Kerala Court October 2012 Judgments

The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co.Ltd. and Another Vs. P. ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

COMMON JUDGMENT: SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER The order of the CDRF, Palakkad in CC.176/03 is challenged in these appeals. In FA.382/12 the complainant is the appellant. He was a stockist and retail seller of Allopathic medicines, surgical items etc. It is alleged that in order to cover the risks of his business he had availed a fire insurance claim policy from the opposite party for Rs.21 lakhs. The policy covered the entire risks of his business. In the early morning hours of 19.2.03 at about 2 a.m a fire broke out in the adjacent shop room and spread to the complainants premises. As a result articles valued at Rs,6,12,306.59 were lost or damaged. In addition theft had also occurred in the complainants premises. In connection with the occurrence Crime No.54/03 was registered in the town South Police Station, Palakkad. Intimation regarding the occurrence was served on the opposite party immediately. But the opposite party served notice on the complainant that his claim h...

Pushpa and Another Vs. Malinga Maniyani and Others

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(4)KLT298

V. Chitambaresh, J. 1. Shall a witness be required to state for whom he has voted at an election? Is there any statutory embargo for disclosing how he voted? The issue arises under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (the 'Act' for short). 2. The petitioners have been summoned to tender evidence as witnesses in an election petition filed challenging the election to Ward No. 11 of Dhalampady Grama Panchayat in Kasaragod district. The election has been called in question under Section 102 (1) (d) (iii) of the Act on the ground that eight voters have indulged in double voting and that there has been an improper reception of their void votes. The main thrust in the election petition is that the eight voters have voted in more than one constituency of the same level in violation of Section 76 (3) of the Act. The election petition seeks to set aside the election of the second respondent and declare the first respondent as the duly elected candidate after eschewing the eight void votes. The pe...

Jijomon Pullakunnel John Vs. Neezhoor Grama Panchayat

Court: Kerala

This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P7 order passed by the second respondent rejecting an application submitted by the petitioner for correction of his name in the Marriage Register maintained under the provisions of the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common), Rules, 2008 ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Common Rules' for short). According to the petitioner, his name has been entered as 'Jijomon P.J' in the Marriage Register, which he wants to be corrected as 'Jijomon Pullankunnel John'. He also wants similar corrections to make in respect of the entries regarding the names of his father, father-in- law and mother-in-law also. For the above purpose, he submitted Ext.P5 application. Since no orders were passed on Ext.P5, he had approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.15321 of 2012. As per Ext.P6 judgment, this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the second respondent to pass final orders on the petitioner's application. Thereupon, the second respondent has passed ...

i.L. Shaiju Vs. the Kerala Public Service Commission, Rep. by Its Secr ...

Court: Kerala

1. Petitioner applied for the post of Work Assistant under the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Corporation’, in pursuance to the notification issued by the respondent Kerala Public Service Commission, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Commission’, inviting applications for about 1800 vacancies. Petitioner appeared in the written examination as per Ext.P1. The valuation was in the form of Optical Mark Reader for which Ext.P2 instruction was provided. The candidates have to bubble the relevant portions of the answer sheet of the OMR indicating the register number on the hall ticket besides writing the same in digits separately. The case of the petitioner is that even though he has done everything correctly and answered the questions, vide Ext.P3 notification his answer sheet was rejected. The petitioner protested it in the office of the respondent Commission and the answer script of the petitioner was valued by Optical Mark R...

Gigi Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor

Court: Kerala

P.S. Gopinathan, J. 1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Ramankary Police Station, in Crime No.76 of 1996, prosecuted the revision petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate of the 1st Class, Ramankary, accusing offences under Sections 341, 323, and 354 IPC with an allegation that at 11 a.m., on 15.9.1996, the revision petitioner wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant at Cherikalakam padasekharam. She was caught at her hands, slapped at face, fisted on back and kicked on the stomach. When the defacto complainant attempted to run away she was caught at her blouse and the blouse was torn. 2. The revision petitioner pleaded not guilty. Therefore, he was sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 6 were examined. Exts.P1 to P5 were marked. When questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he denied the incriminating evidence and further stated that the vegetation of the revision petitioner was destroyed by the goats of the defacto complainant, who was exam...