Court : Kerala
R. Basant, J.1. This, alas, is yet another case where the ugly and shameful spectacle of hostility of the prosecution witnesses with impunity clouds the truth discovery process by courts by procedure established by law. It also brings to light the need to boldly and innovatively look at the efficacy of the ruler of the complicated process of truth discovery in our criminal justice system.2. Is there a semblance of legal evidence to support the allegations against the appellants? Are not the appellants entitled atleast to the benefit of doubt? Did the court below, shocked and dissatisfied with the parade of hostile witnesses before it, commit the indiscretion of not insisting on and ignoring the core mandate of human right jurisprudence that deprivation of life and liberty can be only on the basis of satisfactory proof of culpability?3. These questions are raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants Sri. M.K. Damodaran in this case.4. Appellants are two of the seven accused, who fa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the 1st respondent University in completing the process of selection for appointment to the post of Registrar of University which is lying vacant. He is also aggrieved by the fact that a person who has already completed the age of 55 years has been put in charge of the post of the Registrar, although the age of retirement of Registrar is 55 years.2. As far as the 1st grievance of the petitioner is concerned the standing counsel for the University submits that the University would require 8 months time to complete the process for selecting and appointing a qualified person to the post of Registrar of the University. As far as the 2nd contention is concerned, they would contend that although the 3rd respondent is past 55 years of age, he is a regular employee of the University, who is statutorily entitled to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years. He has only been put in charge of the Registra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Antony Dominic, J.1. WP(c). No. 37684/08 is filed by the Thrikkakara Grama Panchayat, challenging Ext.P4 order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions in Appeal No. 443/08, declaring it ex-parte and taking the view that M/s. Reliance Hyper Mart Ltd., the first respondent in this writ petition is entitled to a deemed licence. The deemed licence declared in Ext.P4 order was for the year 2008-09 and therefore by lapse of time, period of the said deemed licence has expired long ago. Therefore, at this distance of time, I do not find any relevance to the issue raised in this writ petiton. Therefore WP(c). No. 37684/08 is closed as infructuous.2. In so far as WP(c). No. 9411/09 is concerned, that was filed by M/s. Reliance Hyper Mart Ltd; against the Thrikkakara Grama Panchayat praying to quash Ext.P3, the communication by which the licence application made by the petitioner was returned stating that WP(c). No. 37684/08 was pending. In that writ petition, this Court pas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
M.V. VISWANATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellants were the opposite parties 1 to 3 and the respondent was the complainant in OP.295/97 on the file of CDRF, Kannur. The complaint in the said OP.295/97 was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in their failure to replace the defective chassis of the vehicle which was purchased by the complainant from the opposite parties. The complainant has also claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 600/- per day from 20.6.97 on the ground that he suffered financial loss. The complainant has also alleged manufacturing defect in the chassis fitted for the vehicle (Mini Lorry) which he had purchased on 17.3.96 from the opposite parties. 2. At the first instance, the complaint was filed against opposite parties 1 and 2, the dealer and service center of the vehicle manufactured by Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. On the basis of the contentions raised by the opposite parties 1 and 2 in their written version the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/KSEB in CC:146/06 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The bill issued by the opposite parties for a sum of Rs.27,057/- stands cancelled. The opposite parties are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as cost. 2. The case of the complainant is that in the first bill issued to him after getting electric connection the amount noted is Rs.27,057/-. The bill is dated:15/7/2006. According to the complainant he occupied the newly constructed house only in June 2006. The subsequent bill issued on 15/8/2006. It is only for the sum of Rs.1180/-. According to him the initial reading of the meter is wrongly noted as 14. According to him it should have been a figure in between 4500 and 5000. Hence the complaint. 3. According to the opposite parties, the initial reading was 14 in the meter on 25/5/2006and the subsequent reading on 5/7/2006 was 4904. They have denied the allegation that the initial reading was wrongly noted. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellant is the 2nd opposite party/distributor in CC:133/08 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad. The appellant and the 1st opposite party/shop keeper are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.10,650/- the price of the LCD monitor and Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost. 2. The case of the complainant is that the LCD monitor purchased by him from the 1st opposite party for a sum of Rs.10,650/- was found to be defective. It was having warranty also. During the warranty period the equipment became defective after repair at the service centre also. As directed by the service centre it was produced before the main service centre at Cochin. After one month he received the same back after repairs. Again it was found to be not in a working condition. According to the complainant he has spent about Rs.4000/- for sending LCD to various service centers and also Rs.1000/- toward telephone charges. 3. The 1st opposite party the shop keeper has filed ver...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
P.N. Ravindran, J.1. The appellant is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 8106 of 2004. In that writ petition the appellant challenged Ext.P2 award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam in I.D. No. 12 of 1988. By judgment delivered on 2.1.2008, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved thereby this writ appeal is filed. The brief facts of the case are as follows:2. The Neendakara Fishing Harbour constructed by the Harbour Engineering Department of the State Government was commissioned on 28.3.1987. 42 casual workers engaged by the Harbour Engineering Department in the construction of the Neendakara Fishing Harbour as Drivers, Watchmen, Security Personnel, Electricians and Sweepers, raised various claims including confirmation in service. The dispute raised by them was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam for adjudication by the Government as per G.O. (Rt.) No. 1891/88/LBR dated 18.10.1988. The workers contended that they have been working in the Neendakara Fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
P.N. Ravindran, J.1. The appellant is the 8th respondent in O.P. No. 18798 of 1995. The first respondent is the petitioner and respondents 2 to 9 are respondents 1 to 7 and 9 respectively therein. By judgment delivered on 22.7.2002, in N. Sreedharan Nair v. State of Kerala 2002 (3) KLT 307, the learned single Judge allowed the original petition. The 8th respondent in the original petition has, aggrieved thereby, filed this writ appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the original petition. The brief facts of the case are as follows:2. A parcel of land, 91 cents in extent, comprised of 15 cents in Survey No. 1026, 34 cents in Survey No. 1342 and 42 cents in Survey No. 1421 of Ulloor Village, Trivandrum Taluk, was outstanding in the occupation of Viruthicars who were obliged to perform Oozhiyam services in Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple, Trivandrum and Sree Balasubramanya-swamy Temple, Ulloor. The lands described above were in the occupation o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. In this Revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., the revision petitioners who are accused Nos. 1 to 5 in Crime No. 72 of 2010 of Perumpetty Police Station, challenge the order dated 29-3-2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta, cancelling the bail granted to the petitioners by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (J.F.C.M. for short), Thiruvalla.2. I heard Sr. Advocate Sri K. Ramakumar, the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, Adv. Sri Rajeev, the learned Counsel appearing for the de facto complainant and Sri V.G. Govindan Nair, the learned Director General of Prosecution. I also called for and perused the records.THE BACKGROUND FACTS3. The turn of events (according to the prosecution) culminating in the impugned order can be summarised as follows:A. One P.J. Samkutty (Sam Jacob) of Punnakkal family in Chungappara in Pathanamthitta Ditrict having the pen name 'Shamu Coimbatore' was the author of a book tit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. The 1st petitioner is the manager of an aided college and the petitioners 2 & 3 are Lecturers appointed by the 1st petitioner in his college. Their grievance in this writ petition is that although there is sufficient workload in the Commerce Department of the college, to accommodate the petitioners 2 & 3, the 1st respondent University is not approving the appointments made, on the ground that the course sanctioned for teaching which the petitioners 2 & 3 were appointed, was sanctioned with the condition that the expenditure thereof shall not exceed the budget allotment. According to the petitioners, the validity of such condition have been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Arun George 2009 (4) KLT 972 and this court has held that such conditions are unsustainable. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs:i) declare that B.Com degree course sanctioned vide Exhibits P1 and P1 (a) in St. Michael's College, Cherthalai an Aide...
Tag this Judgment!