Kerala Court June 2012 Judgments

P. Balachandran and Others Vs. the State of Kerala, Represented by the ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLJ474; 2012(3)ILR(Ker)580

1. These petitions were filed by the petitioner for quashing the order in C.M.P.1327/1995 and C.P.No.112/2004, C.M.P.5731/95 and C.P.115/2004 and C.M.P.No.2712/95 and C.P.No.113/2004 and all further proceedings in pursuance to and in furtherance thereof pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kuthuparamba. 2. C.M.P.Nos.1327/95, 5731/95 and 2712/95 are private complaints filed against the petitioner and other accused for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 120B read with Section 34 I.P.C. for the murder of the complainant’s son or brother, as the case may be, in the respective complaints. 3. The complainant’s case is that on 25.11.1994, the accused persons opened fire with their common intention to commit murder of the victims in the respective complaints without any provocation. On 25.11.1994 at 11 a.m., Sri.M.V. Raghavan the then Minister for Co-operation, the accused named in the complaint was to inaugurate the evening branch of the Kuthupar...

Ravada A. Chandrasekhar Vs. the State of Kerala, Rep. by Public Prosec ...

Court: Kerala

B.P. Ray, J. 1. These petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. were filed against the order dated 16.7.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kuthuparamba in CMP Nos.1327/95, 2712/95 and 5731/95 wherein cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 120B read with Section 34 I.P.C. has been taken and process has been issued against the petitioner and three others. Petitioner has invoked the inherent power of this Court to quash the impugned order of cognizance on the ground inter alia: a) Act or omission committed by the petitioner does not constitute any of the offences alleged; b) There is no material to show that the petitioner had shared the common intention to commit an offence. Cognizance taken with the aid of Section 34 I.P.C. is bad; c) The petitioner was deputed for maintenance of law and order. Since the occurrence took place while the petitioner was discharging his official duty, prosecution is barred without a valid sanction; d) The...

M/S.H and R Johnson (India) Ltd. and Others Vs. K.M. Joshi

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR,MEMBER The order dated 15.3.11 of CDRF, Malappuram in CC.58/05 is being assailed in this appeal by the opposite parties who are under directions to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.70,000/- as compensation towards defects of tiles and Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as costs for the proceedings before the Forum below. 2. The complainant had approached the Forum stating that he had placed orders for 92 boxes of 16 x 16 Johnson CHIANTO floor tiles worth Rs.40,940/- along with 9 other items from the third opposite party and that on laying the tiles it was found that there were bubbles like protrusion in some tiles and the surfaces were found to be uneven. The complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in giving defective tiles to the complainant and complaint he had sought for directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs.2,71,940/- and cost of the proceedings. 3. The first and second opposite parties in th...

Dr.P.V.Nair, Consultant Surgeon, Gynaecologist and Proprietor of Surgi ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The order dated:3.01.05 of CDRF, Kannur in OP.148/00 is being assailed in this appeal by the opposite party who is under directions to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.15,975/- with costs of Rs.1000/- within one month from the date of receipt of the order of the Forum. 2. The complainants case was that she had approached the opposite party on 9.12.99 consequent to a snake bite and that though one Dr.Charles of the hospital of the opposite party was required for treatment, the opposite party himself treated her and that it was only by her fortune that she was saved from the snake bite. It was also her case that it was unnecessary that 14 vials of ASV were injected to the complainant within 10 hours and that too without conducting proper lab tests. It was her very case that it was at the repeated requests that she was removed to CalicutMedical Collegefor better treatment and she was saved because of the timely intervention of the doctors in the medic...

The Administrator, St. Sebastian’s Hospital and Another Vs. Reena ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER This appeal is filed by the opposite parties in CC No.18/97 before the CDRF, Kannur who are aggrieved by the directions contained in the order dated: 22.10.02 wherein and whereby the opposite parties are to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation together with cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant within 1 month from the date of the order of the Forum below. 2. The complainant had approached the Forum stating that on 4.4.96 at about 5 am she was admitted in the 1st opposite party hospital with severe labour pain and she was in need of the service of a Gynaecologist and though she had repeatedly requested the Resident Medical Officer on duty to call for the Gynaecologist, the same was not heeded to and only very late that the Gynaecologist came and took out the baby. It is her case that due to the delay and deficiency in service on the part of the doctors in the 1st opposite party hospital, she had given a still birth to her child and alleging deficiency i...

Xavier's Residency, Represented By Its Managing Director and Another V ...

Court: Kerala

1. The first petitioner is a partnership firm, which has established a three star hotel located within the limits of the Kollam Corporation. The second petitioner is stated to be an employee of the hotel. The hotel has been issued a FL-3 licence, which has been renewed from time to time and is valid upto 31/3/13. 2. In this writ petition, petitioners challenge the validity of Rule 28 of the Foreign Liquor Rules, which was substituted by notification dated 18th of April 2012. This rule read as under; "28 (1) FL-3 Hotels (Restaurants) functioning within a Panchayat or Municipality shall not be kept open before 8' O clock in the morning and after 11' o clock in the night. FL-3 Hotels (Restaurants) functioning within Corporation limits shall not be kept open before 9' O clock in the morning and after 12' O clock in the night. No FL-1 shop shall be kept open before 9' O clock in the morning and after 11' O clock in the night. (2) The Deputy Commissioner of Excise shall be competent to fix t...

Roshan Alex, Proprietor, M/S Queen Suvari Vs. Balakrishnan

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER Being aggrieved by the directions contained in the order dated:29.07.11 of CDRF, Palakkad, the 3rd opposite party has come up in this appeal calling for the interference of this commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below. As per the impugned order the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.21,675/- with compensation of Rs.5000/- and costs of Rs.2000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order till realization. 2. The case of the complainant before the Forum was that he had purchased a value electric bike from the 2nd opposite party for a sum of Rs.28,900/- and that he purchased the same on the basis of the tall claims of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties regarding the mileage, pulling power etc. It was his case that the vehicle could not run even 10 Kmph even...

T.O. Lonappan, Proprietor Vs. Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section a ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : HON. ACTING PRESIDENT On this day this appeal came before this commission for admission with a petition to condone the delay for filing the appeal in time. Initially heard the IA No. 758/12 and it is argued that there is a delay of 15 days for filing the appeal. The delay is condoned by allowing this IA then admitted the appeal. Heard the appellant and the opposite party in detail. 2. In short, the complainant is having a case that he is a consumer of the opposite parties vide electricity connection No.7253. He conducted a firm for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment. The opposite parties inspected the premises of the firm on 15.6.04 and issued a bill for Rs.1,47,622/- on 16.6.04. The opposite parties issued a notice and the allegations in the above notice were unauthorized consumption of 1 KW electricity and unauthorized consumption of electricity to the outside premises to the tune of 5 KW. These allegations were derived by the ...

Royal Sundaram Alliance - Insurance Company Ltd., Corporate Claims Dep ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER The opposite parties are the appellants who came up in this appeal against the order passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam in CC NO. 246/10. 2. The case of the complainant is that the complainant availed a health insurance policy from the opposite parties from Sep 2005 onwards. The policy covers the complainant, his father and mother. The policy is to be renewed annually as such the complainant renewed the policy from 2005 to 2010. It is the case of the complainant that he issued a cheque for the policy amount in 3.09.08 ie prior to the expiry of the previous policy. The said cheque was returned after much delay stating that the branch name was not shown in that cheque. Immediately the complainant rectified the defect which was encashed by the opposite parties. Thereafter, the complainants mother was hospitalized for treatment under claim no. HR 55675 of the opposite parties. This claim was repudiated on 06.10.09, on the ground that the claim comes under 1st year exclusi...

M. Devaki Nambudiri Vs. the Chairman, Unit Trust of India and Others

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The order dated 1.12.2010 of CDRF, Kozhikode in C.C. 201/06 is being challenged in this appeal by the complainant who is dis satisfied with the dismissal of the complaint filed by him before the Forum below. 2. The complainant had approached the Forum stating that she had taken a senior citizen Unit plan 93, from the opposite parties on 3.2.1999 at the age of 52 and as per the plan, she was entitled to get regular annual payments on attaining the age of 58 and consequent to her attaining the age of 58, she requested for disbursement of the annuity entitled to her . It is her case that even though she was entitled for getting the annuity, the opposite parties rejected her claim stating that the U TI had not declared any appreciation annuity after 7.8.02 and hence she was not eligible for the claim. Alleging deficiency in service, the complainant prayed for directions to the opposite parties to pay the annuity amount with effect from September, 2004 wit...