Kerala Court June 2011 Judgments

Joy Mp, Proprietor Devine Institute of English Vs. Mrs. Mini Thomas

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellant is the second opposite party in CC 280/06 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. Appellant as well as the third opposite party is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.1,55,000/- with 9% interest from 30/06/06 the date of complaint and cost of Rs.1,500/-. 2. It is the case of the complainant that the appellant assured her that he will arrange a work permit at U.K. within a period of 3 months and for the same he received a sum of Rs.30,000/-. She was earlier employed in Soudi Arabia. On 30.12.04 an agreement was entered into between the complainant and the third opposite party and a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was paid to the third opposite party at the instance of the second opposite party. She was assured that the work permit and visa will be ready by 31.3.05. The same could not be materialized. It is after a lot of efforts that the opposite parties returned the original certificates. The ISLETS original certificate has not been returned so far. The ...

Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. and Another Vs. M. Mani and Another

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/Financiers in CC.126/09 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad. The appellants are under orders to issue no objection certificate for the loan clearance certificate on payment of Rs.4,800/-with 12% interest from 7.5.08. 2. The dispute is with respect to the alleged failure on the part of the opposite parties/appellants to issue no objection certificate with respect to the loan availed for Rs.39,400/-. The complainant had also sought for return of the RC book and the allegedly signed stamp paper in blank and signed blank cheque leaves and also for compensation of Rs.25,000/-. 3. On the other hand, the opposite parties have contended that 33 cheques out of the 36 cheques handed over were dishonored. The dishonor charges amounted to Rs.5800/-. Only the complainants paid only 33 instalments and the balance would work out Rs.4,800/-. According to the opposite parties, the complainant has not paid the instalments in time....

Managing Director, Integrated Finance Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Anila A ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC No. 85/2006 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of deposit till payment and also to pay Rs. 5,000/- as costs. It is the case of the complainant that the amount was deposited with the opposite parties in FD and that after the period of maturity the amount has not been repaid despite demands. The respondents/opposite parties have contended that the matter was pending before the Madras High Court vide the applications under the Companies Act 1956 and a scheme for repayment is pending. The evidence adduced consisted of Exts. A1, A2 and B1 to B4. The Forum has noted that it is the case of the opposite parties that SLP is pending before the Supreme Court and that the Madras High Court has dismissed the proceedings initiated by the opposite parties. In appeal also it is submitted that the order of the Singl...

A.K. Sivaraman, Palakkad District Vs. K.V. Narendranathan and Others

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT595; 2012(3)KLJ554

K.T. SANKARAN, J. 1. The petitioner challenges Ext.P8 order dated 24.9.2010 in I.A.Nos.1194 of 2007, 1195 of 2007, 1616 of 2008 and 1617 of 2008 in A.S.No.159 of 2007, on the file of the Court of the District Judge, Palakkad. The appeal, A.S.No.159 of 2007, was filed against the order dated 30.7.2007 in the execution proceedings in O.S.No.656 of 1994 before the Sub Court, Palakkad, by which, the application filed by the petitioner under Rule 97 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed by the executing court. 2. The suit was filed by Venkitakrishnan against Hariharan for realisation of money. In execution of the decree, the property belonging to the judgment debtor was sold in auction and it was purchased by K.V.Narendranathan. When delivery was attempted to be made, the petitioner obstructed. He also filed an application under Rule 97 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure before the executing court. The executing court dismissed that application by the order date...

Akilesh Kumar Vs. CBi Represented By It's Public Prosecutor and Anothe ...

Court: Kerala

"CR" 1. The appellant, a former telephone mechanic in the office of the Junior Telecom Officer, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL), Ichilamkode Telephone Exchange, Kasaragod was found guilty by the Special Judge(SPE/CBI)-II, Ernakulam, for offences under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as 'PC Act'). Consequently, he was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 3,000/- under Section 7; and rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 13(2). Assailing the above conviction and sentence, this appeal was filed. 2. The facts leading to the case is that PW3, a resident of Kasaragod District, was doing business at Sullia in Karnataka. His cousin, who was examined as PW1, then a painter, was managing the affairs at Kasaragod. PW3 applied for a telephone connection under the OYT scheme. Pursuant to that application, he was served with Ext.P7 demand notice to ...

Anish Antony Thimothy and Others Vs. Neetha and Another

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(3)KLT409; 2011(3)KHC46

Petitioners are the respondents in M.C.No.3 of 2010 of the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam (for short, " the ACJM") filed by first respondent under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short, "the Act"). First respondent has also filed O.P.No.2188 of 2010 in the Family Court, Thrissur seeking divorce and return of gold ornaments and other reliefs. Petitioners pray that M.C.No.3 of 2010 pending before the learned ACJM may be transferred to the Family Court, Thrissur. According to the petitioners they are staying at Mumbai and in connection with M.C.No.3 of 2010 they are required to come down to Ernakulam every now and then which caused much inconvenience to them. It is also submitted that first petitioner has lost his job. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. 2. According to the learned counsel, by virtue of Section 26 of the Act Family Court is also given the power to grant reliefs under Secti...

Alex Paul Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Ramachandran Nair, J. Revision is filed against the order of the Appellate Tribunal sustaining penalty levied on the petitioner under Section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act for the year 2008-09. We have heard Adv.Sri.Jose Joseph, counsel appearing for the petitioner and Government Pleader appearing for the State. 2. Petitioner is a contractor engaged in the construction business in Kerala. During the year 2008-09, petitioner purchased a Hitachi model JCB from Mangalore for Rs.34,06,600/- by availing concessional rate of tax at 2% against C Form issued as provided under Section 8(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". The Intelligence Officer of Sales Tax noticed that item purchased is not covered by the certificate of registration issued under the Act and so much so, the issue of C Form is an offence punishable under Section 10(b) of the Act, which calls for levy of penalty under Section 10A of the Act. Petitioner raised the contention that certificate...

The Executive Engineer, K.S.E.B.,electrical Division, Thodupuzha and O ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER This appeal is preferred by the opposite parties for C.C. 34/07 to CDRF, Idukki. By the impugned order dated 21.11.09, they are under directions to stop the further proceedings against the complainant for realization of Ext. P1 bill and also under directions to issue a fresh bill as per the meter readings along with Rs. 2,000/- as costs. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he is a consumer of the opposite parties and the Electric Connection was availed for the purpose of running service station and that he had remitted the bills up to December, 1998 and further that on 2/06/01, the 4th opposite party issued a bill for Rs. 96,009/- alleging to be the charges for the period from 1999 January, to 2001. As there was a threat of disconnection the complainant had paid the first installment on 06.06.01 and filed a complaint before the first opposite party for canceling the bill. The complainant has alleged that on 12.2.2007, a Revenue Re...

Jessy Raju and Others Vs. Zacharia

Court: Kerala

1. Plaintiffs in O.S.330 of 1996 on the file of Munsiff Court, Mavelikkara are the appellants. Respondent is the defendant. The suit was one for permanent prohibitory injunction. Plaint A schedule property belongs to the first appellant and plaint B schedule property to the second appellant. Plaint C schedule property of the respondent lies immediately to the east of the plaint A and B schedule properties. Admittedly, plaint A and B schedule properties are on a higher level than plaint C schedule property which is on a lower level. The properties are slopping from west to east. The grievance of the appellants is that respondent started escavating the plaint C schedule property upto the western boundary of plaint C schedule property and thereby respondent is taking away the lateral support available to the plaint A and B schedule properties and he has no right to do so. A decree for mandatory injunction was sought to construct a retaining wall so as to restore the lateral support, which...

Joseph Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

1. Petitioner is the fourth accused in Crime No.330 of 1998 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station and C.C.No.595 of 2002 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Ernakulam for offences punishable under Secs.3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short, "the Act"). The case is that on 21.11.1998 at about 4.30p.m the first accused, in order to earn a livelihood by using her house as a brothel, brought accused 2 and 3 to her house and accused 2 and 3 attempted to have sexual intercourse with petitioner for profit and thereby petitioner and others committed offences as alleged. Petitioner seeks to quash proceeding against him. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that detection of the offence and investigation are wholly illegal and at any rate, offence under Secs.3, 4 and 5 of the Act cannot be attributed to the petitioner. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Delhi Administration Vs. Ram Sing (AIR 1962 ...