Kerala Court November 2011 Judgments

Seenath, Malappuram Vs. T. Joyson, Malappuram and Another

Court: Kerala

Revision is by the accused, who has been convicted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “the Act”), concurrently by the two courts below. The trial magistrate, on conviction of the accused, has sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.70,000/- with default term of simple imprisonment for two months more. Fine amount, if realised, was directed to be paid to the complainant as compensation. In appeal, the Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence without any modification. Feeling aggrieved, the accused has preferred this revision. 2. The 1st respondent is the complainant. He filed a complaint against the revision petitioner/accused alleging that a cheque issued by her towards discharge of a liability to him was dishonoured on presentation. When intimation of dishonour was given over phone he was directed to meet the accused to collect the sum. He went over to her house and, on d...

A.P. Mohammed Vs. the Income Tax Officer, Kozhikode

Court: Kerala

RamachandranNair, J. The appeal is field by the assesse against the order of the Tribunal confirming income escaping assessment completed under Section 147 of the Income Tax for the assessment year 1998-99. We have heard Senior counsel Dr. K.B. Mohammedkutty appearing for the appellant and Standing Counsel for respondent. 2. The assessee was a partner in a firm wherefrom he was getting taxable income by way of salary for services rendered as working partner and interest on excess maintained in the capital account. According to assessee, there was omission to pay tax for several years and, therefore, he filed a declaration under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme 1997. Even though income was accounted for six years prior to the financial year 1997-98, the assessee admittedly did not file a proper application under the V.D.I. scheme or remitted the tax on the due date. Consequently based on assessee’s own declaration of income, the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of...

Puliyacheri Rafeek, Koothuparamba Vs. State of Kerala, Rep by Public P ...

Court: Kerala

Basant, J. Can the theory of self strangulation by the deceased be accepted? Is that theory sufficient to generate any reasonable doubt in the mind of this court? These questions loom large in this appeal. 2. The appellant accused has been found guilty, convicted and sentenced in a prosecution under Section 302 IPC. The crux of the charge/allegation against him is that he on 25.05.2003 at some time prior to 11 a.m. committed the murder of his wife Shafeena aged about 19 years by strangulating her with MO2 shawl of her Churidar. 3. Investigation commenced on the basis of Ext.P1 First Information Statement lodged by PW1, a neighbour and land-lord of the residential building occupied by the appellant and his wife. Ext.P1(a) First Information report was registered. Investigation was completed and final report was filed by PW19 before the Magistrate. Complying with all legal procedure, the case was committed by the learned Magistrate to the court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge took...

K. Radhamani, Thiruvananthapuram and Others Vs. the Senior Divisional ...

Court: Kerala

COMMON JUDGMENT P.S. Gopinathan, J. W.P.(C) Nos. 19549 of 2009 and 20263/2008 were filed against Ext.P5 common order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. 875/2005 and 146/2006. Petitioner in W.P.(C) 19549/2008 is a third party. Petitioners in the other writ petition are respondents 16, 13, 15 and 14 respectively in O.A. 875/2005. The order impugned before the Tribunal is Annexure A4 order dated 9.11.2005. Assailing the same order, the petitioner in W.P.(C) 30307/2006 preferred the application O.A. 861/2005 before the Tribunal. In O.A. 875/2005 and 146/2006, the Tribunal, while allowing the applications, set aside the order impugned which contains a list of 22 candidates, including the petitioners, selected from among Group D employees for promotion to Group C and directed the official respondents to prepare an yearly list. In O.A. 861/2005, the Tribunal declined to interfere with on finding that the applicant was not medically fit. 2. The facts leading to the petitions are as...

Secretary Aralam Service Co-operative Bank Vs. Vettikkattil George Agr ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the Service Co-operative Bank authorities in CC No.202/06 in the file of CDRF, Kannur. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- towards costs. 2. It is the case of the complainant that with respect to the agricultural loan availed by him from the opposite parties for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on 5.2.01 the opposite parties demanded excess amount in violation of circular 9/2006 of the Government. According to the complainant the crops were lost to the natural calamities and hence he could not repay the loan. In the meantime the opposite parties initiated arbitration proceedings. The opposite parties challenged jurisdiction of the Forum before the High Court of Kerala and hence he had to engage counsel and contest the matter. As per Ext. A5 letter of the opposite parties he was informed that the amount of Rs.7,157/- which included the arbitration fee will have to be paid for one time...

Sanse Laboratories (P) Ltd. Vs. Alfred Berg and Company

Court: Kerala

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. Question raised in the connected Writ Appeals and the Writ Petition is one and the same i.e., whether the Government was justified in increasing incentives to local S.S.I. units for supply of medicines from 5% to 10% over competitive bidders. 2. Under Government Orders dated 13.5.2009, price preference given to local S.S.I. units for supply of medicines to Government was 5%. This was part of the tender conditions issued by the Kerala Medical Services Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation for short), 14th respondent in W.A. No.1403/2010, which is a Company purely owned and controlled by Government of Kerala and engaged in procurement and supply of medicines to Government hospitals. Therefore, up to the financial year 2009-10, price preference given to the S.S.I. units were only 5%. However, after the tenders were invited for purchases for the financial year 2010-11, the Government issued order dated 2.2.2010, which is produced as Ext.P4 ...

United India Insurance Company Limited, Kochi Vs. Ratheesh, Thrissur D ...

Court: Kerala

Basant, J. 1. When plurality of vehicles are involved in an accident does the victim/claimant have the unfettered option/right to claim compensation under Sec.163A of the Motor Vehicles Act against either or both the owners/insurers of the vehicles? Does the dictum in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Madhavan (2011 (3) KLT 452) require re-consideration? 2. These are the questions of law of relevance that arise for consideration now. 3. A brief reference to crucial facts would be apposite. There was an accident involving two vehicles. There was a collision between a Tata Sumo van (the insured vehicle hereafter) and a motor-cycle. In the motor-cycle, at the relevant time, there were three passengers-rider and two pillion riders. The accident took place on 5/8/1999. All the three passengers in the motor-cycle suffered injuries. One of the two pillion riders succumbed to the injuries suffered by him. Both the injured persons and the legal heirs of the deceased pillion rider claimed comp...

Friends Chits and Financiers, Opp.Post Office, Pullad P.O. and Another ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Appellants are the opposite parties in C.C. 1/2007 in the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest at 20% up to September,2006 and thereafter with interest at 9% and also Rs. 3,55,419.45 and also to pay cost of Rs. 2,500/- It is submitted by the Counsel for the appellant that the appellants/second opposite party, Managing Director was laid up during the pendency of the proceedings and was undergoing treatment for Cardiac ailment and hence he could not contest the matter or place before the Forum the relevant records. Appellant has also produced the medical records with respect to the treatment undergone by the appellant. It is seen from the order that the complainant was not cross examined and that no evidence was adduced at the instanceby the opposite party. In the circumstance, the order of the Forum is set aside on condition that the appellant pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards...

Jameela Bose Vs. State of Kerala and Others

Court: Kerala

S. Siri Jagan, J. 1. The petitioner is the brother’s wife of the 5th respondent. Amounts are due to the Government from the 5th respondent. By Ext.P1 sale deed dated 25.10.2003, the 5th respondent transferred certain properties belonged to him in favour of the petitioner. The said property has been proceeded against under S.44 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 for amounts due from the 5th respondent to the Government. That is under challenge in this Writ Petition. The contention is that, S.44 is not applicable to the property in question in so far as the transfer took place before the revenue recovery notice has been issued for recovery of the amounts due. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “i) call for the records leading to the attachment of the property covered by Ext.P1 sale deed in File No.B2-7/2005 of the Tahsildar, Cherthalla and quash the same to the extent in includes the property covered by Ext.P1 sale deed; ii) issue a writ or mandamus or such oth...

Kunju, Aluva Taluk Vs. State of Kerala, Rep. by Its Director of Prosec ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(4)KHC798; 2012(1)KLT35(SN); 2012(3)KLJ188

1. These three revisions arise from three cases numbered as CC No.2/2009, CC No.3/2009 and CC No.4/2009 against the common accused, the petitioner, in all of them for offences under Sections 135 and 138 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 (for short, ‘the Act’) on the file of the VI Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam. Cognizance of the offences against the petitioners/accused was taken in the above cases by the aforesaid court on the basis of final report filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Moovattupuzha, after completion of investigation in three crime cases registered against the petitioner imputing him of having committed theft of electricity tampering the electric meter in his company and, thus, causing loss to the State Electricity Board. At the point of time when the crimes were registered, and also final reports filed in the above cases, authority was not conferred on the police to register and investigate energy theft cases without a complaint in writing from th...