Kerala Court May 2011 Judgments
K. Lingom Vs. the Superintendent of Police and Another
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-26-2011
"CR" 1. The appellant, the accused in C.C.No.6/2003 on the file of the Special Judge, SPE/CBI-I, Ernakulam was convicted by the learned Special Judge for offence under Section 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'PC Act'). Consequently, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.20,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 7 of the PC Act. For offence under Section 13(2), the appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and a fine of Rs.25,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one year. Assailing the above conviction and sentence, this appeal was preferred. 2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows: The appellant was working as a Junior Engineer Grade-I (Construction) in Southern Railway, Calicut during the year 2002 and as such he was a public servant coming under Section 2(c) of the PC Act. Durin...
Tag this Judgment!The Asst. Ex. Engineer, Kseb, Major Section, Sulthan Bathery and Other ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-26-2011
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/KSEB in OP.118/04 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad. The bill issued towards unconnected minimum charges of Rs.61,770/- stands cancelled. Appellants are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as costs. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he wanted to start an SSI unit for making cement door frames and window frames by investing a sum of Rs.1.lakh and applied for 3 phase electric connection. A minimum guarantee agreement was also executed. The opposite parties had executed certain works but stopped further as the complainant did not pay the amounts of bribe demanded by the officials of the opposite party. The complainant had erected machineries and structures. The electric connection was not provided. Hence after about 6 years he shifted the unit to Pulpally. According to him he has sustained a loss of Rs.72,000/-. Subsequently the opposite parties have issued a bill for Rs.61,770/- alleging energisation ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Sreekumar, Proprietor and Others Vs. Anitha
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-26-2011
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT Revision petitioners are the opposite parties/respondents in I.A.401/09 in CC.122/08 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The application filed by the revision petitioners for sending the discoloured cotton saree for laboratory examination to verify as to whether the complainant has used bleaching contents, was dismissed by the Forum. 2. The case of the complainant is that cotton saree with blouse purchased from the opposite parties for a sum of Rs.1275/-got discoloured on first wash itself. We find that the entire evidence in the matter has been adduced, that consisted of PWs 1 and 2 and Exts.P1 to P6. The application filed for sending the material for laboratory examination is seen filed but the order is obtained subsequentlty. There is no reason as to why the revision petitioner did not press for an order in I.A.401/09 that had been allegedly filed earlier. Sending the material for laboratory examination at this stage will only help to protract the p...
Tag this Judgment!Hiralal and Another Vs. M/S India Cements Ltd., Repd. by Its Senior Ma ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-26-2011
SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER No representation for the appellant, Respondents 1 and 2 are represented. Appellants are called absent. Hence appeal dismissed for default....
Tag this Judgment!C.B.i. Represented by Prosecutor Vs. P.i. Babu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-25-2011
'CR' 1. This is an appeal against an order of acquittal. On 21.12.1993, one P.V.Mathew alleged to be aged 47 years, son of Varkey residing at Palliparambu, Muthalakodam, Thodupuzha filed Ext.P1 application before the Syndicate Bank, Thodupuzha Branch wherein the respondent was the Manager, seeking a loan of Rs.25,000/- as an artisan. Yet another application, Ext.P3 was filed for opening a Savings Bank Account. In pursuance to Ext.P1 application, loan of Rs.25,000/- was grated by the respondent. In pursuance to Ext.P3, a Savings Bank A/c was opened. The loan amount was transferred to the Savings Bank A/c and the amount was withdrawn on 23.12.1993 through Ext.P6 withdrawal slip. The appellant got source information that the applicant shown in Ext.P1 is a fictitious person and that the respondent abusing the office, fraudulently forged the loan application as well as application for opening Savings Bank A/c in the name of the fictitious person and using those forged documents, the loan am...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Velayudhan Vs. the Managing Director, Kerala State, Road Transpor ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-25-2011
1. The petitioner was a conductor under the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. As per Ext.P1 order he was placed under suspension. Later Ext.P2 Charge Sheet was issued to him. On its receipt, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P3 Written Statement refuting the allegations. Dissatisfied with his explanation the disciplinary authority decided to conduct an enquiry and accordingly an Enquiry Officer was appointed. On culmination of the enquiry proceedings Ext.P4 report was submitted by the Enquiry officer. There upon Ext.P5 notice was served on the petitioner. It carries a proposal to remove the petitioner from service and the petitioner was required to show cause why the said punishment should not be imposed on him. There upon the petitioner has submitted Ext.P6 explanation. After considering the said explanation and the enquiry report, the 2nd respondent imposed the penalty of removal from the service on the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P7 order of removal, petitioner prefer...
Tag this Judgment!Safar Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-25-2011
1. The petitioner, who is the accused in CC No. 1 of 2010 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - II, Alappuzha, faced charge under S.454 and S.511/380 of IPC and he is convicted for the said offence. Against the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner had preferred an appeal, but the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal by order dated 10/11/2010 in Crl. A. No. 501 of 2010. The present grievance of the petitioner is that the appeal was dismissed not on merit, but on the ground of delay. 2. Heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. As indicated earlier, the petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No. 684 of 2009 of the North Police Station, Alappuzha, where the offences alleged are under S.454, S.511/380 of IPC in which the allegation is that on 25/11/2009 at 4.30 p.m., the accused with intention to commit theft, did lurking house trespass in the house by name Chalengadi house, No. IV / 453 in Kalathu Ward of Alappuzha Municipal...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Sajil Vs. State of Kerala, Rep. by Its Secretary and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-25-2011
Ramachandran Nair, J. The writ petitioners in these connected W.P.(C)s. are medical graduates who participated in the Entrance examination conducted by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations for admissions to Post-graduate Medical Degree/Diploma courses 2011 and have obtained high ranks making them eligible for admission to the courses applied for. The Entrance Examination was conducted on 9.2.2011 based on the prospectus issued on 4.1.2011. Rank list was also prepared on 14.2.2011 based on the marks obtained by the candidates in the Entrance examination. However, after preparation of the rank list, the Director of Medical Education issued an amendment to the prospectus on 22/02/2011 providing weightage marks to Government Medical Officers who participated in the Entrance Examination which is an addition at the rate of 10% of the marks obtained in the Entrance Examination for every year of service in difficult rural areas subject to a maximum of 30%. As a result of the weightage ma...
Tag this Judgment!The Asst.Executive Engineer, Electrical Section, Kseb and Another Vs. ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-25-2011
SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR,MEMBER The order dated 31.10.09 of CDRF, Palakkad in CC.No.31/09 is being assailed in this appeal by the opposite parties who are under directions to cancel Ext.A4 bill and to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs. 2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he is a consumer of the opposite parties and that an agricultural connection had been taken from the opposite parties and he was regularly paying the bills issued and that on 31.1.09 he was asked to come to the office of the first opposite party and a provisional bill for Rs.11,190/- was served on him, stating that he had un-authorizedly used the agricultural connection for construction purpose. Resisting the said bill, the complainant filed a petition before the second opposite party and after the hearing the complainant a revised bill for Rs.5,595/- was issued. The complainant has a case that he was not liable to pay the said bill and alleging deficiency in service, the compl...
Tag this Judgment!Kurikuriachen Chacko and Others Vs. Roniya Joseph
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-25-2011
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC.182/10 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad. The appellants are under orders to refund a sum of Rs.625/- with interest at 12% from 7.7.05 and Rs.3,00,000/- with interest at 12% from 9.9.05 and also cost and compensation of Rs.5,000/-. 2. The case of the complainant is that he purchased 480 units at the rate of 625/- per unit from the opposite parties. The opposite parties had assured that the unit purchasers will get double amount of the deposited sum on completion of 2 years and an additional income the commission of prizes won in lottery tickets. After the maturity period, the amounts were not returned. 3. It is the contention of the opposite parties that the opposite parties have spent Rs.3,00,625/- for purchasing of lottery tickets and magazines as per the scheme. It is stated that the opposite parties purchased lottery tickets worth Rs.1,65,350/- and issued magazines also. A sum of Rs.31,504/- was paid as ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »