the

respondents cannot delay further the disbursement of the retirement

benefits due to the petitioner. Accordingly, the respondents are

directed to see that the retirement benefits due to the petitioner are

disbursed to him, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two

months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

sdk+                                              S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

          ///True copy///




                               P.A. to Judge

2

Auxillium College Of Education vs Sri.Tom Jose on 16 February, 2011

Last Updated on

Kerala High Court
Auxillium College Of Education vs Sri.Tom Jose on 16 February, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Con.Case(C).No. 54 of 2011(S)


1. AUXILLIUM COLLEGE OF EDUCATION,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SRI.TOM JOSE, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME
                       ...       Respondent

2. PROF.M.R.UNNI, REGISTRAR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.K.PAVITHRAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :16/02/2011

 O R D E R
                         S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

                    ==================

                 Contempt Case (C).No. 54 of 2011

                    ==================

            Dated this the 16th day of February, 2011

                         J U D G M E N T

The learned counsel for the petitioner admits that the directions

in Annexure 1 judgment have been complied with. Accordingly, this

contempt case is closed.

Sd/-

sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

///True copy///

P.A. to Judge

S.Nandakumar vs The Commissioner on 16 February, 2011

Last Updated on

Kerala High Court
S.Nandakumar vs The Commissioner on 16 February, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 4848 of 2011(E)


1. S.NANDAKUMAR,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. K.R.PRASANNAKUMAR,

                        Vs



1. THE COMMISSIONER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SIBY MATHEW

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :16/02/2011

 O R D E R
                             S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

                      ==================

                       W.P.(C).No. 4848 of 2011

                      ==================

              Dated this the 16th day of February, 2011

                             J U D G M E N T

The petitioners are working as Intelligence Inspector and

Commercial Tax Inspector in the Sales Tax Department of the

Government of Kerala. They have been issued with memos of charges

in disciplinary proceedings. They seek a direction to the respondents to

complete the disciplinary proceedings initiated by Exts.P1 and P2

expeditiously.

2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also.

3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, especially in

view of the fact that the 2nd petitioner is due to retire on 31.3.2011, I

direct the respondents to see that the disciplinary proceedings against

the petitioners are completed, as expeditiously as possible, at any

rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of

this judgment.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

sdk+                                              S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

           ///True copy///




                               P.A. to Judge

2

Sivaraman.K.M. vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 16 February, 2011

Last Updated on

Kerala High Court
Sivaraman.K.M. vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 16 February, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 1346 of 2011(P)


1. SIVARAMAN.K.M., S/O.K.M.MNIKKAM,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR OG PANCHAYATH,

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.V.MILTON

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :16/02/2011

 O R D E R
                             S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
                      ==================
                       W.P.(C).No.1346 of 2011
                      ==================
               Dated this the 16th day of February, 2011
                             J U D G M E N T

The petitioner retired from service on 31.3.2010 while working

as Secretary Special Grade of Engandiyoor Grama Panchayat in

Thrissur district. The petitioner’s grievance in this writ petition is that

his retirement benefits have not been disbursed to him yet.

The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that

the delay is on account of the fact that the service book of the

petitioner, which has been returned to the authorised officer for

correction of certain mistakes, has not been resubmitted after

correction. Insofar as the same is not a mistake of the petitioner, the

respondents cannot delay further the disbursement of the retirement

benefits due to the petitioner. Accordingly, the respondents are

directed to see that the retirement benefits due to the petitioner are

disbursed to him, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two

months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

sdk+                                              S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

          ///True copy///




                               P.A. to Judge

2

K.M.Sajeevan vs The Director Of Health Services on 16 February, 2011

Last Updated on

Kerala High Court
K.M.Sajeevan vs The Director Of Health Services on 16 February, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 1909 of 2011(K)


1. K.M.SAJEEVAN,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. C.V.SAJEESH,
3. K.K.CHANDRI,

                        Vs



1. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.KRB.KAIMAL (SR.)

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :16/02/2011

 O R D E R
                                S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

                        ==================

                          W.P.(C).No. 1909 of 2011

                        ==================

               Dated this the 16th day of February, 2011

                                J U D G M E N T

The petitioners were promoted as Junior Heath Inspector Grade

I by Ext.P1 order and were allotted to Malappuram District. But in

Malappuram district, they were not given posting for want of vacancies

in that district. They were realloted to Palakkad district. But they have

not been given any posting in that district also for want of vacancies.

In the meanwhile, by Exts.P1 and P3 orders, juniors of the petitioners

were given postings. It is under the above circumstances, the

petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs;

“i a writ of mandamus to the 1st respondent to forthwith issue
allotment orders for posting the petitioners to any of the
districts where there are vacancies of Junior Health Inspectors
Grade I.

ii. a writ of mandamus to the 1st Respondent to revert juniormost
promotees and to issue orders allotting the petitioners to those
vacancies, in case there are no open vacancies.

iii. a writ of mandamus to the 1st respondent to take up and pass
orders on Exts.P5 to P7 forthwith.

iv. a writ of mandamus to the 1st respondent to grant all service
benefits to the petitioners on the basis of promotion by Ext.P1
order.”

2. Today, the learned Government Pleader produces before

me a copy of order No.EG2-79648/08/DHS dated 10.02.2011. The

learned Government Pleader hands over a copy of the same to the

learned counsel for the petitioners. As per the same, the petitioners

w.p.c.1909/11 2

have been allotted to PHC K.P. Colony, Idukki, PHC Deviyar Colony,

Idukki and PHC K.P.Colony, Idukki, respectively. The same is recorded.

It would be open to the petitioners to join duty at their place of posting

on the strength of the copy of the said order thus handed over to the

counsel for the petitioners, if they have not yet received the same. If

they report for duty in the places of their posting, along with a copy of

this judgment, they shall be allowed to join duty in the said place of

posting.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

sdk+                                              S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

          ///True copy///




                               P.A. to Judge

C.Chidambaram vs Directorate Of Revenue … on 14 February, 2011

Last Updated on

Kerala High Court
C.Chidambaram vs Directorate Of Revenue … on 14 February, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 891 of 2011()


1. C.CHIDAMBARAM, AGED 42 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SHAJI CHIRAYATH

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :14/02/2011

 O R D E R
                        V. RAMKUMAR, J.
                    --------------------------------
                 Bail Application No. 891 of 2011
                    --------------------------------
           Dated this the 14th day of February, 2011.

                              O R D E R

In this Petition filed under Sec. Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is

the 3rd accused in O.R. No. DRI/CHN/NDPS/3/09 of D.R.I., Kochi

for offences punishable under sections 8(c), 9A r/w 21(c), 25A, 28

and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act for allegedly having been found in

possession of 30 kgs. of Hashish, seeks bail.

2. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for DRI opposed

the application contending inter alia that the petitioner belonging to

Chennai, was the person who handed over 30 kgs of Hashish to A1

and A2 who were arrested on 23.11.2009 with the aforesaid

narcotic drug and that the trial of A1 and A2 is at the final stage.

3. I am not satisfied that both the grounds enumerated

under sec.37(1)(b)(ii) of the N.D.P.S. Act are present in this case so

as to justify release of the petitioner. This Application is,

accordingly, dismissed.

V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

rv

A.Shaji vs State Of Kerala Represented By … on 14 February, 2011

Last Updated on

Kerala High Court
A.Shaji vs State Of Kerala Represented By … on 14 February, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 1018 of 2011()


1. A.SHAJI, S/O. NARAYANAN, AGED 35 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :14/02/2011

 O R D E R
                        V. RAMKUMAR, J.
                    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                    B. A. No. 1018 of 2011
                      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
         Dated this the 14th day of February, 2011.

                              O R D E R

In this Petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the

petitioner, who is the 5th accused in Crime No.402 of 2010 of

Hosdurg Police Station for offences punishable under Sections

454, 457, 380, 461 and 414 read with Section 34 I.P.C., seeks his

enlargement on bail. The petitioner surrendered on 25.01.2011.

2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Public Prosecutor.

3. Having regard to the nature of the offences, the

duration of judicial custody undergone by the petitioner, the

present stage of investigation of the case and the other

circumstances of the case etc., I am inclined to grant bail to the

petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released

on bail w.e.f 28.02.2011 on his executing a bond for `15,000/-

(Rupees fifteen thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for

the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned

and subject to the following conditions:

B.A. No. 1018/2011 : 2:

1. The petitioner shall report before the
Investigating Officer between 9 a.m. and 11
a.m. on all Wednesdays.

2. The petitioner shall make himself
available for interrogation as and when
required by the police at any time till the
filing of the final report.

3. The petitioner shall surrender his
passport before executing the bail bond.

4. The petitioner shall not influence or
intimidate the prosecution witnesses nor
shall he attempt to tamper with the
evidence for the prosecution.

5. The petitioner shall not commit any
offence while on bail.

If the petitioner commits breach of any of the above conditions,

the bail granted to him shall be liable to be cancelled.

This application is allowed as above.

V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

rv

A.K.Nazar vs Abdul Majeed on 14 February, 2011

Last Updated on

Kerala High Court
A.K.Nazar vs Abdul Majeed on 14 February, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP(C).No. 119 of 2011(O)


1. A.K.NAZAR, S/O.ABDUL KAREEM,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. ABDUL MAJEED, THERIPPURATHU PUTHENVEEDU
                       ...       Respondent

2. ARIFA,

3. ABDUL RASHEED,

4. SALEEMATH,

5. NASEEMA,

6. NOORJAHAN,

7. HAYARUNNEESA,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI

                For Respondent  :SRI.S.SREEKUMAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

 Dated :14/02/2011

 O R D E R
                K.T.SANKARAN, J.
          ------------------------------
              O.P(C).No.119 OF 2011
          ------------------------------
     Dated this the 14th day of February, 2011

                     JUDGMENT

Counsel appears for respondents 2, 4, 5, 6 and

7. It is stated that the third respondent is

employed in a Gulf country. The first respondent

is reported dead. In the nature of the reliefs

claimed in the Original Petition, I am of the view

that it is not necessary to issue notice to the

third respondent or to implead the Legal

Representatives of the deceased first respondent.

2. The reliefs prayed for in the Original

Petition are the following:

i) Issue appropriate direction or
order directing the Munsiff’s Court,
Punalur to pass orders on Ext.P5;

ii) Issue appropriate orders or
directions directing the Munsiff’s
Court, Punalur to remove Ext.P1 and P2
suits from the list on 12.1.2011;

iii) Stay all further proceedings in
O.S.244 of 2003 and O.S.107 of 2006

O.P(C).No.119 OF 2011 2

before the Munsiff’s Court, Punalur,
until the disposal of this Original
Petition.

iv) Award costs and

v) Any other relief this Hon’ble
Court deems fit.”

3. Ext.P5 is an application for amendment of

the plaint. The petitioner has prayed for issuing

a direction to the Munsiff’s Court, Punalur to pass

orders on Ext.P5. The respondents have no objection

to this prayer being allowed. Their only contention

is that they must be afforded an opportunity of

being heard.

4. The only relief that can be granted in the

Original Petition is relief No.(i).

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the

Munsiff’s Court, Punalur to consider and pass

orders on Ext.P5 application before commencing

evidence in the case. Since the number of the I.A.

is not mentioned in Ext.P5 application and no date

O.P(C).No.119 OF 2011 3

is seen in Ext.P5 application, the learned Munsiff

may not be able to identify which application is

directed to be disposed of. Therefore, the

petitioner shall produce a true copy of the

Original Petition before the Munsiff’s Court,

Punalur and then only the direction in the judgment

need be complied with.

The Original Petition is partly allowed as

above.

K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE.

cms