Kerala Court October 2011 Judgments

P.K. Omana Vs. Francis Edwin

Court: Kerala

1. 1st respondent obtained a decree for recovery of money against the deceased 1st judgment debtor in the year 2002. 1st judgment debtor met with a motor accident and succumbed to the injuries on 4.5.2004. Petitioners who are his legal heirs filed O.P. (M.V.) No. 1736 of 2004 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam (for short, "the Tribunal") and obtained Ext.P10, award for recovery of `13,60,000/- by way of compensation. After the death of the 1st judgment debtor, petitioners were impleaded in E.P. No. 235 of 2010 (in OS No. 293 of 2000) as additional judgment debtors. 1st respondent filed E.A. No. 959 of 2010 to attach `2,10,000/- from the amount awarded by the Tribunal and payable to the petitioners. After hearing both sides, learned Sub Judge dismissed E.A. No. 959 of 2010 holding that no amount payable to the petitioners as per Ext.P10, award could be attached as it is not the property of the deceased 1st judgment debtor. Thereafter placing reliance on the observatio...

Dr. Harish Babu Maddineni Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by Public P ...

Court: Kerala

1. These Bail Applications are filed by Dr. Harish Babu Maddineni, accused No.2 in Crime Nos.1391 of 2011, 1392 of 2011 and 1390 of 2011 of Thrissur Town West Police Station, Thrissur, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 406, 418, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Prize Chits Act’) 3. One Shirly Jose, Varantharappilly filed a complaint before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur, alleging that a sum of Rs.1,79,500/- was collected by the accused giving false promises and that the accused committed the aforesaid offence. The complaint was forwarded to the police under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and accordingly Crime No.1391 of 2011 was registered. Crime No.1392 of 2011 was registered on the basis of a complaint filed by Lijo Varke...

Gilbert, Trivandrum Vs. State of Kerala, Rep. by Public Prosecutor

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(1)KLJ239

BALAKRISHNAN, J. 1. The appellant was convicted by First Additional Sessions Judge, Trivandrum for offences punishable under Sections 302, 376(2)(f) and 397 I.P.C. and was sentenced to imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302, rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for the offence under Section 376(2)(f) and rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC. This appeal is directed against the said conviction and sentence passed against him. 2. A seven year old (to be precise 7 years, 7 months and 7 days old) daughter of P.W.1 was brutally raped and murdered at about 3 PM on 25.12.2004 at a place near Karichal Kayal in Karumkulam village. The gist of the prosecution case is stated thus: The victim girl had been to the house of her grand mother (P.W.3) from where she went to Karichal Kayal (back water) for washing the kaily mundu of P.W.3 carried in an aluminum vessel. Since the girl did not return, P.W.3 went to the house of P.W.1 to enquire ...

The Manager, Sudha Narmada Formic Acid, Pon Pure Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellants are the opposite parties and respondent is the complainant in C.C. 303/08 on the file of CDRF, Kasargod. The complaint therein was filed alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 in effecting sale of Formic Acid containing in a defective plastic carbuoy. It was alleged that the complainants relative Divakaran Nambiar sustained grievous burn injuries on both thighs because of leakage of formic acid contained in the plastic carbuoy which the complainant purchased from the second opposite party. Thus, the complainant claimed compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs with cost. 2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. They contended that there was no deficiency in service on their part in packing and effecting sale of Formic acid in plastic carbuoy. They further contended that there was no defect for the plastic carbuoy which contained formic acid. It was ...

Peter M. Thomas Vs. Manager (Hire Purchase and Lease), Manappuram Gene ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER This appeal is filed by the complainant who is aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint in OP.210/05 by the CDRF, Ernakulam vide its order dated:13.9.05. 2. The case put forth by the complainant before the Forum was that he had purchased a Maruti Car with the loan taken from the 1st opposite party and that he had remitted a higher amount than that was required to be paid by him. It is his case that the loan amount of Rs.1,53,000/- with interest of Rs.94,860/- was to be repaid in 60 instalments at the rate of 4131/- totalling to a sum of Rs.2,47,860/-. It was submitted by him that he had remitted Rs.3,01,905/- and the opposite parties had gone from the promise that the complainant would be given 2% discount on the remitted amounts. In the complaint it was prayed that the excess amount paid by the complainant amounting to Rs.23,423/- is to be returned with compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the deficiency of service and Rs.25,000/- for the mental agony,...

Kerala State Electricity Board, Represented by Its Secretary, Vaidhudh ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR, MEMBER The opposite parties in OP.78/03 before the CDRF, Wayanad are the appellants herein who are aggrieved by the directions of the Forum below cancelling Ext.A2 and A3 bills amounting to Rs.51,074/- and Rs.88,399/- respectively. 2. The complainants case in brief is that the opposite parties issued 2 bills on 8.5.03 in respect of his connection No.5542 and 5543 for the sums of Rs.51,074/- and Rs.88,399/- respectively. It is also his case that he had been remitting the charges regularly and that on his application to the third opposite party the, tariff was reduced on finding that the connected load was below 10 KW. It is alleged by him that the opposite parties conducted an inspection on 5.5.03 in his absence and that the bills were issued on the presumption that there was illegal abstraction of electrical energy and also that he had tampered the meters of Con.Nos.5542 and 5543. Contending that there was no illegal abstraction or that there was tampering o...

M/S. Thomas Cook India Ltd., and Others Vs. Rappai Kallarikkal House

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER This appeal is filed by the opposite parties in CC No. 397/08 before the CDRF, Ernakulam who are aggrieved by the directions contained in the order dated 30.11.10 of the Forum below directing the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- within a period of 1 month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order failing which the amount shall carry interest at 12% per annum from the date of default till payment. 2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that himself and his wife booked for a trip to Europe with the 1st opposite party during the month of July 2007 and that throughout the journey, they preferred non-vegetarian meals which the opposite party had agreed to supply. It is his case that inspite of the assurance, the complainant and his wife were given only vegetarian meals and dissatisfied by the same, the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation. 3. The op...

Kakkamkovval Easwara Varriar, Kasaragod District Vs. the District Coll ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(4)ILR(Ker)662; 2011(4)KLJ781; 2011(4)KLT694

1. The short legal question which arises for decision in this appeal is whether, when the court award relied on by a party who applies under Section 28-A is modified in appeal and the land value awarded by the Reference Court is enhanced by the Appellate Court the applicant under Section 28-A is entitled to have his application decided in terms of the appellate judgment. In the instant case, the appellant/claimant relied on the award of the Reference Court in L.A.R. 120/1987. At the time when the application under Section 28-A was filed, the claimant in LAR.120/87 had preferred an appeal to the High Court. The prayer in the application under Section 28-A was that the market value of the appellant’s property be re-determined on the basis of the decision in L.A.R.120/1987. Significantly in the application under Section 28-A the appellant had not mentioned the rate actually claimed by him. It appears that within a few months of filing of the application under Section 28-A, the appea...

Susan Geroge @ Rachana Rahul, Suthan Bathery Taluk Vs. Rahul Padman, W ...

Court: Kerala

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN 1. The appellant and the respondent filed an application under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce on mutual consent. They pleaded in their application that the wife was a Christian but converted to Hinduism and later, the marriage was conducted following Hindu religious rites and Ext.P1 certificate was issued. 2. Being a joint application for divorce, obviously, there was no opposition by pleadings. 3. When the wife mounted the box and gave evidence, she stated about the marriage and the irretrievable break down of the relationship. She also spoke of the relevant materials to come to the conclusion that the application is not a collusive one. The husband was also examined. The court did not put any question to the witnesses. Nor were they required to clarify any issue further. 4. However, the impugned judgment has been issued by saying that in the description of the wife at the top of the paper on which her deposition is recorded, sh...

Suseela Vs. the Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Palakkad Branch and Ot ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT Appellant is the complainant in CC.37/10 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad. The complaint stands dismissed. 2. It is the case of the complainant that herself and her husband availed an agricultural loan on 15.11.2005 as crop loan No.11/301 and that on 20.6.07 she renewed the loan by payment of interest amount. According to the complainant no repayment to the principal amount was made except interest payment on 20.6.07. The complainant has claimed the benefits of the Agricultural Debt Relief Scheme 2008. It is alleged that the opposite parties have not granted the reliefs as provided in the above scheme. The complainant claimed waiver of the outstanding amount of Rs.95,959/- which according to the complainant was over due as on 31.2.2007 (sic 31.12.2007). 3. The opposite parties have filed version admitting that a sum of Rs.1.lakh was provided as loan on 15.11.2005 under the Kissan Credit Card Scheme and opposite parties mortgaged 3.10.acres of land....