Kerala Court August 2011 Judgments

M/S. Shareefa Travels Vs. Mohammed Ebrahim, S/O. Ebrahim, Rep. by His ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR: MEMBER The 1st opposite party in OP.446/98 before the CDRF, Kannur has come up in appeal calling for the interference of this Commission as to the sustainability of the order dated:27.10.2001 directing the opposite parties including the appellant to refund to the complainant a sum of Rs.15,910/- being the price of the ticket and to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.250/- as cost. 2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he has booked a ticket with the 1st opposite party for his journey to Doha via Bombay on 17.12.97 and when he reported for journey before the 2nd opposite party on 17.12.1997 the 2nd opposite party denied the seat stating that the name of the complainant was mistakenly fed in the computer. It is the case of the complainant that though he had requested the opposite party to allow him to travel as he had a confirmed ticket, the opposite party denied the journey on untenable grounds. Alleging deficiency of service the compla...

Abdul Arshad and Others Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by the Public ...

Court: Kerala

B.A.Nos.5641 of 2011 and 5776 of 2011 are under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. B.A.No.4642 of 2011 is for anticipatory bail, filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The name of accused, rank in the case, Crime number, date of arrest and Bail Application number are shown below. Sl.No.Name of accusedRankCrime No. and Police StationDate of arrestBail Application number1Abdul ArshadA9497/11 Sulthan Bathery11-6-115641/112KunhumuhammadPradeepBaurajanShajiKrishnanArun. BPratheeshPreyeshJosephA8A2A3A4A5A6A7491/1110.6.115776/113.K.T. Gopinathan Town North Police Station, Ernakulam 4642/113. The offences alleged against the accused are under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (Central Act No.43 of 1978) (hereinafter referred to as ‘Prize Chits Act.’) 4. The prosecution case is the following: Accused No.9 Abdul Arshad is the Managing Director of B...

K. Binulal Vs. R.S. Roopa

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(3)KLJ782; 2011(3)KLT933; 2011(3)ILR(Ker)836; 2011(3)KHC738

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. The husband challenges an order of the family court granting interim maintenance to the wife, interim maintenance to the child and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses, pending an application filed by the husband for custody of his one year old son, invoking the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, for short, ‘G and W Act’. 2. The order for payment of maintenance to the wife stands stayed by this Court at the stage of admission with the clarification that the order of stay will not operate as regards the maintenance for the child. 3. The baby boy, about one year old, is granted Rs.2,000/- per month as maintenance. In our view, that is never against the interest of its father. In fact, he does not, challenge that part of the order. 4. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner husband argued that the order to pay Rs.5,000/- is as cost and cannot be sustained, it having been passed on the first date of posting of the case before ...

G. Raveendran Pillai Vs. Vice Consul Consulate General of India Dubai, ...

Court: Kerala

Ramkumar, J. This Cr.M.C. has come up before us consequent on a reference by a learned Judge of this court (Justice R. Basant) in view of the apparent conflict between Jismol Joseph V. Union of India (2003 (3) KLT 265 and Aboo V. Regional Passport Officer (2008 (1) KLT 992). In the first of the above rulings, a learned Judge of this court observed as follows:- “There are series of decisions of this court holding that the Judicial Magistrate can decide the question if moved in that behalf, for the purpose of altering the date of birth or place of birth in the passport. This court had to issue those directions only because of the doubt expressed by the Judicial Magistrates of some courts regarding their jurisdiction to do so. In the light of those decisions there cannot be any doubt that the Judicial Magistrate has the jurisdiction.” 2. Subsequently, one of us sitting single considered Jismol Joseph V. Union of India (2003 (3) KLT 265) in Aboo V. Regional Passport Officer (20...

Jeena Vs. Satheesh Babu.K. and Others

Court: Kerala

R. BASANT. J: 1. Can the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals award costs? What principles should apply in the matter of awarding costs? What procedure is to be followed by the tribunals in the matter of awarding costs? There is no general and accepted procedures followed by the tribunals in the State. Some direct payment of costs. Some direct payment of proportionate costs. Some direct payment of specified amount of costs. We perceive urgent necessity for issue of judicial guidelines in the matter in the absence of specific stipulations in the Statute or the Rules. 2. This appeal is preferred by the claimant who staked claim for compensation for the loss suffered by her as a result of the death of her husband who succumbed to injuries suffered by him in a motor accident that occurred on 10/08/2008. Respondents 1 to 3 are the owner, driver and insurer of the vehicle. Respondents 4 and 5 are the father and mother of her deceased husband. They were arrayed as respondents obviously as the appe...

Biju @ Sasi Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by the Public Prosecutor, ...

Court: Kerala

“CR” 1. The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court (Adhoc)-II, Kottayam for offences punishable under Secs.55(b) and 55(g) of the Abkari Act and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh each under Secs.55(b) and 55(g) and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for 60 days each. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused was found manufacturing arrack from wash, using still and utensils. It was also alleged that he was in possession of 8 liters of arrack for sale in his house bearing door No.IV/399 of Vellavoor Panchayat in Vellavoor village when the Excise officials searched his house at 3 PM on 27.8.2001. Since the accused was found manufacturing arrack in the place mentioned above he was arrested. 3. Exts.P1 and P4 were marked on the side of the prosecution. Ext.P1 is the search list prepared for that purpose. Ext.P2 is the statement of the accused. Ext.P3 is the F...

Thadiyantevida Nazeer and Others Vs. State of Kerala, Rep. by the Depu ...

Court: Kerala

V. Ramkumar, J. In this Crl. Miscellaneous Case filed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are accused Nos.1, 3, 4 and 9 in Sessions Case No. 2 of 2010 (NIA) on the file of the Special Court for the Trial of N.I.A. Cases, Kerala at Ernakulam (hereinafter referred to as “the Special Court” for short), challenge Annexure - C order dated 8-7-2011 passed by the Special Court. As per the said order, the Special Court dismissed their application filed as Crl.M.P. 135 of 2011 (Annexure - IV) seeking to cancel Annexure - III order dated 2-09-2010 of the Special Court tendering pardon to the approver, Shammi  Firoz who was originally A7 and who was subsequently examined in the case as P.W.1. 2. A chronological narration of the facts leading to the impugned order is as follows:- 03/03/2006 - Infuriated by the attitude of the officials including the Executive and the Judiciary in not granting bail to the Muslim accused persons involved in the Marad carnage...

Thankam Hospital of N P M R C, Chadanamkurissi, West Yakkara and Other ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties, the Administrators of the particular hospital wherein the complainant underwent treatment for snake bite. As per order in OP.48/04 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad the opposite parties are under orders to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of Rs.500/- with interest at 12% from the date of the order. 2. It is the case of the complainant, a lady aged 46 that on 24/12/2003 after 7 pm she sustained snake bite and was taken to the opposite party hospital. The bite was around the area of 4th and 5th toe of the right foot. It is alleged that the opposite parties did not administer antivenom and waited unnecessarily and also did not refer the complainant to a higher centre. Only on 26.12.2003 at the insistence of the relatives of the complainant she was referred to the JubileeMission Hospital, Thrissur. At the time of admission the platelet count was 2,90,000/-. On the next day morning it was 2,10,000 and on ...

Sajith, Kothamangalam, Ernakulam District Vs. State of Kerala, Represe ...

Court: Kerala

1. As the above two appeals are arising out of the same judgment dated 22.8.2009 in SC No.768/2008 of the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No-1), Thrissur and the question of facts and law involved are identical, the above appeals are heard together and being disposed by this common judgment. 2. Crl.A.No.2439/2009 is preferred by accused No.4 in SC No.768/2008 through a counsel of his choice, whereas Crl.A.No.1165/2010 is preferred by the 2nd accused, in the above sessions case, who is undergoing imprisonment in pursuance of the above judgment and thus he preferred the above appeal from the jail. On receiving the appeal as ordered by this Court, the registry has appointed Smt. V. Sreeja, counsel as State Brief to prosecute the appeal for and on behalf of the said appellant. Thus, when Crl.A.No.2439/2009 came up for admission, received the same in file and this Court, by order dated 23.12.2009 in Crl.M.A.11324/2009, suspended the execution of the sentenc...

Niyas Vs. the State of Kerala, Represented by the Public Prosecutor an ...

Court: Kerala

The accused in Crime No.210 of 2011 of Karippur police station has filed this revision challenging the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri dismissing his application Crl.M.P.No.2169 of 2011 for returning his passport seized by the police. 2. The aforesaid crime was registered against the petitioner on the allegation that on 22.5.2011, he went over to the Emigration Department at Karippur International Airport to proceed to Dubai, producing a forget tourist visa. The Emigration Wing detected his forget travel document and, subsequently, he was arrested and the crime was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code read with 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act, for short, the ‘Act’. Petitioner was subsequently released on bail. His passport and visa were seized by the police in connection with the investigation. Petitioner, thereafter, moved the aforesaid Crl.M.P. for release of his passport and visa...