Kerala Court June 2011 Judgments

T.K. Vasu Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary Revenue (A) De ...

Court: Kerala

RamachandranNair, J. 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 project for which precious l...

P.M. Abdulla Vs. National Insurance Company Limited, by Its Regional M ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(3)ILR(Ker)525; 2011(3)KLT496; 2011(3)KLJ567; 2011(3)KHC401

A.K. Basheer, J. The appellant, who had suffered certain injuries in a road traffic accident, had instituted a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. His claim petition was allowed and he was awarded a sum of Rs.2,77,500/- with interest. In appeal, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal has been enhanced by this court. 2. However, the grievance of the appellant is not connected with the judgment rendered by this court in his appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has highlighted a common difficulty that is being faced by majority of the claimants, who belong to lower income group. It is pointed out by the appellant that the Income Tax Department has been deducting tax at source while depositing the award amount before the Tribunal which in most of the cases may not be warranted at all. 3. The prayer in this application is to issue a direction to the insurance companies to produce Tax Deduction Certificates relating to individual claimants before the Tribunals a...

Tomy Vs. the State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Challenge in this proceeding is to Annexure-A, the Form-I report submitted by the Forest Range officer, Devikulam, Munnar Division (for short, the Range Officer") against petitioner and others to the extent it concerns offence under Section 27(1)(e)(iii) of the Kerala Forest Act (for short, "the Act"). According to the Range Officer, accused 1 to 3 who are in possession of Cardamom estates cut down trees from those estates with the assistance of accused 5 to 9 and the same were stored in the premises of petitioner, the 4th accused. The Range Officer inspected premises of petitioner on 17.05.2011, detected the offence and registered case as O.R. No.20 of 2011 for the offence aforesaid and under Sections 4, 5(2) and 9 of the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act, 1986 (for short, "the KPT Act"). According to the petitioner (4th accused) offence attributed to him and others under the Act cannot stand, if at all it came within the purview of the KPT Act since even according to the Range Officer...

Sobhanan and Others Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

1. Petitioners are accused 1 to 13 in CR No. 68 of 2011 of Karunagappally Excise Range for offences punishable under S.58 and S.67B of the Abkari Act (for short, “the Act”) (S.67B relates to the power for confiscation). Case is that on 09/06/2011 at about 5.30 p.m. the excise party seized 495 litres of toddy from vehicles and a shed and petitioners 1 to 7 / accused 1 to 7 who were found dealing with the said toddy were arrested at the spot. Annexure - E is the crime and occurrence report prepared by the Excise Inspector implicating petitioners 8 to 13 as well. It is submitted that petitioners 8 to 13 are licensees or joint licensees of various toddy shops of groups 5, 7 and 8 of Karunagappally Excise Range. It is also the contention of petitioners that as per Annexures - A to D, permits petitioners 8 to 13 are authorised to transport 1200 litres of toddy every day from Chittoor to Karunagappally in the vehicles permitted by their respective permits. It is also the contentio...

Dr. R. Parmeswaran Pilla, Pulluvila Vs. State of Kerala, Rep. by the P ...

Court: Kerala

1. The accused in C.C. 4 of 2002 on the file of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, is the appellant. He was working as a Civil Surgeon in the Primary Health Centre, Pulluvila, in January and February, 2001. PW.5 Suganthy, wife of PW.4 was admitted in the Primary Health Centre on 27.1.2001 with viral fever. According to the prosecution, at the time of admission, the appellant asked whether they had brought the fees. Responding to the query Rs.50/- was paid by PW.4. PW.5 was admitted in the Primary Health Centre; but there was no improvement. The other patients in the hospital stated that unless the doctor was paid well, they won’t get proper treatment. On 30.1.2001, PW.4 met the appellant in his consulting room near the Primary Health Centre and paid Rs.50/-. Thereafter, medicine was changed. Since the temperature remained steady PW.4 again met the appellant on 1.2.2001. According to the prosecution, the appellant demanded Rs.250/- as bribe. Being got ...

Proprietor, M/S.General Agencies Vs. O.M. Rafeeq

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA, MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam order dated 30.6.06. The opposite party is the appellant and the respondent is the complainant. This appeal prefers by the appellant from the order passed by the Forum below directed the opposite party to replace the price of the machinery, provided complainant shall return the machinery to the opposite party on getting the price. The Forum below also directed the opposite party to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as costs of the proceedings. 2. In short the complaint filed by the complainant that an allegation he availed a loan under the PMRY scheme from SBT Paipra branch for starting welding unit, that he approached the opposite party for purchasing various machinery including the drilling machine, motor welding set, hand drills, electrical panel boards for the purpose of his welding unit. The complainant alleged that he placed order for KMT brand drilling machine and its acces...

Mutual Aid Bankers, (Owned by P.K. Rockey Memorial Trust) and Others V ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The petition to condone the delay is dismissed. Hence the appeal is also dismissed....

Gopinath Vs. Suresh

Court: Kerala

1. The accused in a prosecution for the offence under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the NI Act’) is the revision petitioner as he is aggrieved by the judgment of the Appellate Court since the appeal is disposed of without hearing him. 2. The case of the complainant that the revision petitioner had borrowed a sum of ` 55,000/- from the complainant and towards the discharge of the said liability, the accused issued a cheque for the said amount which when presented for encashment, was dishonoured as there was no sufficient fund in the account maintained by the accused and therefore, the accused has committed the offence punishable under S.138 of the NI Act. With the above allegation, the complainant approached the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chittur by filing a complaint upon which cognizance was taken and instituted ST No. 2501 of 2007. During the trial of the above case, the complainant himself was examined as PW 1 and Ext. P1 to P5 wer...

T.V. Gopalakrishnan Vs. State of Kerala, Rep. by Its Chief Secretary, ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(3)KLT317; 2011(3)KHC162; 2011(3)ILR(Ker)493

RamachandranNair, J. This Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge declaring that the appellant will be entitled to utilise his land situated in Kozhikkode town for commercial purpose, i.e. for construction of a hotel only if the Government modifies the Master Plan changing the area to non-residential. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel for the Kozhikkode Corporation and learned Government Pleader for the State. 3. During the last hearing, the appellant's counsel submitted that almost all the buildings around the appellant's property are commercial buildings, like hotels, shops, theatre, Banks etc. We directed him to produce areal photographs of his property to prove location of the appellant's property with reference to the neighbouring buildings. Photographsproduced show that the appellant's property is located in front of a massive shopping complex comprising of several shop rooms including hotel. In fact the ...

K. Lakshmana I.P.S and Another Vs. Cbi, Siu/V/Sic.ii and Others

Court: Kerala

ThottathilB. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. The appeal and the revision in hand, arise from a sessions case tried by the Special Judge (SPE/CBI). 2. Three persons were arrayed as accused in a case registered, investigated and final report submitted by the CBI. The proceedings against the first accused abated as he died during inquiry. The other two were tried. The second accused was found guilty of offence punishable under section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. He stands convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of rupees 10,000/-, with default sentence of simple imprisonment for six months. The third accused was acquitted. 3. The appeal is by the second accused, challenging his conviction and the sentence imposed. The revision is by the brother of the victim. He challenges the acquittal of the third accused and pleads that the sentence imposed on the second accused be enhanced from life imprisonment to death. 4. The prosecution case is as follows: i. Varghese, a le...