Kerala Court January 2010 Judgments

Dr. M.Ganapathi Bhat. Vs. the Chief Conservator of Forests.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker146

1. Petitioners are aggrieved by the decision contained in Ext.P3 relating to alleged water rights from a natural spring and for leading water through channel for cultivation purposes. 2. The fundamental plea of the petitioners is that the issue is no more res integra in so far as the petitioners and the State are concerned, having regard to the adjudication by the competent authority and consequential notifications. This is a matter which the Chief Conservator of Forests can look into. Anyway, the foremost concern should be the preservation of the forest and any indulgence with forest wealth can only strictly be in accordance with law. 3. Under such circumstances, without expressing anything on merits, this writ petition is ordered directing that if the petitioners make a representation to the first respondent against the decision of the Divisional Forest Officer, as contained in Ext.P3, the same will be considered and orders issued in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioners...

Cicily Vs. Corporate Manager

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT986

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The appellant was the 4th respondent in the Writ Petition. The 1st respondent herein was the writ petitioner.2. The brief facts of the case are the following:The appellant is a peon working in the school managed by the 1st respondent. She was suspended from service by the Manager in contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings on 16.7.2001. There is some dispute between the parties as to whether permission was granted by the Educational Officer, to keep her under suspension beyond 15 days. Since the same is not relevant in this case, it is unnecessary to go into that controversy. She was served with Ext.P19 memo of charges dated 10.8.2001. She submitted her reply, Ext.P20, on 28.8.2001. The Assistant Educational Officer (for short 'AEO') held an enquiry into the charges on 21.8.2001 and furnished Ext.P6 report dated 11.9.2001 to the Manager, finding the appellant guilty. Based on that enquiry report, the Manager issued Ext.P7 notice dated 4.10.2001, proposin...

Motor and General Finance Ltd. Vs. Dy. Transport Commissioner

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLJ1032

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.1. Two questions arise for consideration in this Writ Petition:(i) Whether the financier in respect of a hire purchase agreement on re-possession of the vehicle, due to the failure on the part of the transferee, is liable to clear the arrears of tax under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, as an 'operator' as contemplated in the statute;(ii) Whether quantification of the liability in the case of the petitioner is correct or proper?2. The sequence of events as narrated in the Writ Petition shows that the petitioner, who is the financier, had extended a loan to the third respondent under a 'Hire Purchase' agreement in respect of the vehicle bearing No. KL/01E 3474. But the transferee failed to discharge his obligations, under which circumstance, there was no other alternative for the petitioner, but to re-possess the vehicle which in fact was done on 28.08.1998. Immediately, 'G' form was submitted before the concerned authorities in respect of the period fr...

Bhaskar Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT631

Antony Dominic, J.1. Petitioner is the Manager of M.G.L.P. School, M. Puthur, Govindapuram P.O., Palakkad District. By Exts.Pl and P2, the petitioner appointed the 3rd respondent as LPSA for two spells of period during the year 1994-1995. As she was a thrown out teacher, she was eligible for preferential claim under Rule 51A of Chap. XIVA K.E.R. While so, in 1998, the 3rd respondent was appointed in a regular vacancy in C.V.M. High School, Vandazhy, Palakkad District. Ext.P3 is the order of appointment. From that school, she was retrenched in the year 2003.2. Subsequently, w.e.f. 1.4.2006, a vacancy of LPSA arose in the petitioner's school. Thereupon, the 3rd respondent claimed appointment based on the preferential right under Rule 51A Chap. XIVA K.E.R. That claim was not recognized by the Manager and the 4th respondent was appointed in the vacancy. 3rd respondent complained to the 2nd respondent, which was rejected by Ext.P4 order. Thereupon, though she challenged Ext.P4 before this C...

The General Manager, Kerala Roadways(P) Limited, Calicut and Others Vs ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Idukki in the file of O.P.No. 484/96 dated 29.11.2008. In short the petitioner is engaged in textile business at Kunchithanni. On 03.07.2007, the petitioner purchased some textile items from Bombay for his Onam sale. The 2nd opposite party received the said items as 3 bundles from the petitioner with a condition to deliver it at KRS Office, Adimali, the 3rd opposite partys office in a safe condition within 15 days and charged Rs.1,540/- for the same. The complainant paid the same and Rs.3,000/- for clearing the tax. But the opposite parties failed to deliver the said bundles as agreed. After repeated demands, on23.08.2007, the 3rd opposite party delivered two bundles at Adimali office and the 3rd opposite party demanded the original token issued by the 2nd opposite party to the petitioner. The petitioner surrendered the original token to the 3rd opposite party. While surrendering the said original token...

M/S. Gmt Systems Vs. K.D. Joseph

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER This appeal is preferred against the order-dated 31.8.05 of CDRF, Ernakulam in OP.No.88/05. The complaint was preferred by the respondent herein as the complainant against the appellant as opposite party whereby the Forum directed the opposite party to repair the PC free of cost to the satisfaction of the complainant. Aggrieved by this direction the opposite party filed the present appeal. 2. The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a PC and other related accessories from the opposite party on 8.3.2002 for an amount of Rs.51500/- and the same was installed on 9.3.2002. But the system showed faulty symptoms immediately after three days from the date of installation and on 20.3.2002, functional error was found and 256 MB memory was taken for repair. Again on 4.4.02, 3.7.02 and on 17.7.02, the system showed some faulty symptoms. Subsequently the keyboard became faulty and the same was replaced at the expense of the complainant. But all major ...

The Senior Branch Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. M.K.Damodhar ...

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, Thrissur in the file of OP.No.626/03 dated 24.10.08. The appellant is the opposite party. In short the complainant was a member of Automobile Workshop Association and was a worker in the workshop. He has also a policy holder of Jeevan Raksha Insurance Policy of the opposite parties in the group Insurance scheme. This policy had coverage from 2.2.01 to 1.2.02. On 24.11.01 the appellant had fallen from a tree and sustained serious injuries and had treated as inpatient in the hospital of West Fort Hospital, Thrissur and Medical College Hospital, Thrissur. After the accident he cannot walk without others help. As per the group insurance policy One lakh rupees had assured for permanent total disability. Due to the accident the complainant was not in a position to move easily the body parts below the waste. He cannot walk without crutches. He cannot do the workshop jobs or any other jobs. The treatment is s...

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. E.M. Shajas Pushpamada

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. in CC No. 187/05 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 1,52,550/- towards the claim and also to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as costs and compensation. 2. The case of the complainant who is the owner of a brick manufacturing unit is that the above unit covered by the Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy of the opposite party sustained damages on account of flood resulting from heavy rain fall from 10-06-2004 to 19-06-2004. He has claimed damage for the loss sustained to the building and to the raw materials amounting to Rs. 2,30,000/-. 3. The opposite party/appellant repudiated the claim on the ground that there was no evidence with respect to the alleged flood during the particular period and also on the ground that the raw materials are not covered by the policy. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DWs 1 and 2, Ext...

The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Risheendra ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the first opposite party/Insurance Company in OP No. 239/03 in the file of CDRF, Kannur. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 1,90,115/- and compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and costs of Rs. 1,000/-. 2. The case of the complainant is that he had a shop in handloom goods run in a bunk No. A. 35, Ward No. C.E.29, Kannur and the same was insured with the opposite party. He had entrusted the proposal form to the second opposite party, the accredited agent for the first opposite party on 10-04-2003 with the premium amount of Rs. 2,059/- in cash. On the same day, the second opposite party had collected premium from 4 other bunk owners near to the shop of the complainant. On 11-05-2003 at 2 a.m the bunk caught fire and all the goods were destroyed. The complainant immediately reported the fire incident to both the opposite parties and filed a petition to the Police and a crime was registered. On the same day at 11 a.m the Surv...

The Director of Postal Services, Office of the Chief Pmg, Kerala Circl ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/postal authorities in CC.16/07 in the file of Thiruvananthapuram. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- as compensation and 1000/- as cost with interest at 12% if the amount is not paid within one month. 2. The case of the complainant is that he had sent the money order of Rs.1000/- to his son Sreejesh.S.R Chandran who is working at Rajkot on 9.6.06 to meet his treatment expenses. He was affected by infective hepatitis and malaria. As the Money order was not received he had sold his gold chain at a reduced rate for returning to Thiruvananthapuram. On 13.10.06 he was admitted at PRS hospital. After treatment he rejoined at Rajkot. The money order was received only on 28.10.06 ie, after a lapse of 53 days. The complainant had complained to the postal authorities on 12.9.06 and 15.9.06. 3. The case of the opposite parties is that on receipt of complaint from the complainant enquiries was ma...