Kerala Court May 2010 Judgments

St. Joseph's College of Communication Vs. Consumer Disputes Redressal ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLJ1039

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The second respondent joined for the course of B.A. Multimedia in the petitioner college. He sat for a supplementary examination in a couple of papers of the first semester. The University, which conducts the examination, was not satisfied with the manner in which the examination was conducted in the petitioner's college. On ground that the University was not satisfied with the conduct of the examination, results were not announced. The second respondent was undergoing a course where he would have got further opportunities to write the supplementary examinations. Instead, he filed a complaint before the C.D.R.F. seeking compensation. The college has filed this Writ Petition challenging the jurisdiction of the C.D.R.F. to adjudicate the matter.2. The University is a statutory body. It conducts examination in terms of its regulations. The college does not have any role in the matter of holding the examination other than to participate as the duly control...

Aji Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

ORDERR. Basant, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioners under Sections 307 and 506(ii) I.P.C.2. 5 accused persons faced indictment for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 506(ii) and 307 r/w 149 I.P.C. The trial court found all of them guilty and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for various terms. The lower appellate court set aside the conviction and sentence of the 5th accused. The conviction and sentence of the others under Sections 143, 147 and 148 I.P.C were also set aside. 4 accused persons, ie. accused 1 to 4 were found guilty, convicted and sentenced under Sections 341 and 506(ii) I.P.C. The sentences imposed under Sections 307 and 506(ii) I.P.C were confirmed. The appellants now face a sentence of R.I for a period of 3 years under Section 307 I.P.C and 2 years under Section 506(ii) I.P.C. Even though they have been found guilty and convicted under Section 341 I...

Mahendran Asari Vs. R. Anil Kumar

Court: Kerala

ORDERR. Basant, J.1. This revision petition is directed against a concurrent verdict of guilty and conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The sentence imposed by the trial court was modified and reduced by the appellate court.2. The cheque is for an amount of Rs. 17,000/-. According to the complainant, the accused had borrowed an amount of Rs. 17,000/- and had issued Ext.P1 cheque for Rs. 17,000/-. The direction in the cheque was to pay the amount by cash. The same was presented. It was dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of fund. Notice of demand was issued. The same was duly acknowledged. There was no reply sent to the notice of demand. The complainant scrupulously followed the statutory time table. The amount was not paid. The complainant came to court with the complaint.3. Cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate. The accused entered appearance. He denied the offence. The complainant examined himself as P.W.1. The Managers of the collecting ban...

Balakrishnan S/O. Manikkan Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

R. Basant, J.1. The revision petitioner in this revision petition assails the verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence imposed on him under Section 325 I.P.C. He is sentenced to undergo R.I for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-. Default sentence was also imposed.2. The petitioner along with 2 others faced indictment for the offences punishable under Sections 326 and 324 I.P.C. The trial court found accused 2 and 3 not guilty and acquitted them. The petitioner was found guilty, convicted and sentenced under Section 326 I.P.C. The appellate court allowed the appeal in part and altered the conviction from Section 326 to 325 I.P.C. The substantive sentence of imprisonment was reduced to R.I for a period of one year. The sentence of fine was not disturbed. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner is that he along with the accused, had at 12 midnight on 17/18.01.1995 assaulted PW1 with M.O1 bamboo stick. The other accused allegedly attacked PWs 2 to 5 who were...

Jyothikumar S/O. K.K. Thankappan Vs. Sub-inspector of Police and Sreek ...

Court: Kerala

ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. Petitioner who is the accused in Crime No. 204/2005 of Pulikeezhu Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 420, 406, 506(1) read with 34 IPC and whose case is now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thiruvalla as C.C. No. 663/2008, seeks a direction to the said Magistrate to release the petitioner on bail on the date of his surrender itself.2. Admittedly, non-bailable warrants of arrest are pending against the petitioner. The circumstances under which those non-bailable warrants of arrest came to be issued against the petitioner are not discernible to this Court. It is only proper that the petitioner surrenders before the J.F.C.M. and seeks regular bail.Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. is disposed of permitting the petitioner to surrender before the learned Magistrate and file an application for regular bail within a period of two weeks from today. In case, the petitioner complies with the above condition, his bail application s...

K.K. Saify Vs. K.A. Juliet @ Julie

Court: Kerala

ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J.1. Under challenge in this revision filed under Section 20 by the tenant is the order of eviction concurrently passed on the grounds of arrears of rent and bona fide need for own occupation. Having scanned the order of the Rent Control Court and judgment of the Appellate Authority, we do not find any infirmity about the findings entered by those authorities in the context of arrears of rent. After all, any eviction order passed under Section 11(2)(b) is tentative and is liable to be got vacated by making requisite deposit under Section 11(2)(c). We straight away confirm the order of eviction passed under Section 11(2)(b) and direct that if the petitioner deposits the entire arrears of rent as found by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority within two months from today and make an application under Section 11(2)(c) that order will stand vacated.2. The prominent ground on which eviction is ordered is the ground of bona fide need for own occupation. T...

Sasi Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

ORDERR. Basant, J.1. This revision petition is directed against a concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 341, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The revision petitioners/accused face a sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of one month under Section 341 IPC. and rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under Section 326 IPC. No separate sentence is imposed under Section 324 IPC.2. The crux of the allegations against the petitioners/accused is that they - four in number, allegedly attacked the de facto complainant - P.W.1, when he was proceeding towards his house on the night of 8/1/96 at 11 p.m. On hearing the cries of P.W.1, P.W.2 - his father, rushed to the scene. He was also attacked. Both suffered grievous injuries. The accused made use of dangerous weapons including iron rods, wooden reapers and a chopper. Accused 1 to 3 are brothers. A4 is the friend of A1 to A3. P.W.2 is the brother ...

Mom Traders, Chalai, Thiruvananthapuram Rep. by Its Proprietor Meeran ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is directed against the order dated 17-08-2009 passed by CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in OP No. 376/2005. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in their failure to settle the insurance claim put forward by the complainant. The complainant claimed release of the insurance amount of Rs. 1,64,268/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 06-06-2000 till the date of realization with compensation of Rs. 15,000/- for mental agony and a further sum of Rs. 15,000/- for loss of business of the complainant and a further sum of Rs. 10,000/- for the deficiency of service with costs of Rs. 10,000/-. He also claimed Rs. 7,432/- which he paid by way of survey charges. The opposite parties filed a joint written version denying the alleged defiency of service. They contended that the complainant failed to produce the destruction certificate of the damaged rice from the city corpora...

Kerala State Electricity Board, Vs. Rajendran S.

Court: Kerala

1. This petition is directed against the order of the Additional District Court-I, Palakkad for realization of additional compensation of Rs. 21,219/- with 6% interest per annum from the petitioners. The parties have settled the matter, agreeing that the petitioners shall deposit before the court below an amount of Rs. 25,000/- within two weeks from today.2. Therefore, the petitioners are directed to deposit before the court below an amount of Rs. 25,000/- within two weeks from today, failing which the respondent will also be entitled to get interest @ 6% per annum. If the amount is deposited, the respondent is permitted to withdraw the same.3. The Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have already deposited Rs. 10,000/- before the court below and the said amount may be deducted. It is made clear that amount, if any, deposited before the court below shall be adjusted and the balance amount need only be deposited by the petitioners.4. In view of the settlement arrived...

Branch Postmaster, Edanad Bo, Kumbla, Kasaragod and Another Vs. Mrs.Go ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/postal authorities in CC.61/09 in the file of CDRF, Kasaragod. The appellants are under orders to pay interest at the rate of 8% for the term deposit and also to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/-towards costs. 2. It is the case of the complainant that she is entitled for interest at 8% on the 5 year term deposit of Rs.1 lakh as the opposite parties provided only 7.5.% interest. 3. Opposite parties have contended that as per the Post Office Term Deposit Rules as amended from time to time the term deposits made on or after 1.1.03 interest will be payable at the rate of 7.5% per annum calculated quarterly compounding basis. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of Exts. A1, B1 to B5. 5. We find that the Forum has not considered the documents produced by the opposite parties but has just disposed of the matter observing that it is hard to believe that a term depositor would deposit a considerable amount wit...