Kerala Court December 2010 Judgments

C.J.George. Vs. State of KeralA.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker467

1. Petitioner seeks a direction to the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Thiruvalla to have his application for bail disposed of on the date of his surrender. 2. Petitioner is the second accused in C.C. No.15 of 2007 before the JFCM, Thiruvalla. He claims to be the Managing Director of M/s. Geojit BNP Paribas Financial Services Limited. He is accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 403, 420 and 468 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the petitioner, he was always available in the station and the police with ulterior motive police filed the final report stating that the petitioner is absconding and that persuaded the court to issue non-bailable warrant against him. Petitioner would say that it is with ulterior motive that he was shown as absconding and that he was actually attending public functions also. The limited prayer of the petitioner at this point of time is that when he surrenders before the court concerned and moves ...

Saji George. Vs. the Sub Inspector of Police.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker467

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition complaining that a canoe owned by him covered by Ext.P1 licence, has been taken into custody by the first respondent and is retained by him. According to the petitioner, the canoe was empty at the time of seizure and did not contain any unauthorised article, including river sand. Therefore, the first respondent has no authority to retain the said canoe in custody. The petitioner has submitted Ext.P2 before the 2nd respondent seeking release of his canoe. Ext.P2 was submitted on obtaining the information from the first respondent that the canoe had been handed over to the custody of the 2nd respondent. According to the petitioner, the detention of his canoe has been the cause of a lot of hardship to him. 2. Since Ext.P2 is pending consideration before the 2nd respondent, it is sufficient that the same is directed to be considered and disposed of without delay. 3. In the above circumstance, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd...

Noby Philip, S/O George Philip Vs. M. Sukumaran and Another

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:PRESIDENT Appellants are the 1st opposite party/dealer in CC.36/2010 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad. Appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.21,690/- and compensation of Rs.5000/- towards cost. 2. Appellant was exparte before the Forum. It is submitted that the counsel who was entrusted, omitted to represent the matter. 3. Although we find that the reason mentioned is such cannot be treated as a proper one, a considered order would be desirable. In the circumstances, the order of the Forum is set aside on condition that the appellant/1st opposite party pay a sum of Rs.6000/- towards cost to the complainant or deposit the same before the Forum which can be withdrawn by the complainant. On payment of cost, the Forum will permit the opposite parties to file version and contest the case. The Forum will issue notice to the complainant. The case stands posted before the Forum on 28/2/2011. Office will forward copy of this order to the Forum at the earliest....

Gopi, and ors. Vs. State of KeralA.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker971

1. Petitioners, who are the accused in C.C.No.911/2009 on the file of the J.F.C.M, Chalakudy, seek anticipatory bail. 2. Admittedly, non-bailable warrants of arrest are pending against the petitioners. Anticipatory bail cannot be granted to nullify the process issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. There is no reason why the petitioners should not surrender before the Magistrate and seek regular bail. Accordingly, if the petitioners surrender before the Magistrate and file an application for regular bail within two weeks from today, the same shall be considered and disposed of preferably on the same day on which it is filed notwithstanding the pendency of non-bailable warrants of arrest against the petitioners and also after considering the explanation offered by the petitioners for their previous non-appearance. 3. With the above observation this application is disposed of . Dated this the 28th day of December, 2010....

Rajesh Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker603

1. In this Petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the  petitioner, who is accused No.2 in Cr.No.584 of 2010 of  Peermade Police Station for offences punishable under  Sections 447, 341, 323, 324, 294(B) & 308 read with Section  34 I.P.C., seeks his enlargement on bail. The petitioner was arrested on 08/12/2010. 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 with effect from 04/01/2011 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 ...

The Manager, Lic of India, Divisional Office and Another Vs. P.P. Shah ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellants were the opposite parties and respondent was the complainant in CC.33/06 on the file of CDRF, Kannur. The complaint herein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties in repudiating the insurance claim preferred by the complainant based on the life policy issued in favour of the complainants husband, Abdulla. The complainant claimed the insured amount of Rs.2.lakhs with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and physical pain and cost of Rs.5000/-. 2. The opposite parties entered appearance before the Forum below and filed a joint written version denying the alleged deficiency of service. They justified their action in repudiating the insurance claim vide repudiation letter dated:14/3/2005. It was further contended that the life assured, Abdulla.M.K suppressed material facts while submitting the proposal for the policy and the suppression of material facts re...

M/S Coral Marketing Vs. P.M. Sajan and Another

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:PRESIDENT Appellants are the 1st opposite party in CC.148/09 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.8509/- with compensation of Rs.2000/-and cost of Rs.1000/-. 2. The allegation in the complaint is that the complainant purchased 29 sq.mts of floor tiles from the opposite party/appellant for a sum of Rs.9610/-. The complainant purchased red tiles. At the time of opening the packets it was found that there were slight colour fading and white precipitate like stains on them. The matter was intimated to the 2nd opposite party/sub dealer. The complainant was told the white patches would disappear when the tiles are polished. The tiles were laid by spending a sum of Rs.20/- per sq.ft. and a sum of Rs.6240/- was spend for polishing. The complainant has sought for refund of the purchase money and compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost. 3. The opposite parties have contended that the manufacturers have used the best quality...

The Secretary, Vydhyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Trivandrum and Another Vs. Ch ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:PRESIDENT Appellants are the opposite parties/KSEB in CC.455/06 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The bill issued by the appellant with respect to the past fixed charges omitted to be collected stands set aside. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he was conducting a clinic by name Athira Clinic with consumer No.18609. The tariff at the time was LT-I A with fixed charge at Rs.110/-. On 8/2/2005 the opposite party changed the tariff as LT VI-B without any reason and subsequently on 16/12/06 a bill has been issued with raising the fixed charge to Rs.660/- per each bill and directed to pay a sum of Rs.660/- as short assessment from February 2005 to December 2006 after deducting the fixed charge of Rs.110/- from each bill. It is the allegation with the above bill is illegal. 3. The contention of the opposite parties/appellants is that there was omission to collect the fixed charges from the date from which the tariff was changed from LT I-A to LT-VI-B. The co...

George Abraham. Vs. State of KeralA.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker467

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the denial of the request for electricity duty concession in terms of Ext.P1 Government order. The request of the petitioner was rejected as per Ext.P4 by the third respondent. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with Ext.P4 order the petitioner has preferred Ext.P7 appeal against Ext.P4 before the second respondent. It is still pending consideration before the second respondent. In the said circumstances, without making any observation as to the merits of the contentions raised in this writ petition, it is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider Ext.P7 in accordance with law and pass orders thereon expeditiously....

JyolsnA.S. Vs. Sheila Thomas.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker971

1. The writ petitioner filed this Contempt of Court Case alleging that the respondent wilfully and deliberately failed to comply with the directions contained in the judgment dated 6.9.2010. As per the judgment, the respondent herein was directed to disburse the salary due to the petitioner forthwith. The respondent herein was also directed to pay the arrears of salary to the petitioner within a period of three months. The allegation is that the respondent failed to disburse the salary due to the petitioner. 2. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that the salary bills of the petitioner for the months of November and December, 2010 were countersigned by the respondent. It is also submitted that the arrears of salary were directed to be paid within a period of three months. A copy of the judgment was received by the respondent only on 4.11.2010. The period of three months is not over. 3. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the Contempt of Court Case is clos...