Kerala Court January 2012 Judgments

C.J. Devassy Vs. T.V. Thomas and Another

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the first opposite party in C.C. 334/11 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards costs. The complaint is with respect to the excess amount claimed by the appellant for delivering the copies of Malayala Manorama daily to the complainant. The first opposite party had contended that there was arrears of subscription and also that he is not liable to serve the copies of the daily at the house of the complainant and that he is willing to provide the copies if the complainant comes to his office at Angamaly and collect the same. The second opposite party/Deputy Manager, Malayala Manorama has filed version that the second opposite party has not authorized the agent to collect Rs. 15/- as additional service charges. The second opposite party had also published a notice in the daily informing the subscribers that they are not to pay any additional service charge as demanded by the...

Deepa and Another Vs. the Proprietor, Thampuratty Gas Agency and Anoth ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the complainants in CC.135/07 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The application to condone the delay in filing the complaint vide I.A.192/09 was dismissed and consequently the complaint was also dismissed. 2. The complainants are the LRs/daughter and son of the deceased who sustained burn injuries on 17.5.04 when igniting the gas stove and died on 24.5.04. The complaint was filed on 24.5.07 ie beyond the period of limitation stipulated in the statute. It is after filing the complaint that the delay condonation petition was filed to condone the delay of 335 days. In the affidavit filed by the 2nd complainant/son of the deceased in support of the application it is mentioned that soon after the incident the matter was reported to the 1st opposite party/gas agency who assured that adequate compensation will be awarded after consulting with the parent department, M/s Indian Oil Corporation and Insurance Company. Subsequentl...

The Station Manager, Air India, Airport, Thiruvananthapuram and Anothe ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

COMMON JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellant in 356/11 is the opposite party and the appellant in A.570/11 is the complainant in OP.49/02 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellants in A.356/11/Air India Cargo is under orders to pay an amount of equalent to 300 US $ and Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.3,000/- towards costs.. 2. The case of the complainant is that he had entrusted with Air India a consignment from Kuwait on 14.5.2000 for transporting the same from Kuwait to Trivandrum. The consignment weighed 168 kg; and a sum of Kuwait Dinar, 117 and Fills 750 was paid towards the transportation charges of the un-accompanied baggage. On 13.6.2000, when the complainant came to collect baggage, it was found that the same is kept in an open yard. When it was opened, it was found that the entire materials are in a dilapidated condition soaked with water. A complaint was lodged before the Customs Clarence Office and the complainant was assured an...

The Federal Bank, Convent Square Branch, Alappuzha and Others Vs. Raja ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC.107/10 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The appellants/opposite parties are under orders to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation. 2. The case of the complainant is that on 31.8.09, he had applied for an education loan for his son who got admission at an Engineering College at Salem. According to him, the third opposite party, the Asst. Manager in charge considerably harassed and asked for documents one after again and he had to go Salemto obtain certain documents as directed by the third opposite party. According to him, the third opposite party even insulted him. According to him he is a taxi driver and his son had obtained very high marks in + 2 examination ie; 89%. According to him, the third opposite party also forced him to take an insurance policy from an agent who is a friend of the third opposite party with a premium of Rs.20,000/-. He had complained before the Banking Ombudsman etc. Subsequently, he ...

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Ramakrishna Building, Thampanoor, Triv ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/Insurance Company in CC.155/2010 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad. The appellant is under orders to pay Rs.25000/- towards the insurance amount and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation along with the second opposite party and Rs.1000/- as costs. 2. Appellant was ex-parte before the Forum. 3. The opposite party has sought for an opportunity to verify as to whether the complainants cow is covered by the maser policy. According to the appellant it has not received the claim form. 4. In the circumstances, the order of the Forum is set aside on condition that the appellant pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards costs to the complainant or deposit the same before the Forum which can be withdrawn by the complainant. On payment of cost, the Forum will give opportunity to the opposite party to contest the matter. The matter stands posted before the Forum below on 13.3.2012. Office will forward a copy of this order to the For...

G. Sreekumar, Kollam Vs. State of Kerala, Rep. by the Chief Secretary ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLJ138

1. Selection and appointment of Industrial Tribunal, Idukki at Peerumedu is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Is it necessary to satisfy the requirements of Article 234 of the Constitution of India and if not, does it in any manner violate the ratio of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Labour Law Practitioner’s Association and ors. (AIR 1998 SC 1233) in this regard, is the point to be considered. 3. The petitioner is a lawyer by profession, mainly practicing before the District and other subordinate Courts at Kollam, besides various Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals in the State. The petitioner was desirous of being appointed as Industrial Tribunal and had participated in the process of selection long ago, he could not secure appointment due to some or other reasons. Later, the petitioner was let known of the ongoing steps to fill up the post of Industrial Tribunal, Idukki; pursuant to which, he submitted his proforma and willingness...

Sivakutty @ Bomma, Athiyanoor Village Vs. State of Kerala, Rep. by Pub ...

Court: Kerala

Balakrishnan, J. 1. Six accused persons faced trial for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 143, 147, 148, 458, 324, 326, 307, 302, 394 r/w 149 IPC and Sections 115 and 201 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. After trial, the learned Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-I), Thiruvananthapuram found accused Nos.2 to 5 guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 449, 324, 326 and 302 r/w 149 IPC, A1 and A6 therein were acquitted by that court. The convicted accused, A2 to A5 have filed the appeals, Crl.A.Nos.206/10, 1913/06, 1400/06 and 1384/06. The State has preferred appeal, Crl.A.No.540/11 challenging the acquittal of A1 and A6. 2. The gist of the prosecution case: Deceased Rajamma and her son Vijayakumar (C.W.5) and his wife Rajeswary (P.W.4) and their daughters Padma (P.W.1) and Lovely (P.W.3) were residing in the house, C.V. Bhavan, bearing No.4/717 of Balaramapuram Panchayat. C.W.5 and P.W.4 had another daughter by name Meena who fell in love with A1 and...

M/S. Maharashtra Apex Corporation Ltd. Vs. K. Sukumaran and Others

Court: Kerala

K.T. Sankaran, J. 1. The decree holder in E.P.No.46 of 2003, on the file of the court of the District Judge, is aggrieved by the order dated 14th September, 2010, passed by the executing court dismissing the Execution Petition. The order passed by the executing court reads as follows : "The E.P. is dismissed as there is no document to prove that the J.D. is having means. Though the witness of decree holder has deposed that he has encumbrance certificate but no such document is produced till date. Hence, it is presumed that if that document is produced the same may go against decree holder. That is the reason why decree holder is not producing the document to show that J.D. is having means." 2. An award dated 20.4.2002 in A.P.No.236 of 2000 was passed by the arbitrator at Udupi directing the respondents to pay a sum of ` 1,60,103/- with future interest at 21% per annum from 22.9.1999 till the date of payment and costs. The award became a decree and it was transferred to the District Cou...

Dhanisha, Thiruvananthapuram Vs. Rakhi N Raj, Thiruvananthapuram and A ...

Court: Kerala

N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J: 1. This case has come before us on a reference made by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The learned Single Judge found it unable to accept the views expressed in the decisions in P.T. Chacko v. Nainan Chacko (1967) KLT 799 and George v. State of Kerala (1968) KLT 219 regarding the test of ‘obscenity’ in Section 294(b) of I.P.C. According to the learned Single Judge the meaning given to the word ‘obscene’ in Section 292 IPC cannot be made applicable to Section 294 IPC. It was observed that a particular meaning given to a particular word for the purpose of a particular provision cannot be applied to another provision. 2. The aforesaid Crl.M.C. has been filed by the accused in C.C. No.148/2007 of Additional C.J.M. Court, Thiruvananthapuram. That case was taken cognizance on a private complaint filed by the 1st respondent herein alleging commission of offences punishable under section 294(b) and 504 IPC. 3. The petitioner contends that a r...

The Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) Southern Railway, Ernakulam V ...

Court: Kerala

1. Challenge in the Original Petition is against Ext.P3 order passed by the learned Sub Judge, Ernakulam. An application moved under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking correction of the judgment/decree passed in L.A.R No. 35/2010 by the requisitioning authority, for whose beneficial interest the land under reference was acquired, was turned down by the learned Sub Judge vide the aforesaid order. Propriety, correctness and legality of that order is assailed in this petition invoking the visitorial jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Short facts necessary for disposal of this petition can be summed up thus: 0.28 Acres of land belonging to the 1st respondent situated in Nadama village was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for the construction of a railway over bridge, to meet the interest of the Southern Railway. On the claim made for enhanced compensation by the 1st respondent, the owner of the lan...