Kerala Court December 2011 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
T. Shanid Vs. State, Represented by Public Prosecutor and Another
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-14-2011
This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.1191 of 2011 of Hosdurg Police Station, Kasaragod District. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 436 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 19/10/2011 at about 3.30 A.M., the accused persons set fire to the Scorpio Car belonging to the brother of the defacto complainant. The car was parked in the car porch of the house of the defacto complainant. 4. The petitioner was arrested on 21/10/2011 and he was remanded to judicial custody. The petitioner moved an application for bail before the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Hosdurg, which was dismissed as per the order dated 22nd October, 2011. The learned Magistrate held that considering the gravity of the offence, bail could not be granted to the petitioner at that stage. 5. Sri. M.S. Breeze, the learned counsel for the peti...
The Regional Manager (South), M/S Scooters India Limited and Another V ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Dec-14-2011
JUSTICE SJRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Appellants are the opposite parties/dealer and manufacturer in OP.218/00 in the file of CDRF, Malappuram. The appellants are under orders to refund a sum of Rs.87,241/- and pay a sum of Rs.2000/- towards cost. 2. The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a 3 wheeler goods vehicle manufactured by the 2nd opposite party for a sum of Rs.87,241/- on 23.11.99. He has spent Rs.20,000/- for the body work. It was assured that the vehicle has got 10 quintal capacity and mileage of 40 Kms per litre and replacement guarantee for one year. After purchase it was found that the vehicle can carry only 4 quintal and the mileage is only 20 Kms per litre and when the defects were pointed out the opposite parties were not ready to rectify the same. The warranty certificate and catalogue were not provided. The complainant has purchased the vehicle borrowing money from financiers. He is unable to repay the monthly repayments to the financier. On 26.5.200...
Pathanamthitta District Co-operative Bank, Rep. by Its General Manager ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Dec-14-2011
The first and second opposite parties in C.C. 59/07 before the CDRF, Pathanamthitta are the appellants herein who are aggrieved by the order dated 14.10.2010 of the Forum below. By the impugned order, the second opposite party is under directions to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation with interest at 8% per annum from the date of compensation till payment along with cost of Rs. 2,000/- The amounts are directed to be paid within one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which the interest rate is enhanced to 12% from the date of order till payment. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he had availed a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the second opposite party and that the second opposite party made him believe that the loan would be covered under Insurance policy taken from the 3rd opposite party and that an amount of Rs. 972/- was collected from him towards the premium for the policy. It is submitted by him that on 23.1.2007 theft had...
The Kodungalloor Town Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. K.N. Sajitha
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Dec-14-2011
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC.916/08 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation and cost of Rs.600/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of complaint if the amount is not paid within 2 months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. 2. It is the case of the complainant that she applied for an education loan of her daughter who applied for BAMS at KMCTAyurveda Medical College. The loan amount applied was Rs.3 lakhs. She applied on 30.6.2008 along with original documents of title, the back documents, certificates from the village officer, encumbrance certificate, tax receipt, location certificate etc. It is assured that the loan will be sanctioned on 7.7.2008. She was told that the original back document is to be produced although it was produced earlier. It was also asked to produce the certified copy of the back document. On 8.7.2008 she p...
Bharathi Krishnan Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-13-2011
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. 1. Denial of pension under the 'Swathantrata Sainik SammanPension Scheme' (SSSP Scheme in short) to the petitioner isunder challenge. 2. The proceedings are now before this Court after severalrounds of litigation at different levels. The case of the petitioneris that the deceased husband of the petitioner was a participantin the 'Punnapra-Vayalar' Movement, which was declared as afreedom struggle by the Central Government. In connection withsuch participation, the deceased husband of the petitioner had toundergo imprisonment for more than six months from29.01.1124 ME to 25.07.1124 ME, as revealed from Exhibit P1'jail certificate' issued by the concerned authorities. Afterconsidering the credentials of the deceased husband, theinvolvement of the said person was duly recognised by the StateGovernment, treating him as a freedom fighter and was grantedpension under the State Scheme, as borne by Exhibit P2. 3. The deceased husband had also filed Exhibit P3applicat...
Thomas K.L. H.S.S.T. (Malayalam) Vs. State of Kerala Represented by It ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-13-2011
1. Since the subject matter involved in both the writ petitions are common, relating to appointment of Principal in a Higher Secondary School, both the cases were considered together and disposed through common judgment. The 6th respondent in WP(C) No. 13196/2010, who was appointed as Principal, is the petitioner in WP(C) No.24638/2010. The petitioner in WP(C).No.13196/2010 is a rival claimant, who is challenging the appointment. Reference of the parties and exhibits are made as in the order in WP(C).13196/2010. 2. The petitioner as well as respondents 6 to 9 were teachers working in different schools under the 5th respondent management. The petitioner is working as High Secondary School Teacher (Malayalam) in the Marthoma Higher Secondary School, Pathanamthitta. Ext.P1 order of appointment of the petitioner as HSST was approved by the second respondent as per Ext.P2. When a vacancy of Principal arose, applications were invited from qualified Higher Secondary School Teachers, vide Ext....
T.K. Sumathi and Others Vs. Kundantavida Rabia and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-13-2011
HARILAL, J. 1. The unsuccessful tenants before the courts below have come up in revision challenging the judgment in RCA No.6/2003 passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (the Additional District Judge, Thalassery). The petition was filed under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The landlord died during the pendency of the proceedings in the Court of the Rent Controller. The legal representatives got impleaded in the petition and supplemental amendments were made in the petition. 2. The respondent/original landlord who had been working in Saudi Arabia and was constrained to give up his job due to heath problem is now living without any kind of job or income to meet livelihood for himself and his family. The need alleged in the petition was for conducting a stationery business in the petition schedule building to eke out livelihood for himself and his family. In the petition, it is alleged that the income derived from the business carrying on in t...
O.U. Shibu Vs. Branch Manager, Sri.Ram Investment Ltd. and Another
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Dec-13-2011
The complaint in C.C. 27/09 before CDRF, Wayanad has come up in Appeal calling for the interference of this Commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below on 7.1.11. By the impugned order the Forum below has dismissed the complaint. The case of the complainant before the Forum is that he is the Registered Certificate owner of a stage carriage bearing registration No. KL 12 B - 1535 and that he had availed a loan from the first opposite party for a sum of Rs. 6,30,000/- and that he had to pay back 9,45,000/- including the principal and interest within a period of 5 months. The complainant has alleged that though he had remitted Rs. 9,45,250/-, the opposite party did not issue the No Objection Certificate for cancellation of the hire purchase endorsement and the opposite party demanded another 2,50,000/- from the complainant for issuing the N.O.C. It is further submitted that the complainant had remitted Rs. 1,10,000/- to facilitate the operation of the vehicl...
M/S Birla Sun Life Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Mallika Raghavan
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Dec-13-2011
JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties /Insurance company in CC.154/06 in the file of CDRF, Kozhikode. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.1,92641/- and compensation of Rs.5000/-and Rs.500/- as costs. 2. It is the case of the complainant is that she is the wife of the deceased Raghavan and that the deceased had applied for the life insurance policy from the opposite parties on 24.6.03 and underwent medical examination on 16.7.03 and the first premium of Rs.30383/- has been paid on 24.6.03. The further premium on quarterly basis were also paid. The assured died on 21.5.05. The opposite parties repudiated the claim as per letter dated 25.10.05 on the ground that the deceased was having cancer atleast since 1.9.03. The opposite party had issued 1st premium receipt on 13.10.03. A sum of Rs.1,86,804.12 was refunded towards premium paid. It is alleged that it was illegal to issue the belated 1st premium receipt on 13.10.03. It is conte...
Ramco Industries Ltd., Rep.By, Managing Director, Sales Depot. Vs. Sr. ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Dec-13-2011
JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Revision petitioner is the opposite party in OP 677/03 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The revision petition is filed over the order in IA 647/06 as per which the IA has been dismissed on the ground that there is no prayer to issue a fresh commission or to remit the report. 2. We find that the order is not a speaking one. Even if the application is only to set aside the commission report it is within the powers of the Forum to remit the CR or to set aside the same and directed the issuance of a fresh commission. In view of the fact that no reasons are mentioned for rejecting the application the Forum is directed to pronounce a considered order after hearing both sides. In the result the order of the Forum is set aside. The Forum is directed to consider the matter afresh and dispose of the same by a reasoned order. The matter stands posted before the Forum on 23.1.2012. Office will forward the copy of this order to the Forum urgently....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »