Kerala Court June 2012 Judgments

Ramachandran Vs. Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Kseb and Anot ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellant was the complainant in CC No.214/08 in the CDRF Malappuram. He was a consumer of electricity supplied to his house by the opposite parties. He approached the Forum alleging that he had been paying electricity charges regularly. The electric meter installed by the opposite parties was noted to make abnormal sound and glow of light was seen all the time. The complainant intimated this to 1st opposite party but the meter was not changed saying that there was no stock of meters. On 06.05.2008 he gave a complaint directly and noted the same in the complaint book provided by the opposite parties. There after two persons from the office of opposite parties came and checked the meter and informed the complainant that it was not working properly. They repaired the meter and checked the entire wiring. They said that the meter was not working and it would be replaced within two days. The complainant and his family did not suspect foul play...

Airport Authority of India, R/by the Airport Director, Calicut Interna ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellant was the 1st opposite party in CC.234/09 in the CDRF, Malappuram. The 1st respondent in this appeal was the complainant. He alleged that he was employed abroad with a salary of Rs.50,000/- per month. He came to the native place at Feroke in Malappuram District on 6.3.2009 on leave for sixty days. To rejoin his job on 9.5.09, he reached CalicutAirportfor his return journey on 6.5.09 at 4 am. He took the boarding pass and proceeded to security check. He put his suitcase for security check up. Then the personnel in charge required him to affix the check in sticker on the wallet. This was against the normal procedure in his experience. When he came back within 2 minutes the suitcase put up for security check was found missing. Immediately he lodged a complaint with the opposite parties but they did not take any action to find out the lost suitcase. Since they did not take any action, the complainant had to cancel the journey because the im...

Hero Electric Company Vs. K. Damodaran and Another

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellant was the 1st opposite party in CC.61/10 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. 1st respondent was the complainant. He approached the Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and the 2nd opposite party in the following matter. The complainant is an agriculturist and wanted to purchase a two wheeler. He approached the 2nd opposite party and told his requirements. The 2nd opposite party recommended Hero Electric scooter. The complainant was told that the vehicle weighs 65Kgm and it can run a distance of 70KM, when the meter for the battery shows full charge. The complainant had specifically enquired whether the vehicle was suitable to be used in a place like Venjaramood which has terrain having up and down gradients. The 2nd opposite party assured that the vehicle was suitable for such a terrain. Accordingly the complainant purchased the vehicle on 31.3.09. On 14.3.09 when the vehicle was driven to Venjaram...

Enathu Service Co-operative - Bank Ltd No. 2529, (Represented by Its S ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER The order under attack is made by the opposite party in CC No.51/05 on the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta. 2. The complainant opened a recurring deposit on 11.09.2002 with the opposite party vide account No.717. The complainant is to pay Rs.4,000/- per month for 120 months and the amount will be returned with interest at its maturity value with Rs.9,78,400/-. On 10.01.2005, the opposite party intimated the depositors that a reduced amount will be paid to the depositors @ 7.5% interest and will not be collecting future investments. The complainant did not exercise their option and insisted on continuation of the recurring deposit as per earlier agreement. It is the very case of the complainant that the opposite party acted unilaterally and withdrew from the concluded contract and it is illegal. The complaint is filed to direct the opposite party to continue to operate the account as per the terms and conditions already agreed and also for compensation and cost. 3. T...

T.K. Padmakshi Vs. Ammalu Amma and Others

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLJ356; 2012(3)ILR(Ker)852; 2012(4)KLT150

Harilal, J. 1. This is the third revision stemmed from R.C.P 19/1998 of the Rent Control Court Vadakara, which was filed two and a half decades ago, seeking eviction under 11 (3) of the Kerala Building lease and Rent Control Act. Despite the long lapse of time, the parties have won and lost alternatively at different stages in the hierarchy of appellate courts and went up to the Apex Court twice, the original petition is still awaiting for its finality. 2. The revision petitioner has sought eviction contending inter alia that her elder son Anoop Krishnan aged 25 years is not having any avocation and that the tenanted premises is bona fide required for him to eke out his livelihood. Initially, the original tenant has resisted the rent control petition contending inter alia that he is entitled to get the right of fixity of tenure under the Kerala Land Reform Act, 1963. The Rent Control Court found that the tenant has the right of fixity of tenure and he is not a tenant falling under the ...

Vasudeva Menon and Others Vs. M/S. K.J. Plantation

Court: Kerala

K.M. Joseph, J. The Appeals being connected, they are disposed of by this common Judgment. 2. The three Execution First Appeals are filed by defendants 16 to 21 in O.S No.1 of 1964 on the file of the District Court, Palakkad. Ex. F. A. No.13/2010 is filed against the order in EA.No.33/99. Ex. F. A. No.8/2010 is against the order in EA.No.41/10. Ex. F. A. No.12/2010 is directed against the order in EA. No.38/09. The said Suit, OS.No.1/64 was one for partition. Following a preliminary decree, a final decree came to be passed. As per the final decree, the appellants who are, in fact, the legal heirs of the deceased first defendant, were alloted B Schedule property in Ext.C3 Report. The final decree is dated 21/02/2003. The appellants filed EP. No.7 of 2008 for taking delivery of the B Schedule property. According to them, they were constrained to seek police aid. When the Amin went to take delivery of the properties, delivery was obstructed by the respondents in the respective Appeals. Th...

Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. K. Jitha Kumar and Others

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(4)KLT306

1. The above petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short, the 'Code' to quash Annexure-A2 charge framed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track III, Thiruvananthapuram in S.C.No.1542 of 2006 and to order de novo trial in the case on the basis of the report filed in R.C.10/S/07/CBI/SCB/Chennai. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the petition can be summed up thus: Petitioner is the Central Bureau of Investigation, for short, the 'C.B.I', which was entrusted with the investigation of a crime, Crime No.704 of 2005 of Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram involving the death of one Udayakumar allegedly on account of police torture while in custody at the above police station. C.B.I was entrusted with the investigation by order of this Court in a writ petition filed by the mother of the victim at a stage when trial against three accused persons on the basis of a report filed after completion of the investigation by the Crime Branch was in...

State of Kerala, Principal Secretary to Government General Administrat ...

Court: Kerala

ManjulaChellur, Ag. CJ., Writ Appeal Nos. 1414/2011 and 1385/2011 are between the parties in the original application before the learned Single Judge. 2. Writ Appeal Nos.1825 /2011and 1823/2011 are filed by third parties seeking leave of the court to file appeals contending that they are aggrieved by the directions of the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment. 3. The brief facts lead to the filing of W.A. Nos.1414 and 1385 of 2011 are as under:- The party respondents in these appeals were the writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge. It is not in dispute that writ petitioners were appointed initially as Assistant Grade- II in the Administrative Secretariat, and later on, they were appointed by recruitment by transfer to the post of Block Development Officer ("BDO" for short) in the Rural Development Department by order dated 28-09-1993. According to the writ petitioners, after they were transferred to the Rural Development Department, probation in the said department wa...

Dr. M. Padmanabha Shenoy and Others Vs. State of Kerala, Rep. by Publi ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLJ821

ORDER 1. Petitioners are accused 1 to 3 in C.C.No.208/2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Kannur. The 2nd respondent herein filed Annexure A6 complaint against the petitioners and three others alleging offence under Section 304 read with 34 IPC. 1st petitioner is the 1st accused. Petitioners 2 and 3 were arrayed as accused 4 and 5. In the complaint, accused 2 and 3 are two other doctors. After taking the sworn statement of the 2nd respondent and other witnesses, the learned Magistrate discharged the accused 2 and 3 in the complaint. Cognizance was taken against the petitioners for offence under Section 304A read with 34 IPC and process was issued. Assailing the order taking cognizance and seeking an order to quash Annexure A6 complaint in exercise of the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure this petition is filed. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the daughter of the 2nd respondent, Vidya, aged 13 years, was brought to the hospit...

M/S. Hotel Malika Residency Vs. State of Kerala and Others

Court: Kerala

A common question arises in these writ petitions. The parties are also the same. They were therefore heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. W.P.(C)No.6494 of 2012 is treated as the main case and unless otherwise mentioned, the parties and documents referred to, are with reference to the said writ petition. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 2. "M/s. Hotel Malika Residency", the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6494 of 2012 is a partnership firm. It is running a hotel at Ettumanoor under the name and style "Hotel Malika Residency". Ext.P1 licence in form FL-3 was issued to the Managing Partner of the petitioner firm under rule 13(3) of the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the rules" for short) on 8.8.2006. The licence which was initially valid till 31.3.2007, was being periodically renewed and the last of the renewals was valid till 31.3.2012. After the FL-3 licence was renewed for the year 2010-2011, the partners of the petitioner firm...