Kerala Court November 2011 Judgments

Mohanan Pillai Vs. the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, K.S.E.B ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER It is against the dismissal of the complaint in C.C. 345/06 by the CDRF, Kollam that the present appeal is filed by the complainant calling for the interference of this Commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below. The complainant had approached the Forum stating that he had taken an electric connection from the opposite parties on executing a Minimum Guarantee Agreement and that he was regularly paying the bills issued by the opposite parties. It is also stated by him that the opposite parties issued a bill for an exorbitant amount on 6.10.2006 stating to be the arrears of electricity charges. The case of the complainant is that he is not liable to pay any amount other than the amount paid by him and alleging deficiency in service, the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite parties to cancel the bills and also to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and cost of Rs. 2,500/- The opposite parties in their joint v...

P.P. Babu Vs. Jacob K. Thomas and Others

Court: Kerala

Basant, J. i) What does the explanation to Section 163A(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act convey? ii) Is it really intended to explain the expression “permanent disablement” referred to in Section 163A(1) ? iii) How is one to understand the explanation? iv) Is permanent total disablement to be proved in all cases under Section 163A? v) How is the extent of “permanent partial disablement” to be assessed in the case of non scheduled injuries in a claim under Section 163 A? These questions are raised for consideration in this appeal. 2. Claimant is the appellant. He claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 04.08.2002. Earlier the claim was considered and allowed by the Tribunal. A total amount of Rs.74,700/- was awarded by the Tribunal. The insurance company came up in appeal and by judgment dated 09.11.2009, the appeal was allowed in part and the matter was sent back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal reckoning ...

K.S. Prakasan, Forester (Retired) Social Forestry Vs. State of Kerala, ...

Court: Kerala

1. Appellant is the petitioner in O.P. 32221 of 2001. He was working as a Forest Guard in Malayattoor Division. Alleging dereliction of duties, indiscipline, assault on superior officers after trespassing into the quarters and misuse of departmental vehicle, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. Ext.P1 dated 8.3.1993 is the memo of charges. An enquiry was conducted. Ext.P2 dated 31.5.1994 is the report of enquiry wherein the enquiry officer had reported that the charges alleged against the appellant stand proved. Accepting Ext.P2 report, the disciplinary authority issued Ext.P3 notice calling upon the appellant to show cause for not imposing a penalty of barring two increments with cumulative effect. Ext.P4 objection submitted by the appellant was overruled and by Ext.P5 order dated 25.10.1994, the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty stated in Ext.P3. Assailing Ext.P5 order, Ext.P6 appeal was preferred before the third respondent which was rejected by Ext.P7 dated...

Girish Babu. G, CochIn Vs. the High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(4)ILR(Ker)817; 2011(4)KHC599; 2011(4)KHC766; 2011(4)KLT793; 2011(4)KLJ764

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. This is a public interest litigation filed by a law student for a direction to the High Court to reject the request of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram to transfer C.C. 6 of 2003 pending before him to another court. We have heard counsel appearing for the petitioner and have gone through the petition and the News paper report annexed thereto. 2. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that false, motivated and baseless allegations were made against the Vigilance Judge which prompted him to recuse himself from hearing the matter by requesting the High Court to transfer the case to another court. The contention raised is that those who made allegations against the Judge are not parties to the litigation and so much so, the allegations are motivated, which the Judge should have ignored. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and after going through the writ petition and the documents and the News paper cuttings ...

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Union of India

Court: Kerala

P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. 1. These petitions are preferred against the common order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, in T.A.Nos.44, 46, 47, 48 of 2008 and O.A.No.100/2009. The petitioners in O.P.(CAT) Nos.20, 21 and 142/2010 and in W.P.(C) No.29029/2010 (hereinafter referred to as the official petitioners) are the respondents 2 and 3 in all the applications before the Tribunal. Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the party petitioner) in O.P. (CAT) No.319/2010 is the 1st applicant before the Tribunal in O.A.No.100/2009. The 1st respondent, Union of India, in all these petitions are the 1st respondent before the Tribunal. Respondents 4 to 14 in O.P.(CAT) No.319/2010 (hereinafter referred to as the party respondents) are the applicants in T.As before the Tribunal. They are also arrayed as respondents 2 onwards in the other petitions in the respective order. Since the issues involved are the same, these petitions are disposed of by this common judgment. Party responde...

Director, Riya Travels and Tours (1) Pvt. Ltd., Bab Chambers Vs. JerIn ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The order dated:30.11.2010 of CDRF, Ernakulam in CC.438/08 is being challenged in this appeal by the opposite party who is under directions to refund to the complainant a sum of Rs.38,000/- with 12% interest from the date of receipt of each payment till realization. 2. The case of the complainant before the Forum was that in order to join his wife who was working in the United Kingdom he had approached the opposite party for arranging a visa and that on 10.4.2007 a sum of Rs.19,000/- was paid which contained the visa fees, courier charges, service charge payable and the fees to the opposite party. It was further submitted that the UKagency rejected the visa application and another sum of Rs.19,000/- was also paid on the above terms. It is the case of the complainant that inspite of paying the above amounts, the opposite party could not obtain a visa for the complainant and alleging deficiency in service, the complainant prayed for directions to the o...

Adv. T. Joseph Chairman, Rural Development Centre Vs. the Secretary, K ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Kottayam in CC No. 340/09 dated: 15.3.2011. The appellant who prefers this appeal from the order passed by the Forum below that the Forum below dismissed the complaint. The complainant in the OP is the appellant and the respondents are the opposite parties in the above said OP. 2. In short, the complainant is the Chairman of the Rural Development Centre, a Charitable Organization who availed two electric connections from opposite parties bearing Nos. 7764 and 10906. In the aforesaid Nos, a ladies hostel by the said charitable organization is functioning. The monthly bills are being paid without any default. Due to the enmity of same officials of KSEB towards the complainant, the 2nd opposite party issued a bill for Rs. 27,098/- . The said connection is having no electricity charge arrears, but it was wrongfully stated in the bill that there existed arrears amounting to Rs. 25,918/-. The complainant...

Joshy George Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

1. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 4 in CR No. 78/2010 of Changanacherry Excise Range. The crime was registered alleging commission of offence punishable under S.57(a) of Abkari Act. The first petitioner was stated to be the Manager and petitioners 2 to 4 were stated to be the licensees of toddy shop No.XIII in Changanacherry Excise Range in which toddy shop No. 47 is included. Two samples of toddy were taken from the aforesaid toddy shop on 28/09/2010. One sample was sent for chemical examination. The chemical examination report shows that the strength of the ethyl alcohol was 8.72% by volume which was in excess of the permissible strength - 8.1% by volume. Based on that report the licence was cancelled by the chemical examiner. The petitioner challenged the said order before this Court. The order passed by the Excise Commissioner was set aside by this Court pursuant to the application filed by the accused. The second sample was sent by the learned Magistrate for chemical examine...

M/S. Philips Carbon Black Ltd., Represented by Its Manager-finance and ...

Court: Kerala

1. Revision is by the accused, three in number, accused 1, 5 and 6, as against whom alone, cognizance taken of the offence imputed on the complaint filed by the 1st respondent numbered as C.C.No.105 of 2002 is proceeded by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kolencherry. Challenge is against the order dated 28.5.2011 by the magistrate after recording the evidence of the complainant and his witnesses under Section 244(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”), that a prima facie case has been made out against the aforesaid accused for their trial. Propriety, legality, and correctness of that order is assailed by the accused in this revision. 2. First respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘the complainant’), is a practising advocate, who claims to be a social activist holding the post of the Chairman of an organization named “MALAYALAM” (Anti Carbon Pollution - Environmental Protection Council) at Karimugal, which is st...

Great India Estates Pvt. Ltd Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by Addl. ...

Court: Kerala

1. The writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P1, for a direction commanding the 3rd respondent to grant building permit to the petitioner as per Ext.P2 application in accordance with pre-Exhibits P6 and P7 KMBR, not to require that the petitioner has to comply with KMBR as amended by Exts.P6 and P7 and to quash Exts.P6 and P7. 2. By Ext.P1 the Municipality directed the petitioner to re-submit the application for building permit in accordance with the amended Kerala Municipality Building Rules (For short ‘the Rules’). 3. The petitioner submitted an application for building permit on 17.4.2008 for the construction of a 16 storied building. Along with the application for building permit, the petitioner submitted an application for development permit. The proposed apartment building has a planned height of 48.90 metres, floor area ratio of 3.98 and coverage is 49%. The NOC and structural stability certificate are produced on 23.10.2008 and 19.2.2009 respectively. The 3rd ...