Kerala Court December 2009 Judgments

Sirajudheen Vs. Sreedhar K. Kottaram

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT316

P.R. Raman, J.1. The respondent herein filed O.P.(Arb) No. 48 of 2009 before the District Court, Allappuzha, for an interim order of attachment of the properties scheduled to the petition. There is a contract between the parties for construction of a Star Hotel, and towards the same, an amount of Rs. 51 lakhs is said to have been paid by the respondent herein to the appellant. It is the contention of the respondent that the appellant did not perform his part of the contract. Therefore, he proceeded to initiate arbitration proceedings for realisation of the said amount of Rs. 51 lakhs from the appellant, and alleging that hasty steps are taken by the appellant to alienate the property and to secure the claim, the respondent sought for an interim order of attachment and approached the District Court. Along with the main Original Petition, I. A. No. 634 of 2009, was also filed for ad-interim attachment. The court below ordered interim attachment of the petition scheduled properties. There...

M/S New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. N. Raju

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 1st February, 2007 passed by the CDRF, Kannur in OP No. 198/02. The complaint in the aforesaid original petition was filed by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellant/opposite party claiming the insurance amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the damage caused to the insured building bearing Nos. AP-III/179 to 180. The complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party M/s New India Assurance Company Ltd. in repudiating the insurance claim. The opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service on its part. The opposite party justified their action in repudiating the insurance claim. They contended that the complainant/insured intentionally caused damage to the insured building by deliberate arson. Thus, the opposite party insurance company justified their action in repudiating the insurance claim. 2. Before the ...

M. Abdul Asim Vs. the Assistant Engineer, Ew2, Electricity Department, ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 22nd July 2009 passed by the CDRF, Thrissur in CC No. 475/06. The complaint therein was filed by the appellant (complainant) against the respondents (opposite parties) alleging deficiency in service in issuing P1 demand notice dated 07-06-2006 for Rs. 1,17,490/- by way of arrears of electricity charges. The complainant prayed for cancellation of the P1 demand notice dated 07-06-2006. The respondents/opposite parties entered appearance and contended that the complainant is not a consumer coming within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and that the complaint in CC No. 475/2006 is not maintainable. It is further contended that there was no deficiency in service in issuing P1 demand notice; that the said demand was made based on the consumption of energy by the complainant. It is also contended that the claim is not barred by limitation. Thus, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of...

Mr. George Joseph and Another Vs. Nitco Terrazzotiles (Pvt) Ltd. and O ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

COMMON JUDGMENT: JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant in Appeal No. 388/08 is the complainant and the appellant in Appeal No. 393/08 is he first opposite party in CC No. 388/06 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The CDRF has ordered the first opposite party/appellant in Appeal No. 393/08, the manufacturer of mosaic tiles to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,06,300/- and the second opposite party, dealer to pay a sum of Rs. 50,244/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of complaint and also directed the first opposite party to pay Rs. 1,000/- as costs. 2. It is the case of the complainant that on 19-10-2005 he placed orders for 2000 sq.feet of mosaic tiles at the rate of Rs. 81.06/ sq.ft from the first opposite party, manufacturer through the second opposite party, dealer. The first opposite party delivered the tiles on 24-11-2005 at the complainants residence. The Sales Manager of the first opposite party arranged the 3rd opposite party to lay tiles at the rate of Rs. ...

Binu Kumar Vs. Public Service Commission

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT1024

Antony Dominic, J.1. Ext.P1 is a vacancy notification issued by the P.S.C. inviting applications for the post of Excise Guard in various departments. Petitioner submitted his application against the vacancies in Palakkad District. In the application, he did not claim any weightage based on his achievements in sports. He was included in the shortlist, and finally when Ext.P9 ranked list was published, he was assigned Rank No. 134.2. The case of the petitioner is that he was entitled for weightage for his achievements in sports and that although he did not make this claim in the application form, when he produced the certificates at the time of certificate verification, it was declined to be accepted. It is stated that thereupon he submitted Ext.P8 to the District P.S.C. Officer and that no response was forthcoming.3. It is stated that if his claim for weightage is accepted and marks are awarded on that basis, he will be eligible to be assigned rank No. 70. The prayers sought in this Wri...

Prabhakaran Vs. Sajini

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT53

S.S. Satheesachandran, J.1. Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:i) To issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of Ext. P1 and quash the original of the same.ii) To issue a writ, order or direction, directing the Sub-Court, Kozhikode to afford another opportunity to the petitioner to comply with the order dated 26.08.2008 to answer the interrogatories.2. Petitioner is the first defendant in O.S. No. 100 of 2007 on the file of the Sub-Court, Kozhikode. Suit is one for partition and the first respondent is the plaintiff and other respondents, co-defendants in the suit. After the written statement was filed by the petitioner/first defendant resisting the suit claim first respondent/plaintiff moved an application to serve interrogatories on the first defendant to elicit answers to some of the questions raised. Ext.P3 is the copy of that application to which the petitioner/first respondent filed Ext.P4 objections. Negativing the objections raised by the petitioner,...

University of Calicut and the Vice Chancellor Vs. the Chairman,

Court: Kerala

S.R. Bannurmath, C.J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 institution and directing the appellant University to grant affiliation, the present appeal is filed.2. The writ petitioner which is a Self-Financing Engineering College sought affiliation from the appellant University for additional intake of students to B.Tech in Electronics and Communication and in Computer Science and Engineering and for commencing B.Tech in Mechanical Engineering in the light of Ext. P1 approval given by the AICTE so as to enable the petitioner to commence the classes during the academic year 2009-10 itself.3. The first and main contention raised before the learned Single Judge as well as before this Court by the appellant is that there was no intimation of approval of the AICTE and the respondent Institution has not produced it in time and it is not the duty of the University to check whether such approval by the AICTE is given or not. S...

K.K. Bharathan and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

A.K. Basheer, J.1. Petitioners, 39 in number, who are stated to be residents of Chentrapinni, a small village in Thrissur district are before us in this writ petition. Their grievance is that they are likely to be dispossessed of their small holdings in connection with construction of NH 17 bypass road.2. The primary prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other appropriate writ or direction to the respondents 'not to proceed with the present alignment of the 6th respondent private company for the proposed by-pass as it is not viable and feasible'. The second prayer is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refrain from acquiring properties of petitioners for the purpose of 4-6 line bypass in Chentrappinni-Palapetty area of National Highway 17.3. Petitioners have highlighted their sad plight in so many words in the writ petition. It is their contention that they belong to the down-trodden stratum of the society and the present ...

Mahalingam Vs. State Co-operative Election Commission

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT46

S. Siri Jagan, J.1. The petitioner is a candidate who aspires to contest the election to the Managing Committee of the 5th respondent Co-operative Bank. His nomination has already been accepted. Now he raises a grievance regarding the manner of printing of ballot papers for the election. According to the petitioner hitherto, the practice followed for election in this particular Co-operative Society and other Co-operative societies in the area was to print the names of the candidates, in the ballot paper in different colours. But contrary to the practise followed, now, on the basis of Ext.P4 circular issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, the returning officer intends to print the names of the candidates in the ballot paper in single color, which is inconsistent with the practice followed in the elections of this Co-operative Society and other Co-operative Societies in that area. The petitioner is aggrieved by the same.2. The petitioner challenges C1. No. 1 of Ext.P4, which p...

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sudheesh

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT210

M.N. Krishnan, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the National Insurance Company against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala in O.P. (MV) No. 554 of 2006. By virtue of the award, the claimant was awarded a sum of Rs. 39,150/- and the National Insurance Company was directed to deposit the amount. The contention of the insurance company is to the effect that the vehicle involved in the accident was insured with the additional fourth respondent on the date of accident by virtue of a comprehensive policy and therefore it is liable to pay the amount. The learned Tribunal held that the policy issued by the appellant would be deemed to have been transferred and therefore the said insurance company cannot get exonerated from the liability.2. The few facts necessary are that the appellant had issued a policy in the name of one Sudheeran and the said Sudheeran had sold the vehicle on 15.5.2005 in favour of one Jijo Thomas and the said Jijo Thomas had taken a policy from t...