Kerala Court November 2011 Judgments
Gopalakrishnan @ Mani, Kannur Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-2011
Basant, J. (i) Did the court below err in placing reliance on the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3? (ii) Is the accused entitled to the benefit of doubt for the reason that the prosecution has not proved and explained the injuries on the accused? (iii) Is the conviction under Sec.302 IPC justified? These questions arise for determination in this appeal preferred by the sole accused/appellant who has been found guilty, convicted and sentenced under Sec.302 IPC to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution alleged that on 9/5/01 at 9.15 p.m. the accused had inflicted fatal injuries on his father-in-law who succumbed to such injuries after he was removed to the hospital. An inconsequential and silly dispute between the father-in-law and the son-in-law had allegedly led to the occurrence. There was a further allegation that the appellant had caused simple hurt with the dangerous weapon to his mother-in-law/P.W.1 also; but on that aspect the accused was found not guilty and acquitted. 3...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Abdulla
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-2011
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. The common question referred to the Full Bench by the Division Bench in all these cases is whether residential building to which additional plinth area constructed after 1.4.1999 attracts liability for luxury tax under S.5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short), if the plinth area with the addition made is 278.7 sq.ms. or more. Reference to Full Bench was made because the Division Bench during hearing the matter doubted the correctness of a Division Bench judgment in Joy Joseph v. District Collector, reported in (2009 (2) KLT 348), wherein the Division Bench held that luxury tax will be attracted for extension made to residential building after 01.04.1999 only if such extension by itself is above the plinth area of 278.7 sq.ms. In other words, according to the said decision, even if the total plinth area including the additions made after 1.4.1999 happens to be 278.7 sq.ms. or more, such residential building will ...
Tag this Judgment!Sujith Babu Vs. the Branch Manager, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Nov-30-2011
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in CC.56/2010 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad. The complaint stands dismissed. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he had availed a two wheeler package policy along with personal accident coverage to the owner cum driver for Rs.1.lakh. He sustained an accident on 2.11.09 which resulted in amputation of the right big toe. He has spent Rs.40, 000/- towards treatment, for repair of the vehicle he had spent another sum of Rs.4000/-. The accident was intimated to the opposite party but they have not responded. Lawyer notice was issued seeking a claim form for which the opposite parties have replied raising false contentions. The contention therein, that the opposite parties have already processed the own damage claim submitted by the complainant is incorrect. The complainant is unaware of the appointment of the surveyor or assessment of damages. It is not proper to insist that only on sustaining the injuries menti...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prasanna Babu, Friends Saw Mill
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Nov-30-2011
SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER This appeal is filed by the opposite party, in CC No. 24/10 before the CDRF Kottayam, who is aggrieved by the directions to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.2,02,127/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of complaint till payment. 2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he is having a hydraulic mobile crane with registration no. KL 33/A 3200 and the same was having a special package policy for the period from 14.10.2008 to 13.10.09 and that on 24.3.09 at about 5.pm, when the crane was in use it overturned and got totally damaged. It is the case of the complainant that though he had made a claim for Rs.2,02,127/- towards the repair charges, the same was repudiated by the opposite party stating that the policy did not cover overturning risk. Alleging deficiency in service, the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 2,02,127/- with interest at 12% p.a from 28.10.2009 till payment. ...
Tag this Judgment!Branch Manager Syndicate Bank, Chakkarakkallu and Another Vs. P.V. Ram ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Nov-30-2011
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Kannur in CC No. 163/2010 dated 6.4.2011. Opposite parties are the appellants and complainants are the respondents. 2. The appellant prefers this appeal from the order passed by the Forum below that the opposite parties in the CC directed to pay Rs.3,000/- to the 1st complainant as Rs.2,500/- to the 2nd complainant and Rs.1,000/- as cost within a period of 1month failing which interest at 12% would be levied. 3. In brief, the complainants pledged their gold ornaments in the appellant bank and availed loan under the agricultural purpose at the rate of 7% p.a.. The loan availed during period 1st April to 31st September. The grievance of the complainant is that they were remitted the interest amount Rs. 10,056 on the day and Rs.1,500 each were remitted on subsequent dates on 17.10.2009 and 06.11.09. In this case also bank took more than Rs.6,000/-upon high rate interest difference from the terms of agr...
Tag this Judgment!Psn Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K.P. Alias and Another
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Nov-30-2011
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in C.C. 126/07 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The appellants are under orders to refund a sum of Rs. 2,34,400/- with interest at 6% from the date of receipt. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased 2 Eicher Tipper Lorries from the first opposite party, dealer for a price of Rs. 7,96,200/- each on 30.8.2006, and that the complainants brother purchased the same type of vehicle from the opposite parties for a sum of Rs. 6,79,000/- A sum of Rs. 1,17,200/- for each Tipper lorry has been collected in excess from the complainant. It is admitted that he had sold his 2 old tipper lorries for a total price of Rs. 7,25,000/= to the first opposite party. He has sought for return of the excess amount paid. The first opposite party/dealer has contended that the new tipper lorries sold for a sum of Rs. 7,96,200/- each had Hydraulic Jacks. The old vehicles were purchased as part of an exchange scheme and hen...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Joshy, Proprietor, Namakkad Chit Fund Vs. K.S. Madhusoodanan and ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Nov-30-2011
COMMON JUDGMENT SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeals are preferred from the common order dated:16th June 2006 passed by CDRF, Ernakulam in CC.Nos.496, 503, 501, 504, 505, 499, 497, 500, 502, 498 and 495/2005 respectively. The complainants therein alleged deficiency in service on the part of the respondent/opposite party in his failure to pay the chit amounts due to them under a chit transaction. The complainants in CC.495/05 to 505/05 claimed Rs.14,700/-, 9800/-, 32,900/-, 14,100/-, 9,400/-, 9,400/-, 13,800/-, 22,000/-, 9,400, 25,900/- and 9,800/- respectively. The complainants also filed petitions for condonation of delay stating that the condonation petitions are filed in abundant caution as the opposite party requested for extension of time to make payment of the chit amounts due to the complainants as subscribers. 2. The opposite party entered appearance in all the aforesaid consumer complaints and contended that the complaints are not maintainable as the same a...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Company Ltd., Rep.by Its Branch Manager Vs. Sri.B.D ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Nov-30-2011
JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU :PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC.452/09 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. 2. The appellant was ex-parte before the Forum. 3. The matter relates to the loss sustained to the shop due to fire. 4. In view of the fact that the order is an uncontested one the same is set aside on condition that the appellants pay a sum of Rs.8000/- towards costs to the complainant or deposit the same before the Forum which can be withdrawn by the complainant. On payment of costs the Forum will permit the opposite parties to contest the case and dispose of the same on merits. 5. The case stands posted before the Forum on 9..1..2012. Office will forward the copy of this order to the Forum urgently....
Tag this Judgment!P.J. Francis and Another Vs. Union Bank of India, Represented by the B ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Nov-29-2011
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the complainants in CC No.191/10 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. 2. The complaint stands allowed in part. The Forum has directed the opposite party/Bank to conduct an impartial enquiry with respect to the area of the property possessed and owned by the complainants by collecting documents from the concerned authorities like Village Officer, Assistant Cardamom Settlement Officer etc, and if it was found that the complainants are having less than 5 acres of land, the application must be forwarded to the Government for including the complainants loan for Waiver as per the Debt Waiver Scheme of the Government and that further proceedings against the complainant and their property should be kept in abeyance. 3. The case of the complainants, who are brothers, is that they jointly applied for an agricultural loan of Rs. 2 lakhs from the opposite party bank. The 1st petitioner is a marginal farmer who possess 2 acres of Patta land and th...
Tag this Judgment!Raju Zavier and Another Vs. Smt.K.V. Stella and Others
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Nov-29-2011
SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is directed against the order dated 30th June 2009 in CC No.216/08 of the CDRF, Alappuzha. The complaint therein was filed by the first respondent herein as complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellants and respondents 2 and 3 (opposite parties 1 to 4). The case of the complainant is that she was a member of the Co-operative Bank of St. Michaels College, while she was working as selection grade Lecturer in St. Michaels College and that the opposite parties 1 and 2 resisted the complainant from participating in the auction of her second MDS; that the second opposite party directed the complainant to accept the lesser amount for settling the matter by stating that her monthly deposit scheme was auctioned 14 months back for Rs.87,750/-. The complainant disputed the case of auctioning of MDS for Rs.87750/- and prayed for disbursement of the entire amount of Rs.1 lakh under her second MDS. Thus, the complain...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »