Kerala Court August 2012 Judgments

Kum. Sreya Vinod Vs. Director of Public Instruction

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(4)KLJ261

RamachandranNair, J. This case is an eye-opener for the Government to realise that several Aided and Government Schools in the State are facing natural death on account of depletion of students and it is high time for the Government to take effective steps to make rearrangements in a realistic manner, keeping in mind the availability of quality education in large number of private schools already in existence and more coming up every day. 2. The Lower Primacy School in this case was started in the year 1967 at Ponkunnam, and it's decline started probably when two CBSE Schools were started in Ponkunnam and another two in the nearby area i.e. at Kanjirappally. In 2008- 09, the School had only 14 children from Standard I to IV, which came down steeply to 6 in 2009-10, and again to 3 in 2010-11. However, after Onam Holidays the School realised that 3 are only in record and really there is only one pupil in Standard I, who is none other than the daughter of the Teacher-in-charge. In other w...

E.P. Jose Vs. the Assistant Engineer, Kseb, Meppadi

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER Dissatisfied by the order passed by the CDRF, Wayanad, on dismissal of the complaint, the complainant/appellant came up in this appeal. 2. The complainants case is that the complainant is the beneficiary of the opposite party having a consumer No. 9738, the tariff considered was under LT I A. The premises was purchased by the complainant from one Mr. Mathew and while so on 29.09.08, the opposite parties issued demand notice to pay Rs.9,091/- along with change of tariff from LT I A to LT VII A which is an industrial connection. The issuance of the bill was challenged and also the unauthorized change of tariff was also challenged by the complainant before the Forum below in OP No. 137/08 which was allowed and the bill was set aside. The disputed bill was issued in the name of one Mr. Mathew who was the registered owner of consumer No.9738, then again bills issued on 26.04.2011 for Rs. 11,600/- and Rs.18,873/- on 4.7.2011 respectively. The complaint is filed before ...

P. Shameera Vs. the Manager, Rhea Motors, Sreehari Buildings, Opp.Fire ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER Dissatisfied by the order of dismissal in CC No.64/09 passed by CDRF, Wayanad the appellant/complainant came up in this appeal. 2. The case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased a Yamaha Motor cycle from the 1st opposite party, dealer by paying Rs.51,000/-. The vehicle was showing defects and found out scratches on the vehicle even though it is a branded new. It is stated in the complaint that the complainant took delivery of the vehicle after getting the assurance of the 1st opposite party to replace the vehicle with new one. It is alleged that during warranty period the opposite parties collected service charges also. It is the allegation of the complainant that the vehicle had manufacturing defect and the 1st opposite party is liable for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complaint was filed for replacement of the vehicle or to return Rs.51,000/- with 12% interest from the date of purchase. The complainant also prayed for d...

The Manager, Shriram Investments Ltd. (Shriram Transport Finance Co.Lt ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellant was the opposite party in CC.284/06 in the CDRF, Kannur. The complainants are the respondents. The complaint was filed seeking return of excess amount collected by the opposite party/Shriram Investments Limited with interest and other reliefs. The allegation was that complainant No.1 had availed a loan of Rs.3,10,000/- from the opposite party on 15.4.04. Complainant No.2 was the guarantor for the transaction. At the time of execution of the loan agreement the opposite party had obtained two blank cheques from cheque book issued by SBI and four blank cheque leaves from the cheque book issued by Anjarakandy Farmers Co-operative Bank. In addition opposite party obtained signed blank papers and blank papers signed on revenue stamps affixed. Upto11.9.06 complainant paid Rs.3,10,000/- towards the loan. When the complainants requested the opposite party to settle the transaction exorbitant amount was demanded. At last legal notice was s...

N.K. Chandran Pillai Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by the District ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(4)KLT4; 2012(4)KLJ130

PIUS C. KURIKOSE, J. 1. This Review Petition is filed by the claimant seeking review of our judgment in an appeal preferred by the Government. The valuation of the appeal was Rs.16,51,699/-. The review petitioner/ claimant has not remitted any court fee on the review petition, invoking Section 73A of the Kerala Court Fees And Suits Valuation Act and Rules. 2. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant/review petitioner and those of learned Government Pleader Smt. Rose Michael. 3. The learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted that under Section 73A there is a special provision regarding the suits, appeals, revisions etc. filed by or on behalf of the Government before the Court and as per that provision no court fee is chargeable in respect of such suit, appeal, or revision, review of review or other pleadings or documents under the provisions of the Court Fees Act. According to the review petitioner, as the review petition arises out of such an appe...

A. Gireeshkumar and Others Vs. State of Kerala Rep. by Public Prosecut ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT901; 2012(4)ILR(Ker)125; 2012(4)KLJ112

1. Petitioners in the above two Crl.M.C.s are the accused in Crime No.231 of 2011 of Vanchiyoor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram registered for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act {for short "the Act"}. Crl.M.C.No.1365 of 2011 is filed by the 2nd and 3rd accused (A2 and A3) and Crl.M.C.No.1517 of 2011, by the 1st and 4th accused (A1 and A4) in the aforesaid crime, and both petitions are moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure {for short "the Code"}, for quashing the criminal proceedings against them. 2. Annexure 3 is the FIR registered in the crime. The aforesaid crime was registered on a complaint given by additional 2nd respondent/de facto complainant to the Commissioner of Police, Thiruvananthapuram. Annexure 1 is, in fact, a communication sent to the above police officer through post. The de facto complainant, a member of the Scheduled Caste, retired from service as the Head of the Departm...

P.S. Jayan Vs. State of Kerala, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(4)KLJ71; 2012(4)KLT240

R. Ranjith, J. 1. Petitioner proceeded as an additional accused (A3) in a pending case by the magistrate under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”), has filed the above petition to quash Annexure 2 order so passed as an abuse of the process of the court, invoking the inherent powers of this court under Section 482 of the Code. 2. Short facts necessary for disposal of the case can be summed up thus: As against two accused, parents of the present petitioner, on a report filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kattappana in Crime No.86/09 cognizance of the offences under Sections 323, 324, 326 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code {for short “the IPC”} was taken by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kattappana numbering the case as C.C.No.171/09. After the appearance of the accused and compliance of the formalities, the trial proceeded. The evidence of the de facto complainant was recorded as PW.1. In her exami...

George Vs. State of Kerala Rep. by Public Prosecutor

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(4)KLT48; 2012(4)KLJ193

1. The revision petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.1834/1997 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Thrissur. PW5, the Excise Inspector attached to Thrissur Excise range prosecuted the revision petitioner alleging offence under Section 58 of the Abkari Act with a plea that at 8 p.m on 23.3.1996, PW1, the Circle Inspector of Police attached to Thrissur Town East Police Station detected out 41 packets, each containing 100 mls of illicit arrack and 37 packets, each containing 160 mls of illicit arrack from the possession of the revision petitioner. 2. Material objects were seized and samples were taken. Following the detection and seizure of the illicit arrack, PW1 registered a case as Crime No.176/1996 of Thrissur Town East Police Station. The revision petitioner along with the material objects and samples were forwarded to PW5, who re-registered a case as Crime No.13/1996 for which Ext.P2 occurrence report was preferred. After completing investigation, charge sheet wa...

Xavier Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police

Court: Kerala

1. We have heard Sri. Basil Attipetty, counsel for the review petitioner and Sri. Manuvilsan and Sri. K. Shaj, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, apart from hearing the learned Government Pleader extensively. The apprehension which was voiced before us by Mr. basil Attipetty was that our judgment will stand in the way of even daily prayers being conducted in the privacy of the houses of the petitioners. The learned counsel drew our attention to the order in R.P. No.143 of 2012 in W.P. (C) No.6057 of 2011 (2012(1) KLT 477). *Ed. Note: Reported in 2012 (1) KLT 477 - Binu Baby v. Dy. Superintendent of Police. Sri. P. Haridas, learned counsel for the petitioner in R.P. No. 750 of 2012 submitted that it may not be sufficient if the members of the immediate family alone are permitted to say their prayers in the respective houses. The persons living in the immediate neighbourhood also should be permitted. Sri. Attipetty would submit that Bible (Psalm 151) contemplates lo...

Thomas Mathew, M/S. Jnj Industries Vs. Manager, New India Assurance Co ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER When this appeal came up for hearing on the question of admission the counsel for the appellant submitted that the complaint was dismissed for default as per the order passed by the CDRF, Pathanamthitta in CC No.155/2006. The complainant was not in a position to appear before the Forum below to contest the case. The counsel prayed to remand the case to the Forum Below in order to contest the case on merits. 2. This Commission find it just and proper to admit the appeal and remand back the case to the Forum below in order to contest the case on merits. The appeal is allowed and is remanded back to the Forum below. On payment of Rs.1,000/- to the legal aid fund of this Commission. 3. The case stands posted before the Forum below on 17.9.2012. Office is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Forum below....