Kerala Court December 2009 Judgments

S. Manilekha Vs. J. Jasmin

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 17-08-2009 passed by CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in OP No. 328/06. The aforesaid complaint was preferred alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in deducting a sum of Rs. 672/- from the advance amount of Rs. 2,500/- which the complainant paid to the opposite party by way of salary advance. The complainant has also alleged that the opposite party collected service charges from the complainant. On the other hand, the opposite party contended that she deducted Rs. 672/- from the salary advance as the service was rendered by the home nurse for another 7 days. Thus, the opposite party justified her action in deducting a sum of Rs. 672/- from the salary advance. The further case of the opposite party was that a sum of Rs. 1,250/- was collected not as service charge but it was paid by the complainant by way of donation. The Forum below appreciated the oral evidence of the complain...

The Secretary, Kerala State Housing Board Vs. K. J. Issac

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/Kerala State Housing Board. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- as compensation and also under direction to close the loan account of the complainant and release the title deeds. It is also directed that if the security documents are not released within 30 days the appellant would be liable to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.25/- per day till the documents are realised. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he had availed loan of Rs.58,000/- from the opposite party and the first installment was sanctioned on 19.8.92. There was default and hence the RR proceedings were initiated. During the RR proceedings the complainant repaid a sum of Rs.1,20,700/-. According to him he has remitted the entire outstanding amount and the account was closed. The last payment was on 20.7.99. Thereafter a number of times he approached the appellants for getting back the documents handed over as security. ...

The Branch Manager, Muthoot Gold Loans Vs. P. Ramesh Babu

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in OP 298/03 in the file of CDRF, Malappuram. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.2774.50/- with interest at 9% from 12.11.2003 and also cost of Rs.1000/-. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he pledged 64 gms of gold ornaments with the opposite party on 13.2.03 and availed loan of Rs.27,000/- with the interest advertised and agreed by the opposite party as Rs.1.50 per month for every Rs.100/-. On 3.11.03 the complainant wanted to redeem the pledge and the appellant demanded Rs.33,326/- towards settlement of account. According to the complainant the opposite parties refused to issue receipt. On his insistance a receipt was issued simply mentioning that Rs.27,000/- and interest from 13.2.2003 was paid . He has sought for return of the excess amount collected. 3. It is the contention of the opposite party/appellant that the agreed period of loan was 6 months. The complainant was bound to redeem...

The Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Ernakulam and Another Vs. K.N. Purus ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/Bank of India in OP No. 139/04 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation with interest at 9% from 12-07-2004 and also to pay Rs. 450/- as costs. 2. It is the case of the complainant that his friend one Subramanyan from Saudi Arabia had sent him a cheque for Rs. 25,000/- for the treatment of his aunt who was admitted at Amritha Hospital, Ernakulam. The same was presented before the opposite party bank; and from the next day onwards he used to go to the bank and enquire about the collection of the amount from South Indian Bank, Thrissur the drawee bank. He even went to the drawee bank at Thrissur and enquired. They have told him that the amount has been realized by the opposite party bank. The staff of the opposite party bank used to insult him whenever he enquired regarding the encashment of the cheque. Subsequently he came to know that the a...

A.Valsamma Vs. D.Varghese and Another

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the first opposite party in CC.156/2007 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The appellant is under orders to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.175353/- including interest till 19.11.2005 and further interest at the rate of 12% till realization and Rs.10000/- as compensation and costs vide the order of CDRF, Kollam in CC.156/2007. 2. It is the case of the complainant that the 3 FDs for a sum of Rs.45000/- each and another for a sum of Rs.20000/- for a period of 46 days, 90 days and 180 days respectively was made with the opposite party. After the date of maturity the amount was not returned. 3. The opposite parties/appellant remained absent and were declared as ex-pate before the Forum. 4. Evidence adduced consisted of Exts.P1 to P5. 5. The counsel for the appellant has pleaded for reduction in the amount of compensation ordered. The appellant is willing to comply with the order. The compensation and cost ordered is Rs.10000/-. Interes...

Fasila B. and Afsal Khan Vs. the Commissioner of Police and ors.

Court: Kerala

R. Basant, J.1. The petitioners have come to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce Ms. Nidhina - an adult major woman aged 20 years, (date of birth 8/5/89 as per the Secondary School Leaving Certificate). It is the case of the petitioners that the alleged detenue Ms. Nidhina was in love with the 2nd petitioner and they had decided to get married with the blessings of the 1st petitioner i.e., the mother of the 2nd petitioner. They had given notice for solemnization of marriage under the Special Marriage Act vide Ext.P3 on 7/12/09. It is their grievance that Ms. Nidhina was subsequently kept under detention and confinement by her parents and her maternal uncle - the 4th respondent.2. This petition was filed on 17/12/09. The same was admitted on 18/12/09 and notice was ordered to the respondents.3. Today, when the case came up for hearing, the petitioners are present along with their counsel. Respondents 4 and 5 as also Mr. Moh...

Cheerangan Moideen Vs. Khadeeja M.T.

Court: Kerala

R. Basant, J.1. This application is to condone the delay of 165 days in filing a Mat.Appeal. The appeal in turn is directed against an order obliging the petitioner/appellant to pay past maintenance to his wife at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per mensum.2. We have perused the affidavit. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. We are not at all satisfied that there is sufficient ground to condone the long delay of 165 days in filing the appeal. The petition for condonation of delay does not deserve to be allowed, in these circumstances.3. However, in our anxiety to ensure that the rejection of the prayer for condonation of delay does not result in failure or miscarriage of justice, we requested the learned Counsel for the petitioner to explain the nature of the challenge which the appellant/petitioner wants to mount against the impugned order. The arguments on merits have also been advanced. Marriage is admitted. The appellant is a person aged about 42 years. Separate residence...

Kerala State Sports Council Vs. Jalesh Kumar S. S/O. Sukumaran Nair an ...

Court: Kerala

C.T. Ravikumar, J.1. The first respondent in W.P.(C) No. 6846 of 2009 is the appellant. The said Writ Petition was filed by the first respondent herein with a prayer to quash Ext.P8 order passed by the appellant and also for a direction to the appellant herein to appoint him as Swimming coach in one of the five notified vacancies in accordance with his rank in Ext.P3 rank list.2. The facts, in succinct, are as hereunder:Pursuant to a decision of the standing committee of the appellant, the first respondent herein was engaged as a Swimming coach on daily wages, as per Ext.P1 memo dated 15.5.1996. Thereupon, he joined duty on 18.5.1996. He was terminated from service on 6.2.2001. Later, he was reappointed on daily wages with effect from 27.9.2002. While so, the appellant issued a notification dated 17.8.2007 inviting applications to fill up five posts of Swimming coach on regular basis. The petitioner was an applicant and after due selection process, he was selected and included in Ext.P...

Balan Vs. Devaki R. Nayar

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT603

K.M. Joseph, J.1. Appellants are the defendants in a Suit for realisation of money. The Suit stands decreed in a sum of Rs. 6,12,803.75 and interest on the principal amount of Rs. 5,59,000/- at the rate of 11 per cent from the date of Suit till recovery and the second plaintiff was allowed to recover from the plaint schedule property charged on them by sale of them for a sum of Rs. 87,700/- and interest on the principal amount of Rs. 80,000/- at the rate of 11 per cent from the date of Suit till recovery and the third plaintiff was allowed to recover from the plaint schedule property charged on them and by sale of them for a sum of Rs. 27,406.25 and interest on the principal amount of Rs. 25,000/- at the rate of 11 per cent from the date of Suit till recovery and the plaintiffs were further allowed to recover personally from the first defendant the plaint amount with future interest at 11 per cent from the date of suit till the date of realisation.2. The first plaintiff (since died) wa...

A. Gopalan, (Former L.D. Clerk) Vs. the State of Kerala,

Court: Kerala

C.T. Ravikumar, J.1. The appellant/petitioner was a Lower Division Clerk under the Mulakkuzha Panchayat. He filed this appeal aggrieved by the dismissal of W.P.(C) No. 32309 of 2009 whereby the learned Single Judge declined to interfere with Exts.P7 and P9 orders passed by the Government. As per the said orders, the request of the appellant/petitioner for compassionate allowance under Rule 5 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules (for short 'KSR) was declined by the Government. The relevant facts necessary for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as follows:2. While working as Lower Division Clerk under the Mulakkuzha Panchayat, Crime No. 4 of 1992 was registered against the appellant alleging misappropriation of Panchayat funds collected as tax. Thereupon, he was indicted under Section 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 477A in C.C. No. 3 of 1994 of the Indian Penal Code before the Court of th...