Kerala Court February 2012 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Salim Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-06-2012
R. BASANT, J. (i) Have the circumstances relied by the prosecution against the appellant/accused been proved satisfactorily? (ii) Do the proved circumstances lead to a safe inference of guilt against the appellant? (iii) Is the appellant entitled to the benefit of any reasonable doubt? (iv) Does the impugned judgment warrant any interference? These questions have been raised before us for our consideration in this appeal by the learned senior counsel Advocate Gracious Kuriakose. 2. The appellant has been found guilty, convicted and sentenced under Section 376 (2)(f) and Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Separate sentences of imprisonment for life have been imposed under each of those two sections. The appellant also has been sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the said offences. Default sentences have also been imposed. 3. According to the prosecution, on 26.05.2005, the appellant had enticed the victim, a child aged about 11 = years, to a forest area and had committed ra...
The Manager, Muthoot Fincorp. Ltd, Kavitha Building Vs. Mathew John
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Feb-04-2012
SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR MEMBER The order dated 28.3.2011 of CDRF, Idukki in CC.257/10 is being challenged of this appeal by the opposite party who is under directions to calculate the interest of the gold loan of the complainant at 12% per annum, up to the date of filing the complaint and redeem the gold ornaments to the complainant or in the alternative to pay the amount calculating the market value of the pledged ornaments as on the date of pledge after deducting 12% interest with cost of Rs.2,000/-, failing which the outstanding amount would carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of default. 2. The complainant had approached the Forum stating that he had availed a loan of Rs.85,000/- by pledging his gold ornaments of 60.500 gm. The complainant stated that it was attracted by the advertisement given by the opposite party that the interest would be only 12% and that at the time of availing the loan also the Manager of the opposite party assured the complainant th...
The Manager, Hdfc Bank Ltd., Mether Square Vs. T. Sri. Venugopal
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Feb-04-2012
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The Revision Petitioner is the opposite party who has been set exparte before the Forum. The case is pending before the Forum. The Revision Petitioner has sought for an opportunity to contest the matter. In the circumstances the order of the Forum is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Forum. The Forum is directed to permit the revision petitioner/opposite party to contest the matter. In the result the revision petition is allowed. Office will forward a copy of this order to the Forum urgently....
The Manager, Birla Tyres Vs. P.A. Binoy and Another
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Feb-04-2012
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The Revision Petitioners are the opposite parties in CC.234/11 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The revision petitioners/opposite parties were set exparte before the Forum. It is submitted that the counsel could not reach the Court in time. 2. It is also mentioned that the matter is still pending before the Forum. In the circumstances the order of the Forum is set aside. The Forum is directed to permit the opposite parties to contest the matter. In the result the revision petition is allowed. Office will forward a copy of this order to the Forum....
The Managing Director, Tata Motors Ltd. and Another Vs. K. Santhappan
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Feb-04-2012
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/manufacturer and dealer of Tata Safari vehicle and under orders to pay a sum of Rs.10,16,331/- the cost of the vehicle and Rs.25,000/- as compensation with interest at 12%. 2. The dispute is with respect to the alleged manufacturing defects of the vehicle involved. 3. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, CW1, RW1 and Exts.A1 to A 33, B1 series and C1. 4. It is pointed out by the counsel for the appellant that Ext.C1 Commission report is not at all a speaking one. The alleged expert has reported the matter as to the issues involved in one word each as if answering an objective type answer paper. No reasons are mentioned. Moreover, the vehicle has run 63963 kms; and the complaint has been filed after 2 years of purchase and running of the vehicle. It is also pointed out that the Forum has not considered the evidence adduced at all and in spite of the same, the Forum has directed to refund ...
T.K. Surendran, Mannarkkad Taluk Vs. P. Najima Bindu, Kannur District ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-03-2012
BASANT, J. 1. (i) Is the wife in a voidable marriage, annulled under Sec.12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, entitled to claim maintenance under Sec.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure? (ii) Can the statuary compassion in favour of the woman in distress in a terminated marriage and the legislative anxiety and concern to prevent vagrancy against women persuade courts to being such a woman in an annulled marriage within the sweep of the definition of deemed wife in Explanation (b) to Sec.125 Cr.P.C.? (iii) Can the changing norms in society evidenced by subsequent statutory instruments persuade the courts to expand entrenched concepts in society? 2. This theme and these questions fall for our consideration in this case. 3. We must acknowledge the efforts of Sri. P.K. Mohanan (Palakkad) and Sri. Sunil Nair, the learned counsel for the parties and Dr. Sebastian Champappilly who was requested to assist us as amicus curiae. Resolution of this controversy has, by no means, been easy or simple. A l...
Prof. C.V. Simon and Another Vs. the Secretary to Government Higher Ed ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-03-2012
RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. 1. This Writ Appeal is filed by two retired private college lecturers challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge declining their claim to reckon their past services in Central Government for the purpose of pension. 2. We have heard learned Senior counsel Shri.K.Ramakumar appearing for the appellants and learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. The short question arising is whether the services rendered by both the appellants in institutions under the Central Government prior to their joining aided colleges in the State as Lecturers could be reckoned for the purpose of pension. Admittedly, provision for pension under Part III of Kerala Service Rules are made applicable to private college lecturers under the Calicut University Statute. Part-III of KSR in Rule 9 defines what is qualifying service for the purpose of pension. Even though Rule 11 of Part III KSR speaks about power of the Government to provide for reckoning any other services rendered...
The New India Assurance Company Ltd Vs. Assarithodika Rukhiya and Othe ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-03-2012
Ramakrishna Pillai, J The tenant is in revision. 2. One Varikodan Aboobacker (hereinafter referred to as 'the landlord') of whom the respondents are the legal heirs approached the Rent Control Court, Manjeri for evicting the revision petitioner which is a public sector undertaking from the petition schedule premises under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 3. Admittedly, the petition schedule premises were let out to the revision petitioner for a period of five years from 1.3.2002 as per a registered lease deed. Alleging that the landlord's sons Ashraf and Siddique (respondents 2 and 5) are unemployed and are depending upon the landlord, he sought eviction of the revision petitioner from the petition schedule premises after an unsuccessful demand for vacant possession through a lawyer's notice. Starting a furniture show room was projected as the need. 4. The revision petitioner countered that they were occupyi...
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Org ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Feb-03-2012
SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER This appeal is preferred by the first opposite party who is aggrieved by the directions contained in the order dtd. 22.11.2010 of CDRF, Pathanamthitta in C.C. 140/08. As per the impugned order the first opposite party is under directions to pay the pensionary benefits to the complainant and also to pay interest at 6% P.A. for the pension arrears till payment. The second opposite party is directed to pay cost of Rs. 3,000/- The case of the complainant before the Forum was that he was an employee of the second opposite party from 1994 and that he was enrolled as a member of the Provident Fund in 1994 and that on attaining the age of 58, he retired from service on 31.5.2005 and when he applied for the Pensionary benefits from the first opposite party the same was denied on the ground that the complainant had not completed the minimum 10 years of service in his employment. It was stated by him that as per the terms of the first opposite party in the Adal...
K. Chellappan Vs. B. Sarojini Amma and Another
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-02-2012
Pius C. Kuriakose, J. 1. These revisions are filed by tenants who challenge the order of eviction passed against them by the Rent Control Appellate Authority on the ground of additional accommodation under sub-section (8) of Section 11. 2. RCR.133/04 corresponds to RCP.53/96 is in respect of two rooms in the ground floor of a two storied tiled building belonging to the landlady who is residing in the building portion situated on the back side of the above two storied tiled building. The revision petitioner in RCR.133/04 is conducting Bakery business in rooms in his possession. RCR.132/04 corresponds to RCP.52/96 is in respect of another room in the ground floor of the two storied tiled building adjacent to the rooms which are subject matter of RCP.53/96. The revision petitioner in RCR.132/04 is conducting tailoring business in that room. For the two rooms possessed by him, the revision petitioner in RCR.133/04 is paying a consolidated monthly rent of Rs.500/- which was re-fixed at that...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »