Kerala Court October 2010 Judgments

Bexy Michael. Vs. A.J.Michael.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker382

1. What is the nature, extent and quality of evidence which a prudent person would expect and demand in the facts and circumstances of the case to come to a safe conclusion about ornaments and cash which had changed hands at the time of marriage? This is the crucial question, the answer to which must resolve the controversy in this appeal. 2. The parties are divorced spouses now. Their marriage took place on 6/9/03. The spouses started separate residence on 28/11/06. A girl child aged about 5 years on the date of the petition was born in the matrimony. It was an acrimonious marriage. The husband filed an application for divorce as O.P.No.117/07. The wife evidently did not think it worthwhile to fight in a court of law to salvage the marriage. She instead came to the Family Court with O.P.No.195/07 with a claim for return of money and gold. Be it noted that at that time the petition for divorce was also pending before the Family Court. 3. The contention of the wife, to put it in a nutsh...

Flex Printing Owners Association of KeralA. Vs. the Kerala State Elect ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker373

1. Petitioner in W.P. (C) No.30630/2010 is the Flex Printing Owners Association of Kerala and petitioner in W.P. (C) No.30732/2010 is a candidate contesting the election to Ward No.24 of the Moovattupuzha Municipality which is scheduled to 25th of this month. The grievance of the petitioners is in relation to an order issued by the Kerala State Election Commission, prohibiting the use of flex boards in the ensuing election. 2. Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.30630/2010 contends that their members are small scale industries which have stocked huge quantity of materials in anticipation of good demand during the election and that, if the prohibition is now implemented, they will suffer huge loss and will be driven out of their business. Petitioners also contend that it was without any material indicating the possibility of environmental hazards that the Election Commission has chosen to impose the ban. 3. However, in the statement filed by the Kerala State Election Commission in W.P. (C) No.3063...

Royal Properties and Projects, Rep. by Its Managing Partner, Tripunith ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

COMMON JUDGEMENT JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT Appellants are the opposite parties/builders in OP No. 156/2003(Appeal No.407/05), OP No. 213/2003 (Appeal No. 408/05), OP No. 212/2003 (Appeal No. 409/05) and OP No. 155/2003 (Appeal No. 410/2005) in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The OPs were disposed of by a common order. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- as costs in each of the OPs. 2. The complainants are the flat owners who have purchased flats from the opposite parties. The complainants have paid a sum of Rs. 9.5 lakhs each for the respective flats including ear marked car parking of the building complex that consisted of 24 flats in three floors. The case of the complainants is that although as per the agreement the extent of the flats mentioned in the agreements was 1125 sq.ft including share in the common areas the flats were found to be of less extent. According to them the plinth area of the rooms varied with the...

Kunjumon Vs. Haris

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:PRESIDENT Appellant is the opposite party in CC.52/09 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.3,13,815/- with interest at 12% and also to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- and cost of Rs.1,500/-. The matter relates to the alleged defective construction by the appellant as contractor. The appellant/opposite party was exparte before the Forum. In the circumstances and in view of the fact that the matter has been disposed of uncontested the order of the Forum is set aside on condition that the appellant pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant or deposit the same before the Forum which can be withdrawn by the complainant. The Forum shall dispose of the matter after permitting the opposite party to contest the case. The case stands posted before the Forum on 25/11/2010. Office will forward a copy of this order to the Forum....

Kerala State Development Corporation for Sc and St, Thrissur, Rep. by ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/Kerala State Development Corporation for SC and ST who are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.500/-as costs. 2. The matter relates to the failure on the part of the appellant to return the original patta of the property which was submitted to the appellant by the late husband of the 1st complainant when he availed a loan from the appellant. The loan was repaid on 5.2.07. The original patta was stated to be misplaced and subsequently obtained and returned on 13.8.09. There was delay of about 2 years to return the patta. In the circumstances we find that there is no scope for admitting the appeal. 3. In the result the appeal is dismissed in limine. Office will forward the copy of this order to the Forum urgently....

Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissionr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker660

1. Challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P8 and P9 orders of assessment finalized against the petitioner by the 1st respondent under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (for short KGST Act), pertaining to assessment years 2003-'04 and 2004-'05. 2. On an earlier occasion, assessments with respect to the said years were completed by the 2nd respondent, exercising powers under section 17D of the KGST Act. By Ext.P1 judgment this Court set aside those assessments and directed the 2nd respondent/competent authority to pass fresh orders, finding that mandatory procedures prescribed under section 17D of the KGST Act as laid down by this Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. V. Asst. Commissioner,Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam (2009(4) KHC 819) were not complied with. Thereafter, steps were initiated by the 1st respondent to finalize the assessments afresh. Proposal notices, Exts.P2 & P3 under section 17(3) of the KGST Act were issued. The petitioner submitted Ext...

Managing Director, M/S Kuruvithadam Agencies (P) Ltd., Ernakulam Dist. ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/dealer in OP.634/02 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The appellant is under orders to refund the price of the TV ie Rs.12,500/-. 2. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a TV set on 3/6/1999 from the opposite party for a sum of Rs.12,500/-, allegedly manufactured by M/s AIWA Company. According to him the TV was having problems from 6 months of its purchase. It was repaired at the instance of the opposite party on 2/1/2002. The TV was found not functioning. It was found that the opposite party assembled the TV set and sold in the name of AIWA Company. For further repairs the opposite party demanded a sum of Rs.4,300/- as against the agreed amount of Rs.1,300/-. 3. It is the contention of the opposite parties that he was a dealer of M/s Baron Electronics Limited. It is contended that it is the duty of the manufacturers to cure the manufacturing defect. It is denied that the opposite party assembled the...

Retna Bai Vs. Kerala Water Authority, Reptd. by Its Secretary, Jala Bh ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in CC.259/08 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The complaint stands dismissed as the complainant was absent and also as no evidence was adduced so far. It is submitted that the opposite party has filed version only on 24.4.10. Evidently, there is lapse on the part of the complainant. The Forum cannot be found fault with, especially as the complaint is of the year 2008. All the same, and in view of the matter that the case has not been disposed of on merits the revision petition is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the Forum. The Forum is directed to permit the complainant to adduce evidence etc. and dispose of the matter on merits. The Forum will issue notice to the opposite parties. The matter stands posted before the Forum on 18.11.2010 Office will forward the copy of this order to the Forum urgently....

The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Idukki Distri ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC.228/09 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The appellants are under orders to pay Rs.99,000/- with 12% interest from the date of complaint and Rs.2000/- towards cots with respect to the loss of the Jeep insured with the opposite parties/appellants. 2. It is the case of the complainant that the Jeep owned by him and insured with the opposite parties was stolen on 21.3.06 in the mid night from the courtyard of the house. The matter has been duly intimated to the Vazhakulam Police Station. The copy of the police records were produced. 3. The contention of the opposite parties/appellants is that complainant has not taken reasonable care as stipulated under condition No.4 of the policy. 4. Evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of Exts. P1 to P5 and R1 to R4. 5. The appellant is disputing only with respect to the non-compliance of Condition No.4 of the policy. The complainant had claimed a sum of Rs.1 lakh wi...

Pratiksh a Asher Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker516

1. This is a revision under Section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') aggrieved by the order dated 25th January, 2010 passed by the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Palakkad. 2. The brief facts are as follows: The petitioner herein was the appellant before the Tribunal aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner-II, Commercial Taxes, Palakkad, and dated 19.12.2008. The assessee sold certain lubricant oil valued at Rupees 25 lakhs approximately to a purchaser at Mangalore. The commodity sold was sought to be transported to Mangalore by a lorry bearing Registration No.TN/41-B 1927. The said vehicle in the course of its journey from Coimbatore (assessee's place of business) obtained a transit pass contemplated under Section 30B of the Act. Section 30B in so far as it is relevant for the present purpose is sub-section (1) which reads as follows: "30B. Transit of goods thro...