Kerala Court May 2009 Judgments

Unni T.K. Vs. Secretary, Perinjanam Grama Panchayath and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(2)KLJ483

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner, then a member of a panchayat committee, submitted his resignation to the Secretary of that panchayat on 28.4.2009. After that, in the evening of that day, he made Ext.P2 to the Secretary of the Panchayat, to be forwarded to the State Election Commission for decision in terms of Section 155(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, for short, the 'Act', as a dispute. He thereby essentially took the stand that he resiles from the tendered resignation on the ground that the resignation was submitted by him in a disturbed state of mind. By the impugned communication, the Commission has refused to entertain the petitioner's request on the ground that the resignation had taken effect and a dispute regarding the resignation admittedly made, though allegedly in a disturbed state of mind, cannot be entertained. This is under challenge.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the commission.3. Sub-secti...

Adv. Sreenivasan Venugopalan Vs. M.M. Pareed Pillai, Retired C.J. of K ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2009Ker148

S.R. Bannurmath, C.J.1. This public interest litigation is filed by the State Secretary of AIADMK, Kerala Unit, seeking for the following reliefs-(a) to issue a writ of quo warranto calling upon the first respondent, Lok Ayukta of the State of Kerala, to show cause under what aiithbrity of law he is holding the position of Lok Ayukta of Kerala State;(b) to declare that by reason of the provisions contained in Section 24(3) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, the first respondent is ineligible to take up any employment under the State of Kerala arid his appointment to the post of Lok Ayukta is liable to be declared void and inoperative;(c) to issue a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for bearing the first respondent from continuing to function as Lok Ayukta of Kerala in view of the ineligibility and disqualification suffered by him.2. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The first respondent is a former Judge and Chief Justice of High Co...

B. Indiramma Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [2009]184TAXMAN322(Ker)

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.1. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext. P6 order passed by the second respondent, whereby the revision petition filed by him has been rejected, upholding Ext. P3 order passed by the 1st respondent, substantially varying and modifying Ext. P1 order passed earlier, wrongly invoking the power under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act for rectifying the mistake apparent on the face of the record.2. With regard to the sequence of events, it is to be noted that the petitioner is a physically handicapped person with substantial extent of disability and was enjoying the benefit of deduction as provided under Section 80U of the Income-tax Act ('the Act'). It is the case of the petitioner that assessment with respect to the year 1992-93 was finalized by the first respondent as per Ext. P1 order and the liability fixed on the petitioner was satisfied by him. Subsequently, the 1st respondent issued Ext. P2 notice stating that the matter required to be r...

A.J Mohammed Shah @ Aj Shanavas Vs. Kerala Institute of Medical Scienc ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

The complaint filed under Sec.17 (2) read with Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 claiming compensation of Rs.75,00,000/- on the ground of medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 in treating the complainant at the 1st opposite party hospital under the 2nd opposite party Dr.K.R.Vikraman. 2. The case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant is aged 35 years engaged in film industry and doing the business of advertisements. The 1st opposite party is a limited company running a hospital by name Kerala Insitute of Medical Sciences, a super speciality hospital and that the 2nd opposite party a super specialist in Urology attached to the 1st opposite party hospital. The complainant approached the 1st opposite party on 2/3/02 with abdominal pain and the ailment of the complainant was diagonised as Renal Stone and advised treatment and medication and to approach the 2nd opposite party for the treatment. The complainan...

Sreelatha Vs. M/S. Baker Homes, Represented by Its Director and Anothe ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER Complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 2. The case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant entrusted construction of a residential building with car porch and a commercial shop room with the 1st opposite party M/s.Baker Homes. The 2nd opposite party is the director of the 1st opposite party construction company. But the opposite parties failed to construct the residential building with car porch and commercial shop room as agreed. There occurred deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in executing the aforesaid construction works. The residential building constructed by the opposite parties was having leakage and that the car porch is not fit for the purpose of keeping a car. The construction of the commercial shop room was also defective and that the complainant could not get the approval and sanction of the local authority for the said commercial shop room as it was constructed violating the...

Viswambaran M.K. and ors. Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(2)KLJ323

ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J.1. Petitioners are the petitioners in the writ petition and they seek review of the judgment dated 30-07-2007 passed in the writ petition. The main relief sought for in the writ petition was to quash Ext.Pl2 order of the execution court. Ext.P12 was passed on an application for restoration of an execution petition in which the writ petitioner was the judgment debtor and also for condonation of the delay caused in the matter of depositing the value of improvements which had been ordered to be paid by the decree holder. Under the judgment, I upheld Ext.Pl2 incorporating a condition that a sum of Rs. 1501/- shall be paid by way of cost. The review petitioners seek review of the judgment on the ground that the judgment suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of the record. It is urged that the provisions of the Limitation Act do not apply to applications for restoration of execution proceedings filed under Order XXI CPC. It is pointed out that the order ...

E.V.M.Automobiles Vs. K.indira and Others

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellant is the third opposite party/dealer in CC.7/08 in the file CDRF, Ernakulam. The third opposite party/appellant are under orders to pay Rs.20,567/- to the complainant as compensation with interest 6% and also to hand over the RC book of the two-wheeler of the complainant. The second opposite party/financier has been directed to issue no objection certificate to the complainant with respect to the vehicle. It is the contention of the appellant who was ex-parte in the proceedings and that the RC book is not with him and the same will be with the financers ie. the second opposite party and further there is no justification for directing the third opposite party to pay compensation as the allegations are squarely aimed at the financiers. The financiers/second opposite party also was ex-parte in the proceedings. The reason mentioned for not making appearance and contesting the case before the Forum is that the customer care executive resign...

Shriram Investments Ltd. Vs. K. Sasidharan

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in CC.21/04 in the file of CDRF, Malappuram. The appellant has been ordered to pay a sum of Rs.30000/- as compensation and cost of Rs.2500/-. 2. It is the case of the appellant that it was not given sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence. The matter related to repossession of a brand new state carriage. It is seen that no evidence has been adduced by the opposite party/appellant. It is submitted by the counsel that the counter affidavit mentioning in the judgment was filed for invoking the arbitration process. In the circumstance order of the Forum is set aside on condition that the appellant pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards cost to the complainant. The amount has to be paid to the complainant or deposited before the Forum which can be withdrawn from the complainant. The amount has to be deposited within 20 days from the date of receipt of this order before the Forum. The Forum will permit the parties to add...

A. Mini Vs. Friends Chits and Financiers and Another

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT: The appellant is the complainant in CC.1/07 in the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta. The complaint stands dismissed on the ground that the complainant has not been authorized to file the complaint on behalf of the actual consumers. We find that there is no illegality in the order as such. All the same, we find that it would be appropriate to afford an opportunity to the complainant to amend the cause title and file the authorization and pursue the matter. In the circumstances, the order of the Forum is set aside. The mater is remitted back to the Forum. The Forum will permit the petitioner to amend the cause title and produce the authorization and dispose of the matter on merits. The case will stand posted before the Forum on 30/6/09. The Forum will issue notice to the opposite parties. Office is directed to dispatch the copy of this order to the Forum urgently....

The General Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Premdeep Haridas

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT: Heard. Admitted. The case of the appellant/Insurance Company is that the Forum without considering the contentions raised has just allowed the claim by a non speaking order. The appellant has been ordered to pay an amount of Rs.1 lakh also to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as costs. On a perusal of the judgment of the Forum, we find that the Forum has not considered the contentions of the appellant at all. The opposite party has raised serious contentions. The complainant has not been examined also. We find that the decision of the Forum cannot be sustained. The order of the Forum is set aside. The case is remitted back to the forum. The Forum is directed to permit the parties to adduce evidence if they so desire and dispose of the matter by a considered order. The matter will stand posted before the Forum on 20/06/09. The office will transmit the copy of this order to the Forum urgently....