Kerala Court October 2008 Judgments

General Manager, K.S.i.D.C. Vs. Vayalambron and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ767

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.1. All these appeals are filed by the requisitioning authority who were respondent No. 2 before the reference court. The appeals pertain to acquisition of land in Kuthuparamba village situated within the limits of Kuthuparambu Municipal Town. The relevant notification under Section 4(1) was dated 30.1.2001. The acquisition was for the purpose of widening Kuthuparamba - Valliyavelicham road leading to the appellants' Industrial Growth Centre at Valiyavelicham. The Land Acquisition Officer had aw aided land value at the rate of Rs. 38997- per cent on the basis of Ext.B1 basis document. The claimants had claimed a higher land value. They had claimed compensation on various other counts including injurious affection of their remainder properties.2. The evidence before the reference court consisted of the oral testimony of A.W. 1, claimant in one of the six cases covered by the common judgment impugned in these appeals. Apart from that, there was Exl.X1 Commissioner's r...

The Chief Postmaster General, Kerala Circle, Tiruvananthapuram and Oth ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR: MEMBER The short question to be answered by us in this appeal is the legality and sustainability of the order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.2500/- as costs to the complainant when the complaint was dismissed by the forum. 2. By the order dated.31.8.05 of CDRF, Pathanamthitta in OP.68/03 the complaint was dismissed as against the opposite parties 1 to 4 and the opposite parties 1 to 3 were jointly and severally held liable to pay Rs.2500/- as costs to the complainant. 3. The representative of the appellant challenged the order contending that when the complaint itself fails it is improper and illegal on the part of the Forum below to award costs for the litigation that was dismissed on cogent grounds. 4. It is also submitted before us that when the complaint was dismissed the forum ought to have directed the complainants to pay costs to the opposite parties. However it is his very case that the direction of the forum to pay cost of Rs.2500/- is to be ...

Joseph Sartho Vs. G. Gopinathan and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ784

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. This is an appeal against acquittal of the 1st respondent/accused, filed by the complainant, after obtaining leave of this Court.2. The brief facts of the case are the following. The appellant is the complainant in S.T. No. 73/2000, on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Alappuzha. The complaint was one under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The 1st respondent issued cheque No. 454255 of Lord Krishna Bank, Alappuzha branch dated 4.6.1999 for an amount of Rs. 4,61,400/- to the appellant to discharge in full a debt due to him. On 9.6.1999, the 1st respondent paid an amount of Rs. 2,26,400/-, as part payment towards the amount due under the aforementioned cheque. The balance amount due to the appellant complainant was only Rs. 2,35,000/-. Since the said balance amount was not paid, the appellant presented the cheque through the Central Bank of India, Kottayam on 30.11.1999 for collection. But, ...

Sunny V.L. Vs. A.P. Venugopal and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ751

ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Does the mere fact that an indictee is a Director of a Company attract culpability under Section 138 read with 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short the Act)? On whom does the burden lie to prove that such indictee director was (or was not) in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its affairs? Does Rangachari v. B.S.N.L 2007(2) KLT 1030 lay down a proposition that at the stage of evidence/trial, it must be presumed that every director is in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its affairs? These interesting questions are raised in this case.2. This application for leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. is to prefer an appeal against a judgment of acquittal in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.3. The petitioner herein filed a complaint alleging commission of offences under Section 138 read with 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Altogether there were nine accused persons. First a...

Bhagavat Singh Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009CriLJ1375; 2008(3)KLJ758; 2008(4)KLT1047

ORDERR. Basant, J.1. This case raises certain interesting questions regarding procedures adopted by the courts recording oral evidence. What is the duty of such courts to the witnesses concerned, the parties to litigation and their counsel? How can it be ensured that a fair and transparent procedure is followed in the matter of recording oral evidence? What safe norms should be insisted by the system from judicial functionaries to ensure that fairness and transparency is ensured in the procedure adopted?2. Petitioner, a lawyer practising at the High Court, has come before this Court with this petition to expunge certain observations made by the learned Sessions Judge, in the judgment in a Sessions case.3. That was a prosecution against two accused persons who faced allegations inter alia under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It was a judgment of acquittal in favour of the said two accused persons. To cut a long story short, p...

M/S. Qatar Airways, Doha Vs. G. Madhusoodanan and Another

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the 1st opposite party in OP377/2000 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthpauram. The opposite parties are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.52,000/- as property loss with future interest at 14.5% and also to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost. 2. The case of the complainant is that on his journey from Doha to Thiruvananthapuram on 13.4.2000 in the airlines of the appellant his hand baggage was taken by the staff of the opposite party and put in the checked in baggage. The above was found missing on arrival. At the embarkation point the hand baggage was forcibly taken from him by the officials of the appellant. The value of the articles contained in the above baggage is Rs.2,28,690/25410 Riyals. He has claimed compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. 3. The appellant/1st opposite party has admitted the loss of baggage. It is pointed out that the complainant can carry only 20 Kgs in aggregate. It is also pointed out that content...

M/S. Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. Vs. C.R. Ramesh

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in OP.120/03 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- by way of compensation for deficiency in service and also Rs.1000/- as cost etc. to the complainant. 2. It is the case of the complainant that himself and his wife were permanent workers of Company of which the opposite party is the Manager. They were remitting subscriptions under the CTD scheme at the post office and the amounts were deducted by the Company from their salary. Complainant and his wife applied for availing loan from CTD account. The authorities informed that the loan could not be granted since they are defaulters. When they approached the opposite party it was found that the amounts deducted from the salary were not deposited in the CTD account They had applied loan for redeeming a gold loan availed from the bank. They could not redeem the gold ornaments worth Rs.15,000/- pledged in the bank and ...

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. N. Radhakrishnan

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/Insurance company in OP.176/2000 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthpauram. The appellants has been directed to pay an amount of Rs.7500/- towards the damages sustained to the vehicle with future interest at 14.5.% and also to pay Rs.1000/- as cost. 2. The case of the complainant is that he is the owner of ambassador car with registration No.KL.01 D 1809 .The vehicle was covered with a policy from the opposite party/appellant. The vehicle met with an accident at Vellakinar, Alleppey on 2.1.99 and the car was extensively damaged and it was repaired at the SK Motors, Kannettumukku, Thiruvananthpauram. The bill amount for Rs.9200/- was paid by the complainant. The policy was an comprehensive one. The claim was rejected. 3. The opposite party is in the version filed has pointed out that the claim was repudiated for the reason that at the time of the accident , one Biju who was driving the car was not having a va...

Secretary, K.S.E.B., Thiruvananthpauram and Another Vs. Manager, Bull ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA: MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by CDRF, Palakkad in the file of OP.No.164/99 dated 18.4.01. The appellants are the opposite parties in the OP respectively. The brief of the case is that the complainant in this case is the Manager, Bull Station, Dhoni Farm, Palakkad. This unit is functioning under the Government of Kerala and engaged in production of bull semen used for artificial insemination of cows and the unit was commissioned in the year 1983 with Swiss collaboration. The vigilence wing of the KSEB known as Anti Power Theft Squad made a surprise inspection in the complainants farm and noted some irregularities in the functioning of the meter. It was detected that the meter was not registering the actual consumption of electricity. The opposite parties had made fresh assessments and issued bills to the complainant firm for Rs.2,46,671.55 in the year 1991 and for Rs.108401 in the year 1994. Totally to a sum of Rs.3,55,072.55 and demanded the ...

Alex Thomas Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ690

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.O.P. No. 15782/20021. The petitioner is the owner of a motor vehicle bearing registration No. KL-08/U4329. It is a light good vehicle with a seating capacity of 5 including driver. The unladen weight of the vehicle is 1690 Kgs. It is a 'Mahindra & Mahindra Utiliti' vehicle. Ext.P2 is the relevant page of the R.C. book of the vehicle and Ext.P3 is the photograph of that vehicle. Ext.P3 would show that in the front portion there are two seats for the driver and another. Behind that there are three seats with a separate door to them. Further behind, there isan open platform for carrying goods. The point that arises for decision in this writ petition is whether this is a goods vehicle and therefore it has to be painted as contemplated under Rule 304 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules 1989. The relevant portion of Rule 304 reads as follows:Painting: Every goods vehicle shall be painted in Highway yellow colour either fully or its front and rear portion in highway yell...