Kerala Court August 2009 Judgments

Cox and Kings (India) Ltd. and Others Vs. Biju Thottam and Others

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT Revision Petitioner is the opposite party in CC.483/08 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The Revision petitioner had raised the contention that the Forum is not having the jurisdiction in view of the specific agreement entered into between the parties to the effect that the only CDRF, South Mumbai is vested with the jurisdiction. The matter was agitated before the Forum. But the Forum deferred the issue to be considered at a later stage as the appellant/opposite party has not produced the agreement in between the parties. 2. It is submitted by the revision petitioner that copy of the agreement has been produced. In the circumstances the Forum is directed to consider the matter and arrive at a decision as to the question of jurisdiction which has been raised as a preliminary issue. Hence the order of the Forum is set aside. The Forum is directed to hear both sides and decide the preliminary issue. The Forum will issue notice to the complainant. The ...

Junior Telecom Officer, Bsnl, Perdala Exchange and Another Vs. Kunhapp ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/BSNL in CC.110/06 in the file of CDRF, Kasargod. The appellant is under orders to provide land line telephone connection to the complainant within 3 months from the date of receipt of the order and to pay Rs.1000/- as cost and Rs.10000/- as compensation to the complainant . 2. It is the case of the complainant that priority has been overlooked with respect to providing landline connection and that WLL connection offered was not accepted on account of the bitter experience of his relatives and neighbours in this regard. 3. The opposite parties /appellants had contended that it is not technically feasible and that there is no cable pair to provide landline connection to the complainant. The connections allegedly given overlooking the priority of the complainant falls under different distribution points. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of Ext.A1 to A7 and B1 and B2. 5. The Forum has noted that the opposite part...

Gopinathan K.K. Vs. K. Kuttan Nair

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(3)KLJ94

S.S. Satheesachandran, J.1. The above writ petition and the revision petition are filed by the defendant in O.S. No. 107 of 2005 on the file of the Munsiff-Magistrate Court, Pattambi. Respondent in both the petitions is the plaintiff in the above suit. Suit is one for damages for a sum of Re. 1/- for the alleged publication of defamatory statement against the plaintiff/respondent by the defendant. Since the question arising for consideration in the writ petition and also in the revision petition are interconnected, and after being heard together, they are disposed of by this common judgment/order.2. The petitioner/defendant in his written statement among other contentions challenged the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit contending that no part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction. After settling the issues in the suit, the issue relating to jurisdiction was considered, preliminarily, and the learned Munsiff after hearing the counsel on both sides found tha...

Bhoopesh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(3)KLJ74

Kurian Joseph, J.1. Whether the Permanent Lok Adalat constituted under Section 22B of the Legal Services Authorities, Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has jurisdiction to entertain a claim for compensation under the provisions of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is the question to be considered in these cases. The learned Single Judge has held that the Permanent Lok Adalat under Section 22B of the Act has no such jurisdiction and hence the appeal. (The decision of the learned Single Judge is reported in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Jameela : 2009(1) KLT 153, Since the same issue was pending before the learned Single Judge in other writ petitions, those cases also have been tagged along with the appeal.2. Permanent Lok Adalat is a new concept introduced under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, by Act 37 of 2002. The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 was enacted to constitute Legal Services Authorities for providing free and competent legal service to ...

Kerala Police Housing and Construction Ltd. Vs. Skypark Builders and D ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(3)KLJ99

S.S. Satheesachandran, J.1. The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:(i) To call all records relating to Exhibit P7 to this Honourable Court and an order passed setting aside Exhibit P7 order.ii) To pass an order staying all further proceedings of the commissioner appointed as per Exhibit P7 order.2. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S. No. 52/2003 on the file of the Sub Court Thiruvananthapurarh and the respondent the plaintiff? Suit is one for recovery of money for the work allegedly done by the plaintiff pursuant to a contract between them. Challenge raised in the petition is against an order passed by the learned sub Judge in the application moved by the plaintiff for appointing an advocate commissioner to ascertain the matters sought for with the assistance of an expert. Ext. P7 is the copy of the order passed by the court below allowing that commission application. Correctness and propriety of Ext: P7 order is challenged by the dependent in the petition invoking th...

V.N. Biju and ors. Vs. the Kerala State Raod Transport Corporation and ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(3)KLJ163

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The petitioners are provisional conductors in KSRTC, They challenge Ext, P2 notification issued by the PSC, calling for applications for recruitment of reserve conductors in KSRTC. They having entered such category through the Employment Exchange, one can visualise their anxiety of being displaced when regular hands are recruited through PSC. The plea raised is that to be a conductor, one should possess a conductor's licence in terms of Section 29(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for short, the 'MV Act', and such qualification not having been prescribed in Ext.P2, the selection process itself is bad. PSC's Ext.P4 circular, that qualifications acquired after the date of notification will not be taken into account, is also pressed into service. On the basis of these materials, the petitioners seek a declaration that the examination conducted by the PSC is illegal.2. Section 29(1) of the MV Act states that no person shall act as a conductor of a stage ...

Kmp Timbers Vs. Commercial Tax Inspector and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2010)27VST536(Ker)

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.1. The common issue involved in all these cases is whether the Commissioner is authorised to issue the impugned circulars fixing the 'minimum sale price' for calculating the advance tax realisable under Section 47(16A) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and if it is within the power and competence of the Commissioner, whether the sale price fixed in respect of 'live chicken' as involved in W.P. (C) No. 17708 of 2008 and that of 'timber' involved in other cases is based on the actual market value and legally reckonable, for quantifying the advance tax.2. The minimum factual position for adjudication of the cases is as follows:The 'live chicken' brought by the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 17708 of 2008, stated as purchased for an invoice value of Rs. 29 per kg. from Tamil Nadu, was intercepted by the concerned respondents at the check-post insisting that the goods could be transported only if advance tax was remitted reckoning the value at the rate of Rs. 60 ...

Smt. Santhakumari Vs. Smt. E.G. Kunjulekshmi Amma

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA: MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in the file of CC.No.234/07 dated 30.12.2008. The appellant is the 1st opposite party who prefers this appeal from the order passed by the Forum below. In short the complainant is a senior citizen and a retired school teacher. As per the request the 1st opposite party recruited the 2nd opposite party as a house maid of the complainant on 26.2.07. For that purpose the complainant had paid Rs.2500/- as salary advance, paid Rs.500/- as registration fee and paid Rs.100 as traveling expenses to the 1st opposite party. As per the terms and conditions the monthly salary will be paid in advance for every month. If the service ended in any period the advance amount will be repaid. On 27.7.07 the 2nd opposite party went home with the assurance that she will return on 29.7.07 and the complainant paid Rs.2500/- as salary advance for the next month. But thereafter she did not return, the complai...

Achamma John Vs. Anupama Elizebath and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(3)KLJ88

ORDERC.T. Ravikumar, J.1. The petitioner herein was the revision petitioner and the respondents I and 2 herein were the respondents, in that order, in Crl.R.P. No. 37/06 which was dismissed by the Court of Session, Kozhikode as per order dated 7.6.06. The said revision was filed against the order of dismissal of C.M.P. No. 4615/05 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court:- 1. Kozhikode under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred for brevity 'the Code' only.2. The incontrovertible factual position needs narration in the light of the rival contentions to be set out hereinafter. One Mr. P.V, John, who was a Senior Operator in the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., died on right to receive death benefits due from the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.., claiming the status of the legally wedded wife of the said Sri. P.V. John. The Is respondent resisted it and consequently, to redress the grievance, she instituted a civil suit and the same is pending before the Munsiff...

State of Kerala and anr. Vs. K. Reghu Varma ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2010Ker28

Kurian Joseph, J.1. The issue raised in these writ appeals pertains to the method of selection and appointment of the President of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appointment is in respect of two districts, Kottayam and Wayanad. The question is whether the Government, which is the appointing authority, is bound to make appointments as per the selection made by the Selection Commit-tee. The undisputed factual position is that the Selection Committee conducted interview and on the basis of merit, prepared a select list. The Government, ignoring the order of merit, appointed two Presidents, of course, from the panel prepared by the Selection Committee. The learned single Judge has taken the view that once the Selection Committee having assessed the merit of the qualified candidates and having recommended the candidates in the order of merit, without assigning any reason, the Government could not have ignored the select ...