Kerala Court June 2011 Judgments

A.V. Mohammed Rafeek Vs. the Union of India, Represented by the Secret ...

Court: Kerala

1. Could a criminal court while granting bail to a person accused or suspected of commission of a non bailable offence for which such court is empowered to impose conditions direct such person to surrender in court his passport? That question is raised for a decision in this proceeding. 2. Petitioner is the first accused in C.C.No.630 of 2008 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Malappuram for offences punishable under Secs.420 and 468 r/w Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the IPC"). Prosecution case is that for the amount allegedly due from petitioner, he issued a cheque on the account maintained by the 2nd accused and thereby committed forgery and cheating. Learned Magistrate granted bail to the petitioner subject to the condition that petitioner surrendered his passport. Petitioner complied with that condition. Later, petitioner filed CMP No.1260 of 2011 requesting to release the passport for its renewal (learned counsel submits that as per instruction...

Trade Links Imaging World and Another Vs. V.K. Thankappan

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER No representation for the appellants. Appellants are called absent. Respondent is also absent. Hence appeal dismissed for non prosecution....

M/S Kerala Tourism Development-corporation Ltd., Vs. Smt. K.B. Sobha, ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER No representation for the appellant. On the last hearing date also there was no representation for the appellant. Appellant is called absent. Hence appeal dismissed for non prosecution....

Dr. P.R. Venugopal and Another Vs. K.S. Raju

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/Gynecologist and the Administrator of the hospital respectively. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation and costs of Rs. 2,000/-. 2. It is the case of the complainant that his wife Sujaya was admitted at the opposite party hospital on 24-03-2008 as she started having labour pains. She was visiting the first opposite party doctor ever since she was pregnant. The first opposite party after examining her referred her to the labour room and advised to wait for normal delivery despite the fact that the first delivery was by caesarean. On the same day, the duty nurse asked her to occupy the room allotted to her. On the next day the doctor examined and directed to wait for pain. On 26-03-1998 she was not feeling the movement of the child. When informed the duty nurse examined her with a machine and said that the heartbeat of the child was normal. Although the matter was inf...

M/S Khabiya Enterprizes Vs. T.J. Kuriyan

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant is the 2nd opposite party and the respondent is the complainant in OP-36/05. First opposite party, the Proprietor, Standard Auto Deals, Kanhangad has not been impleaded in this appeal as a party as no order is passed against the 1st opposite party. The complaint in OP.36/05 was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the appellant/2nd opposite party in demanding huge amount under the hire purchase agreement entered into between the complainant and the 2nd opposite party, M/s Khabiya Enterprises, Chennai. The 2nd opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency of service. It was contended that the complainant is a defaulter in making payment of the instalment due under the hire purchase agreement and that the complaint is liable to be dismissed as there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. 2. Before the Forum below, the authorized representative of the co...

P.C. Vijay Vs. K. Gopinathan Nair

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant is the opposite party and respondent is the complainant in OP.581/04 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The complaint was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in supplying cement flooring tiles to the complainant. Hence the complainant claimed a total of Rs.1,09,615/- as compensation including the cost of the tiles, cost of laying the tiles, cost of transporting charge and cost of the materials like cement, sand etc. 2. The opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency of service. He contended that he supplied good quality cement flooring tiles and there was no defect for the tiles which were supplied to the complainant. It was further contended that the defect or damage occurred due to improper laying of the tiles. Thus, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 3. Before the Forum below, Exts.P1 to P9 documents were produced and marked. No oral...

indira R Shenoy and Another Vs. the Managing Director, Coraz Travel an ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER No representation for the appellants. Appellants are called absent. On the last hearing date also ie, on 20/5/2011 there was no representation for the appellant. Hence appeal dismissed for non prosecution....

E.J. Francis Vs. Tomy Thomas, Proprietor, New India Job Consultancy

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The Revision Petitioner is the complainant in CC No. 56/2009 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The Revision Petition is filed over the order in IA 925/2010 dismissing the complaint on the ground that the Forum has no jurisdiction. The Forum has held that the respondent/opposite party is doing business in Vaikom in Kottaym District and is a resident at Kottayam District and that no part of cause of action has arisen at Thrissur. According to the complainant the amounts for the home nurses service was paid at Thrissur and the home nurse left his house. The above facts are disputed by the opposite parties. As per Section 11(2)(c) a Form wherein cause of action wholly or in part has arisen has got jurisdiction. Hence we find the above matter as to whether part of cause of action has arisen at Thrissur is a matter of evidence. Hence dismissal of the complaint only based on the averments of the opposite party is not proper. Hence the order of the Forum i...

M/S Gangaprasad Agencies, Indane Distributor, Nellappally.P.O, Repd. b ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the 1st opposite party/Gas agency in CC.356/07 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.3.lakhs to the complainant as compensation and Rs.50,000/- towards cost. The appellant was exparte before the Forum. 2. The complainants who are the wife and unmarried daughters of the late Thulaseedharan Nair has claimed a sum of Rs.8.lakhs as compensation with respect to the accidental death of Thulaseedharan Nair on account of the explosion of a gas cylinder supplied by 1st opposite party/appellant and manufactured by the 2nd opposite party/Indian Oil Corporation. The 3rd opposite party is the insurer. It is stated that on 30/1/2007 at about 7.45.pm the gas cylinder exploded due to leak and Mr.Thulaseedharan Nair and another worker, Mr.Sudhakaran Pillai sustained severe born injuries and both died. The deceased was aged 43 years. He was running a hotel and Sudhakaran Pillai was a worker in the hotel...

T.K. Vasu Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by District Collector and O ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(3)ILR(Ker)573; 2011(3)KLT76(SN)(C.No.74); 2011(3)KLJ614; 2011(3)KHC259

“C.R.” RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. 1. This is a public interest litigation filed challenging Ext.P7 issued by the District Collector granting time to the 5th respondent to construct Training Centre for the deaf and dump in the 25 cents of land allotted by the Government to the 5th respondent 20 years back. The petitioner's case is that the District Collector has no authority to grant time for completion of the project for which land was assigned to the 5th respondent. We have called for report from the Government and the Tahsildar about the nature of development of the land done by the 5th respondent and the nature of activities of the 5th respondent for the benefit of deaf and dump and the Government Pleader has filed the same. We have heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the 5th respondent and also the Government Pleader for other respondents. 2. After hearing all concerned, we feel the petitioner is entitled to succeed in the W.P.(C) for the simple reason that a proje...