Kerala Court September 2012 Judgments

K. Chandran Vs. Ponnappa Moothan and Another

Court: Kerala

P.S. Gopinathan, J. 1. The revision petitioner was prosecuted by the first respondent before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Palakkad in C.C.No.55/1999 alleging offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). By judgment dated 17/9/2001 the learned Magistrate arrived at a finding that offence under Section 415 IPC was established, convicted under Section 417 IPC and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.5,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 2. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, he preferred Crl.A.393/2001 before the Sessions Judge, Palakkad. The Additional Sessions Judge, Palakkad to whom the appeal was made over, by judgment dated 31/1/2004, while confirming the conviction and sentence, dismissed the appeal. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence this revision petitioner is preferred. 3. The allegations against the revision petit...

State of Kerala Represented by Secretary to Government Taxes and Other ...

Court: Kerala

RamachandranNair, J. 1. Hotels and restaurants in Kerala with FL-3 licence were allowed to sell liquor in the Bar under Rule 28 of the Foreign Liquor Rules (hereinafter called "the Rules") from sun rise to midnight i.e. from 6 a.m. to 12 p.m. However, an amendment was introduced to this Rule with effect from 18.4.2002 prescribing different working hours for FL- 3 Hotels/Restaurants functioning in Panchayat and Municipal areas on the one side and such Hotels/Restaurants functioning in Corporation limits on the other side. While in Municipal and Panchayat areas Bar Hotels were allowed to sell liquor from 8' O clock in the morning till 11.00 in the night, for Hotels/Restaurants in Corporation area, time fixed for business was from 9' O clock in the morning to 12.00 in the night. This Rule was challenged by the Hotels in Corporation areas contending that fixation of different time for commencement of business is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The learned Si...

P.K. Thampi Raj Vs. State Bank of Travancore

Court: Kerala

RamachandranNair, J. The first appellant died during pendency of this Writ Appeal, and the 2nd appellant being his wife, we permitted impleadment of the three children of the appellants' as additional appellants 3 to 5 by allowing impleading application i.e. I.A.No.711/2012. The original appellants, who are husband and wife, availed a loan of Rs.15,000/- from State Bank of Travancore 30 years back and committed default. The Bank filed suit which was decreed in 1984 for an amount of Rs 19,500/-. The mortgaged property which was a commercial building in the town with appurtenant land was let out on rent and even by attachment and recovery of rent for a little over one year would have been sufficient to recover the decree- debt of less than Rs 20,000/-. The 2nd appellant, who is the co-borrower with her late husband, who is no more, is in a parallelized condition on account of Meningitis. Among their three children, one daughter is mentally retarded and one child is a ...

A.J. Joseph Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(4)KLT322

The petitioner is the complainant in Crl.M.P.No. 4588/2004 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kottayam. The said complaint filed by the petitioner as extracted by the petitioner himself in this Criminal R.P. , reads as follows: "the petitioner is accused No. 5 in S.C. No. 140 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court Ad hoc-II (Fast Track-II), Kottayam. The offences alleged against him are under Sections 201 and 218 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. The offences alleged against accused Nos. 1 to 4 in the above Sessions Case are under Sections 120B, 449, 394 and 302 of I.P.C. They are also charged with the offences under Sections 201 and 218 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. The 6th accused is also charged with offences under Sections 201 and 218 of I.P.C. read with Section 34 of I.P.C. The accused in the private complaint was the investigating officer who laid the charge sheet in the above Sessions case. The accused falsely recorded the statement of CW-43 C.M. Pathrose under Se...

Ziyad Ali International Education Council Vs. Commissioner of Police, ...

Court: Kerala

RamachandranNair, J. The above impressive pictures of models wearing uniform and insignia of Merchant Navy Captains attracted lot of aspirants to unauthorised Marine Technology Institutes, one such Institute is run by the appellant/petitioner herein against whom the Kochi City Police Commissioner issued prohibitory orders against conduct of the unauthorisd courses. When complaint was received against the petitioner/appellant by the City Police Commissioner, Kochi, about running of unauthorised marine courses, he sought clarification from the Director General of Shipping (DGS). The DGS through Ext.P12 letter produced in WP(C) No.1723/2011 clarified to the Police Commissioner that the Institute run by the appellant/petitioner is not approved by the DGS and so much so whatever be the Diploma awarded by the Institute, the students passing out from there will not get Continuous Discharge Certificate (CDC) and Seafarer's Identity Document without which they will not be entitled to get employ...

The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Tharail Chambers Vs. ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER This appeal is preferred by the opposite party against the order passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam in CC No.323/09 wherein the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.60,000/- being the balance of medi-claim insurance along with Rs.1,500/- as litigation charges. 2. The complaint is filed for getting the balance of the claim for the treatment undergone by the wife of the complainant under the medi-claim insurance policy which was taken by the complainant for Rs.30,000/-. The policy was enhanced with effect from 28.01.07 for an additional amount of Rs.10,000/- each. On renewal of the policy the sum insured was enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- excluding one of the sons. On 1.2.09 complainants wife was admitted in nearby hospital and as her condition worsened on 08.02.2009 she was shifted to the Cochin Hospital, Ernakulam and thereafter she was again shifted to MedicalTrust Hospital. It was diagnosed at the MedicalTrust Hospitalwhere she was diagnosed and treated for Bilateral Phe...

M/S Pazhangadi Oil Industries, Karippurrikara, North Vazhakulam, Maara ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER This revision petition is filed against the order passed in IA 476/12 in CC No. 53/2011. 2. The counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner was examined as DW1 in CC NO.53/2011 on 19.6.2012 and after the examination the opposite party sought time for further evidence which was not granted and closed the evidence and posted for argument note and hearing on 17.7.12. Subsequent to that on 17.7.2012 this revision petitioner filed an IA to re-open the evidence with the witness list to summon the witness which was also dismissed by the Forum below. The counsel also submitted that this case was already adjourned on several dates from 21/3/2011 to 2/3/2012 at the instance of the complainant by detailing the posting dates. 3. The Commission find that an opportunity is highly necessary for the revision petitioner/opposite party to contest his case before the Forum below and of the view that a party should not be shut out from adducing evidenc...

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. and Another Vs. R. Gopa ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellants were opposite parties 1 and 2 in CC.101/10 in the CDRF, Pathanamthitta. The 1st respondent and his wife were the complainants. He was the registered owner of a maruti car bearing registration No.KL.3M/5365. He purchased the car availing a loan of Rs.1,60,000/- from the 3rd opposite party. Opposite parties 1 and 2 were the insurers of the car. It is alleged that while the insurance policy for the car with them was in force, on 4.10.08 the complainant was brutally assaulted by few goondas and they robbed his maruti car bearing Registration No.KL.3M/5365 and other valuables. The 1st complainant sustained grievous injuries and was admitted in the Taluk hospital, Ranni and later he was treated at Marthoma Medical Mission hospital, Ranni from 4.10.2008 to 6.10.08.The pathanamthitta police registered a crime under Sections 342,349 and 506(1),r/w Sec.34 of IPC in connection with the incident. The case was transferred to the Aranmula polic...

Kuruvila Vs. Sathi Rajan

Court: Kerala

This petition is filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the complaint and order passed there on by the learned Magistrate in S.T. No: 624/2004 of C.J.M. Court, Kottayam. That complaint was filed against the petitioner alleging commission of offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Magistrate after recording the sworn statement and perusing the records issued process to the accused. 2. Petitioner contends that the cheque was issued by him to one Chithrabhanu and it was crossed by him noting "A/C Payee only". According to the petitioner, the said cheque was never intended to be negotiated. Annexure A3 is the copy of that cheque. The accused contends that contrary to the directions, the cheque was handed over by Chithrabhanu to the complainant. On coming to know of the fact, he issued notice to the drawee bank not to honour the cheque. It was also contended that there was sufficient funds in the account of the petitioner to honour the chequ...

Abdul Majeed Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(4)KLJ233

Revision petitioner is the 1st accused in C.C. 58/1993 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kayamkulam. He along with three others were prosecuted by the Station House Officer, Kayamkulam alleging offences under Sections 323, 324 and 326 read with 34 IPC. During the pendency of the case, the 3rd accused expired. Despite the coercive steps, the 2nd accused didn't turn out. So the case against him was split up and accused 1 and 4 were tried. After trial, they were found guilty for the above offences. The revision petitioner was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 326 read with 34 IPC. The 4th accused was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months. No separate sentence was awarded for offences under Sections 323 and 324 read with 34 IPC. Assailing the above conviction and sentence, they preferred Crl.A.No.247/1998 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Mavelikara. By the impugned judgment dated 10.11.2003, the Additional Sessions J...