Kerala Court August 2008 Judgments

M/S.S.S. Industries and Enterprises Ltd. Vs. John Mathai

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in OP.No.614/99 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellant, ie; the company along with rest of the opposite parties ie; 1 to 4 and 7 to 13 are under orders to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- with interest at 14.5% from 20.1.99 till realization and also to pay Rs.5000/- towards costs. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he had deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- as FD with maturity date on 19.1.99 with the opposite party company/appellant. It is his grievance that the amount has not been repaid so far. 3. The opposite parties have filed version contending that the Forum is not having jurisdiction as the matter falls exclusively within the province of the Companys Act and that the Company Law Board has seized of the matter. It is further explained that the shrimp culture activities in which the company was engaged has to be stopped on account of the intervention of the Supreme Court, and...

The Branch Manager, North Malabar GramIn Bank and Another Vs. K. Vijay ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties /North Malabar Gramin Bank that are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- as compensation for deficiency in service to the complainant and also to pay Rs.250/ as costs vide order in OP No.394/96 in the file of CDRF, Kannur. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he had applied for loan from the opposite parties for starting a flour mill under self employment scheme for purchasing machineries and working capital. He had submitted title deeds of himself and that of one Sajeevan as collateral security for creating equitable mortgage. As directed by the opposite parties their legal advisor Advocate P.K.Ramesh did the scrutiny for which the complainant paid a sum of Rs.500/-. The complainant was also compelled to pay the amount due to the agricultural loan of M.V. Narayanan Nambiar amounting to Rs.5,700/- for which the complainant was a guarantor. Subsequently the Branch Manager of the opposite party asked...

The Asst. Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Kseb Pavaratty and Anoth ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN: MEMBER This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 31/8/04 of CDRF, Thrissur in OP No.865/03. The appellants herein were the opposite parties and the complainant / respondent filed the complaint to get the enhanced meter rent reduced to the original rent whereby the Forum directed the opposite parties to refund or adjust the excess meter rent received before 1/1/04 and not to charge more than Rs.20/- per month in future bills and to pay cost of of Rs.600/- to the complainant. 2. The fact of the case is that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties and was paying Rs.40/- as bimonthly meter rent and on 23/8/03 he got a spot bill and in that bill the meter rent was shown as Rs.150/-. In order to avoid disconnection the complainant remitted Rs.150/-. In the future bills also the meter rent was claimed at the rate of Rs.150/- bimonthly. Hence he filed the complaint before the Forum. 3. The opposite parties in their version contended that t...

Royal Enfield Motors and Another Vs. Symon George

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/Manufacturer and dealer of Royal Enfield Motor Cycles who are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.8037/- as compensation and a sum of Rs.800/-as costs to the complainant vide order in OP 363/2000 of CDRF, Palakkad. 2. It is the case of the complainant that the Enfield Diesel Bullet Motor cycle purchased by him for travelling in his estate in the hilly area for consideration of Rs.50300/- was having frequent mechanical problems that started immediately after a week of purchase. Within the free service period itself repairs had to be done 11 times. The 2nd opposite party have also collected money from the complainant towards the cost of repairs. At last he has spent a sum of Rs.2713/-. He has claimed a sum of Rs.32823/- towards expenses and compensation. 3. On the other hand the opposite parties have contended that the warranty period was for six months or 8000 k.ms. whichever is earlier. The vehicle was purchase...

Kunju Koshy and Another Vs. the Divisional Manager National Insurance ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: JUSTICE The appellant is the complainant in OP 454/2000 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The complainant stands dismissed. 2. It is the case of the complainant that the Mini Lorry purchased by him met with an accident on 19.3.97. According to him the vehicle was damaged and completely destroyed in the accident. The Surveyor appointed by the opposite party/Insurer assessed the cost of repairs as Rs.1,51,985/-. The vehicle has brought to the workshop of the 2nd opposite party in March 1997. The 2nd respondent wanted a sum of Rs.10000/- to start the repair works assuring that the same can cover the entire works within two weeks. He borrowed the above amount and paid the same to the 2nd respondent . But the 2nd respondent again asked for 20000/-. He managed the above amount and also paid the same to the 2nd respondent on 12.2.98. But the 2nd respondent did not do any repair so far. The complainant had borrowed the amounts at 36% interest and the vehicle was purcha...

Sreekumaran Nair P.N. Vs. Dhanalakshmi Bank and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ443

N. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. When the Court which passed a decree, on an application filed by the decree holder transfers the decree for execution against one of the judgment debtors to another Court, whether the transferee Court has jurisdiction to execute the decree as against the other judgment debtors. Even if it is possible to execute the decree as against all the judgment debtors by, the transferee Court, whether salary of a judgment debtor could be attached by that Court, when the disbursing officer of the judgment debtor is not within the jurisdiction of that Court and when judgment debtor is not an employee of the State or Central Government or railway company or corporation engaged in trade or industry established by Central, Provincial or State Act.2. Facts are not disputed. First respondent Bank instituted O.S. 486 of 1996 before Munsiff Court, Pathanamthitta for realisation of the amount due. A decree for realisation of amount claimed in the suit was granted jointly and sev...

Vinod Kumar K.P. and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ536

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Petitioners are employees of Primary Agricultural Credit Societies, hereinafter, 'PAC societies, which are members of a District Co-operative Bank. They plead that they are eligible for being considered for recruitment under 50% quota reserved for appointment of such persons under Rule 187 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter, the 'Rules'. They seek a direction that the benefit of that Rule be confined only to employees of the PAC societies and Urban Co-operative Banks, hereinafter, 'UCBs', which are members of the apex/central society and a direction to the second respondent Kerala Public Service Commission not to permit the employees of co-operative societies which are neither PAC societies nor UCBs affiliated to a District Co-operative Bank as members, to participate in the selection process for the quota earmarked for employees of member societies.2. The plea of the petitioners is based on the fact that as per the Kerala Co...

T.J. Joy S/O Joseph and ors. Vs. Food Inspector and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008CriLJ4643

ORDERV.K. Mohanan, J.1. The prayer in the above Crl. M.C. is to quash Annexure-G order as well as Annexure-H complaint and all further proceedings in S.T. 1279/2001 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-1, Thiruvalla. The above Crl. M.C. is filed at the instance of the accused in S.T. No. 1279/2001.2. The case of the petitioners can be summarised as follows:The allegation against the petitioners is that on 20-10-2000, the 1st respondent/complainant collected sample of Bengal Gram Flour from the shop of the 1st accused. In the complaint the 1st accused is shown as the vendor, the 2nd accused is arrayed as the manufacturer and the 3rd accused as the distributor. After collecting the sample, the same was sent for chemical analysis and Annexure A report was obtained whereby it is opined that the sample contained 35.0 per cent of Peas dhal starch. On the strength of the Annexure A report, the 1st respondent herein preferred Annexure B complaint against the petitioners/acc...

CochIn Candiments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the District Collector and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ748

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings initiated against his property for recovery of arrears of sales tax due from 5th respondent for the assessment year 1993-94. Petitioner's case is that petitioner purchased property from defaulter's wife on 03/02/1998 and since the person from whom petitioner purchased the property is not in arrears of sales tax, the property purchased by petitioner cannot be proceeded against in recovery proceedings. However, the case of the respondent is that defaulter transferred the property on 20/01/1994 to his wife to avoid recovery of sales tax and the defaulter's wife in turn sold the property to petitioner. Therefore, property can be attached and sold in recovery proceedings by virtue of Section 26A of the KGST Act is the case of the respondent.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to decision of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and Anr. v. Shreyas Papers (P) Ltd. and Ors. reported in : AIR2006SC865 and ...

Thomas Thomas and anr. Vs. the Kottayam Municipality and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ482

Antony Dominic, J.1. The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext. P13(a) order, by which Ext. P13 application filed by the petitioner for condoning 141 days delay in filing an appeal was rejected by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions.2. Facts of the case are that the petitioners filed an application for a building permit and at that stage they were issued Exts.P3 and P4 notices of demolition. Appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institution was disposed of setting aside Exts. P3 and P4 and directing that fresh orders be passed. Petitioners submits that in pursuance to the appellate order, Ext. P5 was issued under Section 406(3) of the Municipalities Act and again the petitioners filed Ext.P6 appeal. The Tribunal set aside Ext. P5 reserving liberty to the respondent to pass fresh orders in the matter. Thereafter Exi.P8 notice was issued by the Municipality, in response to which Ext.P9 objection was filed. However, by Ext. P10 petitioners were orde...