Kerala Court February 2012 Judgments
Joshi Domini Vs. Stateof Kerala, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-23-2012
ORDER In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner, who is the second accused in C.C. 280 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chalakudy, seeks an order to quash Annexure C final report accusing him for offence under Sections 120(b) (sic), 405 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code with a plea that even going by the averments in the final report, no offence is made out against him to send him for trial. Column No. (16) of Annexure C reads as follows: (Malayalam Language) 2. Going by the above report I find that this is a clear case of breach of an agreement for sale. There is no case of entrustment of any property to the petitioner, who is the second accused. Therefore, there is no trust or breach of trust to make out an offence under Section 405 or 406 I.P.C. as against the petitioner. Of course, the defacto complainant has got a case that gift deed was executed in favour of the petitioner by the first accused who is none oth...
Tag this Judgment!Nandakumar and Another Vs. K.V. Jayanand
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Feb-23-2012
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the respondents in EA.10/08 in CC.325/02 in the file of CDRF, Kannur. The respondents are under orders to return the gold ornaments pledged failing which steps are ordered to be initiated under sec.27 of the Consumer Protection Act. 2. It is the contention of the appellants that as per the order of the Forum in CC.325/02 which has been confirmed in appeal the direction is to pay the rupee equivalent of the gold at the market rate as on 2002 and hence they are liable to pay the value of the gold only and that they are not liable to return the gold ornaments as such. It is also pointed out that the appellants had deposited the amount towards the price of the gold on 15.12.2008 before the Forum. 3. We find that as per the order of the Forum in CC.325/02 dated:24.10.05, the opposite parties/appellants are under orders to return the gold ornaments after receiving the principal amount of Rs.60,500/- + interest at the rate of 12% from...
Tag this Judgment!Roshan Alex Vs. Ambika and Another
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Feb-23-2012
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the 1st opposite party/dealer in CC 71/09 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad. The opposite parties/dealer and manufacturer are under orders to refund a sum of Rs.17340/- towards cost of the vehicle and to pay Rs.5000/- towards compensation and Rs.3000/- towards costs. 2. The case of the complainant is that she purchased a Value Electric motor cycle on 3.3.97 on payment of Rs.28900/-. She could not use the vehicle properly due to the mal functioning of the batteries. One of the batteries were replaced and repairs effected on 21.2.08 within a few months. Again it was found that batteries are not supplying sufficient power.. The complainant was not able to ride the vehicle as many kms as promised. While riding the vehicle stopped even before reaching 5 Kms on a day. She is not in a position to use it since October 2008. She approached the opposite party for getting the batteries repaired and replacing the tyres which were worn out. The 1s...
Tag this Judgment!Har Auto Pvt. Ltd. Har Avenue, Kannothumchal Vs. C.M. Radhakrishnan
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Feb-23-2012
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/dealers in CC.318/08 in the file of CDRF, Kannur. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.17,427/- as the balance amount of interest and an amount of Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he booked a Maruthi Swift D Zire vehicle on paying the entire price of Rs.6,66, 567/- on 20.4.08. The opposite parties agreed to deliver the vehicle within 2 weeks. The vehicle was delivered only on 30.07.2008 ie after 3 months and 10 days. According to the complainant he is entitled for interest on the amount paid at the rate of 21% from 20.04.2008 to 30.07.2008. The opposite party paid only Rs.7,223/- towards interest. 3. The opposite parties have contended that there was no agreement that the vehicle will be delivered within 2 weeks and further as per the guidelines of the company the customers are entitled to get interest according to the prevailing norms...
Tag this Judgment!The Manager, Icici Bank Ltd. Vs. Thankachan Panackal and Another
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Feb-23-2012
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the 1st opposite party/bank in CC.168/07 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.2,49,129/- with interest at 7% and cost of Rs.1000/- 2. The appellant/1st opposite party was ex-parte before the Forum. 3. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Toyota Innova Car for a sum of Rs.7,30,000/-. Out of it Rs.4,75,000/- was financed by 1st opposite party/bank. The vehicle was purchased from one Mr.Rajamany, Thiurvananthapuram. It is alleged that at the time of financing the entire records of the vehicle was taken by the bank for the purpose of effecting the transfer in the RC and endorsement of the hypothecation etc and obtained signed blank papers for the above purposes. It was assured that the new policy, copy of RC book etc will be provided . The documents were returned only on 7.2.07 after making endorsement of the hypothecation with effect from 5.2.07. On 8.2.07 the vehicle met ...
Tag this Judgment!P.H. Abdul Sukkur Vs. Additional District Magistrate and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-22-2012
Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. Appellants filed the writ petition challenging the order of the Additional District Magistrate approving the drawal of high tension line over appellants' property which is said to be a mango plantation. According to appellants, one line is already drawn over the property and another one is proposed over the property. The counsel appearing for the respondents denied the allegations by stating that one and the only line is passing over the appellants' property and towers are already installed for completing the project at the earliest. The learned Single Judge upheld the order of the Additional District Magistrate, without going into the merits of the case. 2. However, after hearing both sides what we notice is that the ADM has taken the view that the situation is beyond his control which in our view is not correct. Electric line has to be necessarily drawn by making it a straight line, as far as possible keeping the length to the minimum and causing least inconv...
Tag this Judgment!Paulose @ Paulo Vs. Elias K.Varghese and Another
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-22-2012
V. RAMKUMAR, J. 1. In this appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1(na) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellant who was the petitioner in P.O.P No.6/2010 on the file of the Sub Court, North Paravur challenges the order dtd.3.1.2011 passed by the Court below dismissing his application to institute the suit as an indigent person. In the proposed suit he is seeking a declaration that the assignment deed purported to be executed by him in favour of defendant No.1 with respect to A schedule property admeasuring 9 = cents of immovable property is a nullity. According to the appellant he is a coolie worker and he merely offered his property as a security to oblige the 1st defendant, a builder to avail a loan from the 2nd defendant and it was only later that he discovered that a fraud had been practiced on him by the 1st defendant by getting an assignment deed executed by the appellant. The plea is one of non est factum. There is no dispute that the total extent of the property possessed by th...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Periyar Cements Pvt Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and Another
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-22-2012
RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. 1. The appellant in the writ appeal and the petitioner in the writ petitions is one and the same party which is in arrears of tax of around Rs.60 lakhs due for the assessment years 2002-2003 till 2008-2009. Capital goods brought by the assessee for installation in their factory at Kanjikode are detained in the Check Post on allegation of attempted evasion of tax in respect of the goods. One more ground in support of the detention stated in the notice is that the appellant/petitioners are in arrears of tax for which goods can be detained as provided u/s 47(4) of KVAT Act. Single Judge directed adjudication before release of goods against which the writ appeal is filed. Petitioner has filed writ petitions for direction to the appellate authorities to dispose of the various statutory appeals pending against assessments under which arrears are due. 2. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner and senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents. ...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India Vs. Been Abraham and Others
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Feb-22-2012
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the 3rd opposite party/SBI in CC16/09 in the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta. 2. The matter is with respect to housing loan dues vide the housing loan provided by the 3rd opposite party to the deceased husband of the 1st complainant who died on 2.11.07. The loan was insured with opposite parties 1 and 2 with effect from 13.10.03. Opposite parties 1 and 2 repudiated the claim alleging that the deceased was having pre existing illness. The Forum rejected the contention of the opposite parties 1 and 2/insurers and directed the insurers to settle the loan account by paying the amount due up to 2.11.2007 as per the terms of the loan agreement and thereafter till payment interest at 9%. The above direction is disputed by the 3rd opposite party bank/appellant. 3. It is the case of the appellants that the amounts due to the appellants till the date of payment should be as per the terms of the loan agreement and that the restriction placed by...
Tag this Judgment!The Branch Manager South Indian Bank Ltd. and Another Vs. C.D. Johnson
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Feb-22-2012
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/South Indian Bank in OP 6/97 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The appellants are under orders to pay Rs.25,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of complaint and 6% from the date of the order of the Forum ie; 5.1.2011. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he had taken a demand draft for Rs.25,000/- from the first opposite party Branch of the Bank at Thrissur in the name of Veerendrakumar, New Delhias account payee. The same was sent to Veerendrakumar. Subsequently, it was found that somebody else obtained the above DD and encashed the same. It is alleged that the loss of DD has taken place due to the negligence on the part of the opposite parties. He has sought for refund of the amount of DD and Rs.5000/- as compensation. 3. On the other hand, the opposite parties have stated that the DD bearing No.675159 dated 12.8.96 for Rs.25,000/- in favour of one Veerendrakumar payable at New Delhi Can...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »