Kerala Court August 2008 Judgments

The Secretary, K.S.E.B, Thiruvananthapuram and Another Vs. Alex Mathew

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant/KSEB has sought for setting aside the order of the Forum cancelling Ext.A1 additional bill dated.15.03.02 for an amount of Rs.16,539/- vide the order of CDRF, Kottayam in OP.No.234/03. 2. The case of the complainant who is running an SSI unit is that the bill with respect to the consumer No.2874A is barred by limitation. The bill was issued on 15.03.02 and the period for which the bill has been issued is 3/97 to 8/97. The Forum has held that the bill is barred by limitation. It was only the above ground that the bill has been cancelled by the Forum. As pointed out by the counsel for the appellant the above contention cannot be sustained in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s.Swastic Industries Vs Maharashtra State Electricity Board AIR 1997 SC.1101. In the circumstances the order of the Forum is herewith set aside. All the same, the complainant/respondent is permitted to remit the amount in 6 equal monthly installments...

Kerala State Housing Board Hosing Board Buildings, Thiruvananthapuram ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYA BHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/Housing Board that is under orders to refund a sum of Rs. 12,125/- with interest at 9% and also to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- and cost of Rs.1,000/- vide order in OP.388/01 of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The case of the complainant is that the Housing Board refused to refund a sum of Rs.12,125/- out of the amount paid ie, Rs.1,05,000/- towards the price of the plot allotted. The complainant had sought for cancellation of the allotment as the Housing Board demanded a further sum of Rs.57,011/-. Cancellation was allowed but only a sum of Rs. 91,875/- was refunded, after deducting Rs.12,125/- as service charges. 2. The case of the appellant before the Forum is that they are allowed to collect service charges as per the agreement and hence there is no deficiency of service. 3. The evidence adduced consisted of Exts.P1 to P4 documents produced by the complainant. 4. The Forum has found that there is no authori...

Babeesh @ BabIn Kumar Vs. S.i. of Police and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009CriLJ517; 2008(3)KLJ107

ORDERR. Basant, J.1. On application of the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab 2008 AIR SCW 228, as understood by this Court in Santhosh v. State of Kerala 2008(3) KLT 240, can or should be the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. be invoked to quash the prosecution against the petitioner under Section 326 Cr.P.C. This is the short question that falls for consideration in this Crl.M.C.2. The petitioner had come to this Court with this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. initially to quash an F.I.R. registered against him and later request is made to quash the final report filed by the police after investigation into that crime. The crucially relevant and vital facts can be summarised as follows.3. The defacto complainant/third respondent is an autorikshaw driver. He, along with his friends, was sitting and chatting in the autorikshaw parked at a public place near a dispensary on the night of 19.5.2008. Earlier there was a dispute between the petitioner herein and the brother o...

Suresh Kumar C. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ457

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.W.P.(C) No. 3562, 35646, 35650, 35735, 35752, 35836, 35893 of 2007 & 6522, 10736 of 20081. In these writ petitions, the petitioners want to get their secondary schools affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education. For moving the said Board for affiliation, they required 'No Objection Certificate' from the State Government. The grant of N.O.C. by the Government is governed by Ext.P2, G.O.(Ms) 18/88/GEdn. dated 12.1.1988. (The exhibits mentioned are, unless otherwise mentioned, those produced in W.P.(C) No. 35622/2007). The said GO. inter alia says:Government have examined the proposals forwarded by the Director of Public Instruction in this regard and they order that the Educational authorities will adhere to hereafter the following guidelines while applications for affiliation of schools to Central Board of Secondary Education/ISCE etc. are taken up with Government for issue of No Objection Certificate.(i) ....(xii) No institution shall be affiliated o...

Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs. K.P. Kuriakose

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 2/4/2003 of CDRF, Kottayam in OP No.611/2001. The complaint in said original petition was filed by the respondent herein against the appellant as opposite party claiming the insurance claim under the personal accident insurance policy issued by the opposite party in favour of the complainant. The opposite party repudiated the claim on the ground that the accident occurred prior to the date of the policy and so the opposite party Insurance Company is not liable to honour the claim. But the Forum below accepted the case of the complainant and thereby directed the opposite party to allow the insurance claim of the petitioner with a further direction to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- with cost of Rs.750/-. Hence the present appeal by the opposite party. 2. We heard the counsel for the both sides. The learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in ...

Sreekumar Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ173; 2008(3)KLT748

ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Is a court which has chosen to exercise its discretion under Section 204 Cr.P.C. to issue a summons and not a warrant to an accused facing allegations of commission of a non-bailable warrant offence justified or correct in remanding such an accused to custody when he appears in court despite the fact that he is willing to offer bail? This question is thrown up for consideration in this Cri.M.C.2. The petitioner, along with the co-accused, faces allegations in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. According to the petitioner, he is a cancer patient undergoing treatment from 2003. The police were not too convinced about the involvement of the petitioner or the need to arrest the petitioner. Considering the circumstances of the petitioner, the police, it is submitted, have filed a final report without formally arresting the petitioner and releasing him on bail. Final rep...

Sasi D. Vs. R.S. Devadas

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2009Ker9; 2008(3)KLJ92

ORDERM. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. While computing the period of limitation for execution of the decree under Article 136 of Limitation Act, whether date of decree is to be excluded or the period of 12 years is to be computed inclusive of the date of decree. This is the question to be resolved in the revision petition.2. Petitioner is the judgment debtor and respondent the decree holder in O.S. 856/1993 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. A decree for realisation of money was passed on 30.6.1994. E.P. No. 223/2006 for execution of the decree was filed on 30.6.2006. Case of the judgment debtor is that the period of limitation expired on 29.6.2006 and therefore the execution is barred by time. Case of the respondent decree holder is that as the date of the decree is to be excluded while computing the period and so the execution petition is within time. Executing court as per the impugned order found that date of the decree is to be excluded and if so, the execution peti...

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Baby and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ626

J.B. Koshy, J.1. Husband of the first respondent sustained fatal injuries in a motor accident. While the deceased was riding a Scooter owned by the 6th respondent on 11.12.1999, accidentally the Scooter dashed at a stone and he fell down from the vehicle and sustained serious head injuries which resulted in his death. His dependents filed an application for compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal awarded compensation under Section 163-A. The insurance of the vehicle was admitted. There was no pleading in the written statement that rider of the vehicle was not covered under the policy. Since there was valid insurance policy of the Scooter, the appellant insurance company was directed to deposit the amount. Contention of the insurance company is that no other vehicle or person was involved in the accident. Since there is no other person involved in the accident, Section 163-A is not applicable. There is no finding or contention that the rider of the Scoot...

The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex Vs. Belsi and ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER This appeal is preferred against the order dated 4/7/2002 in OP No. 274/98 of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram whereby the opposite party is under directions to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation with future interest at 14.5% and also to pay Rs.10,000/-as general compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs. 2. The complainants are the wife and the minor children of one Chellappan who was working in Riyad and who passed away after he came back to his home. It is alleged that before his return from Riyad he had sent some unaccompanied cargo through the airlines which was under the custody of the opposite party. As the deceased Chellappan did not take delivery of the items, the 1st complainant, the wife, made a request for the delivery of the items before the opposite party and it was understood that the opposite party had delivered the goodsillegally by handing over the same to some other person. Alleging deficiency of service the complaina...

Kerala State Election Commission Vs. Mercy George and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ255

ORDERAntony Dominic, J.1. These Review Petitions have been filed by the Kerala State Election Commission, seeking review of the common judgment in W.P.(C) Nos. 37935 & 37968/07 in the case of Varghese Yohannan v. Kerala State Election Commission 2008 (3) KLT 468. Writ petitions were disposed of setting aside the orders passed by the review petitioner disqualifying the 1st respondent in these review petitions, who are the elected members of the Akalakunnam Grama Panchayat.2. Relying entirely on the English translated version of Section 3(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, it was held that with the amendment by Act 31/05, the members of the Panchayat, did not have any obligation to convene meeting of the Grama Sabha at least once in three months. On this basis, it has further held that a member cannot be disqualified under Section 35(p) of the Act, on the allegation that the failed consecutively twice to convene meetings of the Grama Sabha, due once in 3 months.3. It is pointed out that...