Kerala Court June 2011 Judgments
P.A. Akbar, CochIn Vs. Inspector of Police (Ghills P. Mathew) Represen ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-29-2011
1. The appellant is the accused in C.C. No.37/98 on the file of the Special Judge, Ernakulam. He was prosecuted by PW17, the Inspector of Police, SPE/CBI, Cochin alleging offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PC Act’). The learned Special Judge on conclusion of trial arrived at a finding of guilt. Consequently, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.1,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month for offence under Section 7 of the PC Act. For offence under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.2000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for two months. Assailing the above conviction and sentence this appeal was preferred. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that the appellant was working as a Clerk in the Area Accounts Office, Navy in...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Shriram Investments Ltd. and Another Vs. Antony K.P. @ Joy and Ot ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jun-29-2011
M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellants are the opposite parties 1 and 3 and respondents are the complainant and the 2nd opposite party respectively in C.C. 90/07 on the file of CDRF, Kannur. The complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in their failure to issue clearness certificate with respect to the hire purchase transaction entered into between the complainant and the opposite parties 1 and 3 for availing a loan of Rs. 2,75,000/- for the purpose of purchasing a lorry. The opposite parties 1 and 3 entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. They contended that the complainant is not a consumer as he availed the service of the opposite parties for commercial purpose. It was further contended that the complainant was a defaulter in making payment towards the installments under the Hire Purchase Agreement. Thus, the opposite parties 1 and 3 prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Though ...
Tag this Judgment!The District Collector and Secretary, Kerala State Haj Committee,calic ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jun-29-2011
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Alappuzha in O.P. No. A.216/03 dated 21.3.05. The appellants are the opposite parties and the respondents are the complainants in the above O.P. The appellants prefers this order under the order passed by the Forum below that; directed the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs. 30,000/- to the complainants along with a cost of Rs. 600/- The opposite parties are the government, officials and they directed to pay the amount jointly and severally. The brief of the case is that the complainants are pilgrims for the Hajj 1422(H)2002 A.D. They went for Hujj through the opposite parties under the second category status which offered by opposite parties. Though the complainants paid the prescribed amount to opposite parties for second category, but opposite parties failed to provide that accommodation, their service were not at all satisfactory and as offered by them. The room allowed to them was not...
Tag this Judgment!The Kseb, Vydyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Tvpm, R/by Its Secretary and Others ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jun-29-2011
SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated:17th June 2010 passed by CDRF, Kottayam in CC.105/08. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing A4 bill dated:19/4/2008 for Rs.62,750/-. Thereby the complainant prayed for setting aside the impugned bill for Rs.62,750/-. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency of service. They contended that the meter installed at the premises of the complainant was faulty and they installed a parallel meter and the impugned bill is issued based on the reading recorded by the parallel meter. Thus, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 2. Before the Forum below Exts.A1 to A5 and B1 documents were marked on the side of the parties to the complaint in CC.105/08. On an appreciation of the facts, circumstances and documentary evidence on record, the Forum below passed the ...
Tag this Judgment!The Manager, Hongkong and Shangai, Banking Corporation Ltd.(Hsbc), Pal ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jun-29-2011
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam in C.C. No. 391/07. The respondent is the complainant who filed the complaint and he has a case that on 26.11.03., the opposite party, Bank issued a credit card to him. It was in his use nearly for one year and he made nominal charges. He has been paying regularly every month approximately Rs. 4,000/- per month under coercion and collection agents of the bank. He was forced to forward a Bankers cheque worth Rs. 25,000/- towards full and final settlement of the so called outstanding dues. Even then banks collection agent visited his office and he was compelled to pay Rs. 3,470/- on 30.5.06. The collection agent made it practice to visit either the office or his house too much disturbance to him several communications were exchanged between the complainant and the bank among them went with or sent by the bank to him dated 19.7.06 is not worth, wherein the opposite party had admitted that the...
Tag this Judgment!V. Viswambaran and Others Vs. Thankamma and Others
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jun-29-2011
COMMON JUDGMENT SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA: MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by CDRF, Ernakulam in OP No. 76/2002 dated 22-10-2010. The appellants are the opposite parties No. 1, No. 4 and No. 5 respectively. Respondents 1 to 7 are the complainants. Others are the opposite parties in the above mentioned OP. This appeal prefers from the order of the Forum below that opposite parties 1 to 9 and 11 to 13 are directed to pay the complainants 1 to 7, the amounts stated against them in paragraph 1 of the order with interest at 12% from the date of filing of the case.The appellant challenged this order through this appeal. 2. In short, the complainants alleged that the first opposite party S.N. Welfare Centre and opposite parties 2 to 13 are President, Vice President, Secretary and other office bearers of the first opposite party respectively. The 4th opposite party is the SNDP Union, Aluva while the 15th opposite party is the SNDP Union, Patteripuram. Opposite parties 1 to 3 con...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, K.S.E.B., Puthenvelikkara, Tri ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jun-29-2011
M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellants are the opposite parties and respondent is the complainant in O.P. No. 913/03 on the file of CDRF, Trissur. The complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing revised electricity bill dated 6.06.03 for Rs. 3,862/- and also in issuing the revised bill for Rs. 4,994/- Thereby the complainant prayed for canceling R4 and R5 bills issued by the opposite party/KSEB. 2. The opposite parties entered appearance before the Forum below and denied the alleged deficiency in service. They contended that the revised electricity bills were issued in the light of the order passed by the CDRF, Trissur in O.P. 872/01. Thus, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint in O.P. 913/03. 3. Before the Forum below, P1 to P3 and R1 to R6 documents were produced and marked on the side of the parties to the complaint in O.P. 913/03. On appreciation of the facts, circumstances and evidence on record,...
Tag this Judgment!The Registrar of Births and Deaths Vs. Thomas Jacob and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-28-2011
AntonyDominic, J. 1st respondent in WP(C) No.22222/2010 is the appellant. 2. 1st respondent herein is the father of Mr.Joshwa Thomas Jacob, who was born at Pulinkunnu on 1/9/1981. Based on the report of birth made by Dr.Murali Krishnan of St.Reethas Hospital, his date of birth was registered by the appellant. According to the 1st respondent, for the purpose of applying for a green card in the United States of America, his son wanted a birth certificate from the appellant, and therefore, on an application made by him, a birth certificate was issued. From the certificate, it was found that the name was recorded as Joseph Thomas Jacob and the date of birth was wrongly recorded as 8.9.1981. 3. Thereupon, on behalf of his son, 1st respondent submitted Ext.P5 application to the appellant requesting him to correct the date of birth from 8/9/1981 to 1/9/1981. He also applied for correction of the name of his son from Joseph Thomas Jacob to Joshwa Thomas Jacob. By Ext.P7 order, the appellant al...
Tag this Judgment!Saramma Shyju Vs. Shyju Varghees and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-28-2011
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. 1. Petitioner filed M.C.No.106 of 2009 in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Mavelikkara under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short, "the Act"). While so, petitioner filed Ext.P3, petition for amendment to incorporate reliefs under Sec.19 of the Act and for awarding monthly allowance to her by way of maintenance. That petition was opposed by the respondents on various grounds including that there is no provision for amendment of the petition provided under the Act or the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code") and that petition for amendment is only a counter blast for a prosecution that second respondent, mother-in-law of petitioner has launched against petitioner for forging her certificates. Learned Magistrate was not inclined to allow the prayer of petitioner and dismissed the petition as per Ext.P3, order dated December 13, 2010. That order is under challenge. Learned counsel for petitione...
Tag this Judgment!C.N. Vijayan Vs. Joby and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-28-2011
1. Since the impugned order is passed without notice to respondents 1 to 3, notice to them is dispensed with in this proceeding. Learned Public Prosecutor takes notice for the 4th respondent. 2. Petitioner filed a complaint against respondents 1 to 3 - C.M.P. No.1023 of 2011 in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Peermade alleging offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the petitioner, he was in charge of campaigning for the Assembly election for the Congress candidate from Peermade Constituency and while so, on 25.05.2011 in a local news channel - Idukki Vision News run by respondents 2 and 3 a news item was telecast by the first respondent that petitioner is involved in the murder of one Balu. According to the petitioner, that telecast was made by respondents 1 to 3 with intend to defame him. Hence the complaint. Along with the complaint, petitioner filed C.M.P. No.1024 of 2011 under Section 93(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Pro...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »