Kerala Court September 2009 Judgments

Geetha S. Vs. Smt. Geo Thomas K. and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(3)KLJ484

P. Bhavadasan, J.1. The appellant was the sixth respondent in the Writ Petition, She was appointed as Upper Primary School Assistant (for short, 'U.P.S.A.') in the fifth respondent's High School, in a maternity leave vacancy from 6.6.2002 to 17.10.2002. While so, a regular 2.9.2002, in which the first respondent/Writ Petitioner was appointed. The point that arises for decision in this case is, whether the appellant should have been accommodated in the regular vacancy which arose on 2.09.2002 or a fresh hand like the first respondent could have been inducted, as was done in this case. The brief facts of the case are the following:2. As mentioned earlier, the appellant was appointed as U.P.S.A. in a maternity leave vacancy from 6.6.2002 to 17.10.2002. The said appointment was approved by the District Educational Officer (for short, 'D.E.O.') on 12.6.2003. While so, a regular vacancy in the cadre of U.P.S.A. arose, as a result of promotion of one of the U.P.S.A's. on 2.09.2002. The first ...

The Executive Engineer Electric Sub Division, K.S.E.B., Kayamkulam Vs. ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR: MEMBER The CDRF, Alappuzha vide order dated 7.2.06 on OP.148/04 has directed the opposite party to cancel Ext.A2 bill for Rs.11429/- with a direction to pay Rs.7000/- as compensation and Rs.750 as cost. It is aggrieved by the said directions that the present appeal is filed by the opposite party calling for the interference of this Commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below. 2. The complainant has approached the Forum alleging that the bill issued for Rs.20386/- which was later corrected to Rs.11429/- was illegal and unsustainable. It is his case that he is not liable to pay the said amount as he was regularly paying the electricity bills issued to him. It is also his case that due to non payment of the said bill his connection was disconnected and he had suffered great loss which is liable to be compensated by the opposite party. Alleging deficiency in service complaint was filed praying for directions to reconnect the service...

The Proprietor, Kulathunkal Fashion Jewellers Vs. Susan Alex

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in CC.32/08 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The appellants are under orders to refund the cost of the ornament ie; a sum of R.670/-. He was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as costs. It is also ordered that on payment of the above amounts he can take back the ornament. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased a Padaswaram of silver from the jewellery of the opposite party on 21.12.06 for her six months old baby on payment of Rs.670/-. According to the petitioner after some months the colour of the ornament changed. It is made out of sub standard material and not pure silver. The opposite party had agreed to exchange the ornament or to pay the price of the same. But subsequently, he demanded another Rs.300/- for exchange. In reply to your lawyer notice he had promised to pay the cost of the padaswaram and compensation. Although complaint was filed before the Kottay...

The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Jijo Cherian

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR: MEMBER It is aggrieved by the directions contained in the order dated 5.4.04 of CDRF, Idukki in OP.234/03 that the opposite party has come in appeal calling for the interference of this Commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below. By the above said order the opposite party is under orders to settle the claim of the complainant on payment of Rs.6,777/- together with Rs.10000/- as compensation and cost of Rs.1000/- within 30 days from the date of order failing which the outstanding amount shall carry interest at 12% per annum from the date of default till the date of payment. 2. The complainant has approached the Forum alleging that there was an insurance policy taken by him for his vehicle and that the vehicle had met with an accident on 25.5.03 and had sustained damage and the same was repaired by spending a sum of Rs.6,777/-. The opposite party repudiated the claim on the ground that there was misrepresentation of material fact...

M/S Accel Frontline Services Ltd. Vs. Varghese C. Philipkutty and Anot ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in the file No.CC. 39/08 dated 30.4.09. The appellant/Revision petitioner is the 1st opposite party in the above said CC who prefers this appeal from the above impugned order. 2. The brief of the case is that the complainant who purchased Sony Ericsson Mobile phone from the 1st opposite party on 30.1.07 for Rs.7,550/-. This cell phone was purchased for a use of his daughter, while using this phone in AC room the phone automatically switched off. This was informed by the complainant to the 1st opposite party, the dealer. The 1st opposite party directed to approach 2nd opposite party, the authorized service center to examine the defect. The daughter of the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party with the phone. The service center examined the phone and suggested that the mother board has to be replaced and for that Rs.4,800/- is required or otherwise the software has to be upgraded...

Sudhish K. Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(3)KLJ532

ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. These bail applications for the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are being disposed of by this common Order since common questions are involved therein.2. Bail Application No. 2785 of 2009 relates to Crime No. 252 of 2009 of Kasaragod Police Station. The petitioners are accused Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 6 respectively. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 324, 427, 354, 153A, read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation is that on 5-4-2009 at 19 Hours, about 20 identifiable persons, who belong to Hindu religion, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with weapons, and committed trespass into the house of the de facto complainant in Kudlu village in Kasaragod Taluk, assaulted the defacto complainant and his daughter and caused damage to tile house of the de facto complainant. It is alleged that the accused persons acted in a manner promoting disharmony o...

M/S. Sastha Auto Sales (Presently Known as Radhia Motors)rep.by Gopina ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party /dealer in CC.15/06 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The appellant is under orders to deliver a Minidor three wheeler goods vehicle to the complainant for a sum of Rs.25,000/- and also to pay cost of Rs.1000/-. 2. It is the case of the complainant that she saw an advertisement in Malayala Manorama newspaper dated 10.10.05 offering the Minidor three wheeler goods vehicle for sale at a price of Rs.25,000/-with other fringe benefits of free insurance and special gift, altogether amounting to Rs.6000/- She sent a letter accepting the said offer but received no reply. She has sought for sale of the vehicle at the price offered in the advertisement. The first opposite party/dealer has filed a version denying that it has any role in the advertisement, which was published by the second opposite party/manufacturers. Further more the advertisement was only a conditional offer that on the initial payment is Rs.25,000/- and t...

Suresh Vs. A.B.Viswambaran

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party Chit Fund that has sought for setting aside the order in CC.207/08 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The appellant was exparte in the proceedings before the Forum . 2. We find that order is not a considered one. In the circumstances the order of the Forum is set aside on condition that the appellant pay a sum of Rs.2500/- to the complainant towards cost or deposit the same before the Forum which can be withdrawn by the complainant. On payment of cost the Forum shall permit the opposite parties to file version and contest the matter. 3. The case stands posted before the Forum on 20.11.09. 4. Office is directed to forward the copy of this order to the Forum urgently. The appellant is directed not to withdraw the amount deposited in this Commission under Section 15 till the disposal of the case in the CDRF....

Philipose P.M. Vs. P.C. Chandy and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(3)KLJ471

ORDERThomas P. Joseph, J.1. The question raised for a decision in this revision is whether the mere fact of residence of the complainant in a prosecution for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, 'the Act') at a particular place would confer territorial jurisdiction on the court within whose territorial limits that place is situated. According to the learned Counsel for petitioner / complainant, the court within whose territorial limits complainant is residing has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint while counsel for the accused would contend that mere fact of residence cannot confer jurisdiction.2. Petitioner/complainant preferred a complaint in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta (in Pathanamthitta District). In the complaint, complainant is described as Managing Partner of a private financing institution situated at Kottayam (in Kottayam District). His residential address is given as at Cherukole in Ranni Taluk (in...

Appukuttan S/O. Pappu, Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(3)KLJ360

V. Ramkumar, J.1. The four accused persons in S.C. No. 34 of 2002 on the file of the Addl. District and Sessions Court (Adhoc) II, Kottayam, are the appellants in this appeal. The appellants challenge the conviction entered and the sentence passed against them for an offence under Section 451 read with Section 34 I.P.C.2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows:About 2 = years prior to the occurrence, for the purpose of widening the pathway leading to the house of the accused a laterite wall in the property of the 58 year old deceased Baby was demolished on the understanding that the accused would re-construct the laterite wall within 2 = months. But, they postponed the construction of the laterite wall which was, however, constructed only after about 2 = years. Deceased Baby who was a retired Head Master was not happy with the new construction since it did not conform to the height of the previous laterite wall which was demolished. On 12-8-2001 at about 8 a. m. the 4...