Kerala Court August 2012 Judgments

Union of India, Represented by the General Manager Vs. Parameswaranpil ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(4)ILR(Ker)1; 2012(4)KLJ82; 2012(4)KLT25(SN)(C.No.25)

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Railway administration appeals against the judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal granting compensation to the parents of Radhakrishna Pillai (for short, 'Pillai'), who died as a result of an incident on 11.11.2004. The Tribunal found that while travelling from Calicut to Kannur in Train No.619, he fell when that running train jerked violently, resulting in the door of the compartment swinging and smashing him down and that it was an "untoward incident" as defined in the Railways Act, 1989, (for short, the "Railways Act"), for which compensation is payable under Section 124A of that Act. The Tribunal repelled Railways' plea that he was not a 'bona fide' passenger. 2. The ground of the Railways in this appeal is confined to the plea that Pillai cannot be held to be a 'bona fide' passenger as his passenger ticket was not produced by the claimants, or recovered from his body. 3. Pillai was injured on 11.11.2004. He was removed to the hospital, from wher...

Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Kseb Nadathara, Thrissur and A ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellants were the opposite parties in OP.544/04 in the CDRF, Thrissur. The sole respondent in this appeal was the complainant. He was a consumer of the electricity supplied by the opposite parties. His consumer Number was 9833. It was alleged that he was running an SSI unit with the electricity supplied. The anti power theft squad attached to the opposite parties inspected his premises and disconnected electricity supply on 17.4.2004. The complainant was not present at the time of inspection. So, copy of the mahazar was not given to him. The opposite parties issued notice dated:19.4.2004 alleging theft of electricity and the complainant was asked to pay Rs.2,96,961/-. The bill is issued without any basis and is illegal. Hence the complaint to cancel the same. 2. The opposite parties contended that the complainant was not a consumer as defined under section 2(1)d(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. He is running a profit making establish...

Manager District Co-operative Bank, Melatoor and Another Vs. P.D. Scar ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellants were the opposite parties in CC.No.204/2010 in the CDRF, Malappuram. The sole complainant therein is the respondent. The complainant alleged that he had availed an OD loan from the opposite party No.1 on 26.3.08. The amount of loan availed was Rs.7lakhs repayable with interest at the rate of 15% per annum. He could not repay the loan on due date. The opposite parties demanded him to pay the entire amount with the interest within 60 days that was on or before 19.5.09. The opposite parties demanded Rs.804966/- including interest till 30.4.09. They sent another notice to the complainant demanding Rs.882/- till 7.9.10. On 8.2.10 the complainant had paid Rs.2 lakhs towards the loan but the opposite parties failed to credit that amount in the loan account. They credited the said amount towards the loan account only on 31.3.10. Subsequently the complainant paid various amounts and the total amount paid was Rs.9,73,660/-. He paid Rs.4085/...

C.K. Gangadharan Vs. Sumathi and Another

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLJ832; 2012(4)ILR(Ker)156

ORDER Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.205/2012 of Peramangalam Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xiv) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, for short S.C and ST (PA) Act. That crime was registered on a complaint by the second respondent, a member of a Schedule Caste, alleging that the petitioner had blocked a Panchayath road which has been enjoyed by her as of right. Annexure AII is the copy of her complaint on which the crime was registered. Even a cursory reading of that complaint would indicate that no offence under Section 3(1)(xiv) of the S.C and ST (PA) Act is made out as the essential ingredients to constitute such offence are not borne out by the allegations set out in that complaint, is the case of the petitioner for quashing Annexure AI F.I.R. registered over the crime. Section 3(1)(xiv) of the aforesaid Act reads thus: "(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Trib...

Mini Shanmughan Vs. Shanmughan and Another

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT916; 2012(4)ILR(Ker)32; 2012(4)KLJ1

1. Annexure A3 order passed in a proceeding under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act {for short “PWDV Act”} is challenged in this petition, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure {for short ‘the Code’}. Petitioner is the applicant in the proceedings under the Act before the magistrate. In the application moved under Section 12 of the Act, she claimed for some interim reliefs - a prohibitory order against the husband to insulate her peaceful occupation of the residence, and a claim for interim maintenance for her and two children from the respondent/husband. 2. After hearing the respondent/husband on the claim so made, the magistrate passed Annexure A1 order. The respondent/husband was restrained by an order of injunction from dispossessing the wife from the house and he was also directed to pay her a sum of Rs.5000/- per month from the date of petition. After the above orders wer...

G.L. Praveen Vs. the Secretary and Others

Court: Kerala

K.M. Joseph, J. 1. The petitioner participated in the entrance examination held by the Kerala Private Medical College Management Association. The third respondent is the Controller of Examination of the Association. The petitioner was ranked first in the entrance examination. He exercised his option for M.D. in Radio Diagnosis. He was allotted to the college of which the 4th respondent is the Director and the 5th respondent is the Principal. It is the case of the petitioner that he got allotment memo as per Ext.P5 dated 31/5/2012 and that he went to the college on 31/5/2012. But he could not produce the original certificates (Transfer Certificate and Mark List) as the same had been already given to the Pushpagiri medical College, Thiruvalla in which college he was selected for a Diploma Course. According to him, he filed Ext.P6 before the authorities of the respondent-College undertaking that the originals will be produced within three days. Going by the version in the amended writ, th...

Shihabudheen Vs. State of Kerala and Another

Court: Kerala

C.T. Ravikumar, J. 1. Whether the Full Bench decision of this court in Shan Vs. State of Kerala reported in 2010 (3) KLT 413 creates embargo on exercise of power under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (The Code) in respect of a vehicle seized in connection with commission of offence punishable under Section 23 of the Kerala Protection of River Bank and Regulation of removal of Sand Act, 2001 (for short ‘The Act’) within the period of six weeks from the date of seizure? This question is posed for consideration in this revision petition that is directed against the order in C.M.P. No.2799 of 2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perambra. He filed the said application under Section 457 of the Code to get interim custody of a tipper lorry bearing registration No. KL/10-P-2522 being its R.C. Owner. It was seized on 2-7-2012 alleging involvement in Crime No.342 of 2012 of Balussery Police Station registered under Section 23 of the Act. Though the sei...

K. Ramesh and Another Vs. M/S Sai Homes and Resorts and Others

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER These are complaints filed under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainants are brothers. They were working abroad. The identical allegations in these complaints after amendment are that the 1st opposite party represented by the 2nd opposite party is specialised in construction of flats and condominiums. The 3rd opposite party is the wife of the 2nd opposite party and is the land owner of the property on which the condominiums were proposed to be constructed. When the complainants came to India in March 1994 the 2nd opposite party approached them with the brochure, sketch etc of the flats and condominiums they were constructing in different places in South India. The complainants agreed to purchase two condominiums each from those proposed to be constructed in Ooty (Ootacamund). Each of the complainants paid a total amount of Rs.10,50,000/- towards price of the condominiums and the last payment was made on 6.11.95. An arti...

Saji Vs. State of Kerala, Rep by Sub Inspector of Police

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(4)KLT25(SN)(C.No.24); 2012(4)KLJ188

1. The revision petitioner is the first accused in C.C.No.386/1994 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Thodupuzha. The Sub Inspector of Police, Thodupuzha in Crime No.26/1994 prosecuted the revision petitioner and two others (accused 2 and 3) alleging offence under Sections 448 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 34 IPC. The learned Magistrate after a full fledged trial found the revision petitioner guilty for offence under Sections 448 and 353 IPC. Consequently, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under Section 353 IPC, and a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 448 IPC with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one and a half months. Accused 2 and 3 were found not guilty and acquitted. Assailing the above conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner preferred Crl.A.No.61/1998 before the Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha. By judgment dated 7.1.2002 the learned Sessions Judge, while confirming the conv...

N.P. Vijayan, Managing Partner Vs. the Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery) an ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(4)KLJ273; 2012(4)KLT318

Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. The question raised in the Writ Appeal is whether in the course of recovery of motor vehicle tax along with additional tax for default payable under Section 12 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act (hereinafter called "the MVT Act") default interest under Section 6 of the Revenue Recovery Act (herinafter called "the RR Act") also could be recovered by the Revenue Recovery authorities. Learned Single Judge upheld demand of interest under Section 6 of the RR Act against which the Writ Appeal is filed. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellant and also Government Pleader for the respondents. 2. The arrears of tax involved in this case is due for a stage carriage operated by the appellant. Vehicle fell in arrears of tax for the year 1999. The R.T.O. recommended recovery of motor vehicle tax and additional tax due under Section 12 of the MVT Act for recovery under the RR Act. The vehicle involved was seized and sold by the Revenue Recovery authorities fo...