Kerala Court March 2011 Judgments

Nimrah Estate Private Limited Vs. the Government of Andhra Pradesh and ...

Court: Kerala

1. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company and it purchased property, bearing No.20-4-62/J to M at Punch Mohalla, Hyderabad.  The 3rd respondent is the owner of a plot of 20 x 24 feet, in premises bearing No.20-4-87 and 88, Shalibanda, Hyderabad.  The petitioner owns property in three sides of the property of the 3rd respondent.  The road in the locality was widened, in which nearly 20 feet in depth, was affected.  The 3rd respondent is left with a strip of 20 x 8 feet (according to the petitioner 20 x 5 feet).  The Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad evolved schemes for the benefit of owners of the properties that are affected in the widening of the road.  Relaxation on certain aspects is provided for. 2. The 3rd respondent submitted an application to the Municipal Corporation, the 2nd respondent, seeking permission to construct, in the left over strip of the land.  The 2nd respondent forwarded the application&...

Prasanna @ Poonkani Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2011(1)Ker1

1. Petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.198/2011 of Neyyattinkara Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 419,468 and 471 IPC read with 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act, seek anticipatory bail. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. 3. After evaluating the factors and parameters which are to be taken into consideration under paragraph 122 of the verdict of the Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others (2010 (4) KLT 930), I am of the view that anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a case of this nature, since the investigating officer has not had the advantage of interrogating the petitioners. But at the same time, I am inclined to permit the petitioners to surrender before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of interrogation and then to have their application for bail allowed by the Magistrate or the Court having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to surrender before the investi...

Rajaji Mathew Thomas Vs. the Election Commission of India

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2011(1)Ker30

1. The writ petition is filed with the prayers as follows: "i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents 1 and 2 not to interfere with the implementation of the subsidized rice distribution scheme as per Ext.P4 and P5. ii) Declare that action of the 2nd respondent in interdicting the implementation of the subsidized rice distribution scheme formulated as per Ext.P4 and P5 is without authority and non est. iii) Issue such other orders, writs or directions as are deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court. iv) award cost of this proceedings to the petitioners". 2. The petitioner is a member of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Kerala. 3. Elections to the Legislative Assembly of the State of Kerala are due. The Election Commission of India (1st respondent) announced the election schedule on 1st March, 2011. By a communication dated 1st March, 2011 from the Election Commission of India, the Chief Secretary and the Chief Electoral Officers of the State of Kerala were in...

Antony Cardoza Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2011(1)Ker530

1. The appellant challenges conviction and sentence imposed against him under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 109 and 409 and also under Section 13(2) of PC Act, 1988 read with Section 13(1) (c) thereof. The appellant was sentenced to under go Rigorous Imprisonment for a term of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo RI for a further term of 5 months under section 120B IPC read with Section 109 & 409 thereof; to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for term of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.7,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further term of 7 months under section 409 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.8,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further term of 8 months under Section 13(2) of PC Act, 1988 read with section 13(1)(c) thereof. The sentence is ordered to run concurrently. (A2 abated). 2. The appellant was charge sheeted along with another accus...

Raveendran Vs. State of Kkerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2011(1)Ker341

1. In this Petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.9 of 2011 of Noornadu Excise Range for an offence punishable under Section 8(1) & (2) of the Abkari Act for having been found in possession of 2 litres of arrack, seeks his enlargement on bail. Petitioner was arrested on 02/02/2011. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. Having regard to the nature of the offence, the duration of judicial custody undergone by the petitioner and the other circumstances of the case etc., I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail with effect from 14/03/2011 on his executing a bond for `35,000/-(Rupees thirty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Mavelikara and subject to the following conditions:- 1. Petitioner shall report before the...

Dr. Muraleedhara Rao, Cannoore Co-operative Hospital Society Ltd. Vs. ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

1. Appellant is the second opposite party Orthopedic Surgeon in the first opposite party hospital in OP No. 359/1999 in the file of CDRF, Kannur. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation and cost of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant. 2. The complainant has claimed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for the affliction of Hepatitis B virus allegedly consequent to the negligence in the treatment imparted to the complainant for the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident on 01-09-97 at S.N. Park Road, Kannur. He was an inpatient at the opposite party hospital from the above date till 05-09-1997. During the period of treatment he was administered injections etc. There was review on 08-09-97, 12-09-97 and 21-09-97 at the first opposite party hospital in which the second opposite party is the Orthopedic Surgeon. It is his case that after few weeks he was having pain in the joints and also had severe fever for which he was admitted at ESI hospital, T...

P. Radhamani Amma, Karunagappally Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of In ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT 1. The complainant is the mother of the deceased Anil Kumar who died in a motor vehicle accident on 18-05-2001. The complaint is filed seeking a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-, the assured amount with interest at 12% from 18-05-2001 and a compensation of Rs. 21,00,000/-. 2. The case of the complainant is that her son employed abroad was aged at 30 years and that as persuaded by the 3rd opposite party/LIC agent and 4th opposite party the Development Officer the deceased availed an LIC Policy of the opposite party when he was at the hometown on leave. He was scheduled to return abroad by flight on 21-05-2001. Double accident policy on life for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- was availed and a sum of Rs. 6,525/- was remitted towards the first quarter premium by remitting the same in cash at the second opposite party branch of LIC. The receipt issued contains the BOC Number, agents code and other relevant details. The deceased also underwent an exhaustive medical check up. All p...

Ravinathan Pillai Vs. V. Philp and Others

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

Justice. K.R. Udayabhanu : President 1. The appellant is the complainant in CC.02/2008 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The complaint stands dismissed with cost of Rs.1000/- to be paid to the opposite party. 2. The case of the complainant is that the opposite parties 1 to 3 issued a policy certificate and identity card with incorrect vehicle No. ie, KL.2S 9622 instead of the correct No. KL.02S 9662. Immediately on receipt of the policy through the agent of the opposite parties 1 to 3 he telephonically sought for getting the number corrected. The policy period is from 24.7.07 to 23.7.08. He received the corrected policy only on 27.12.07. According to him he could not ply the vehicle and he had to hire taxi during the period. According to him he used to travel 80 to 100 KMs every day. He is in cashew business. 3. The opposite parties have filed version contending that admittedly it was a clerical mistake and immediately the registration number was corrected. It is also mentioned that the err...