Kerala Court November 2010 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Kerala State Electricity Board. Vs. Meenakshi, Puthen Nikarthil House, ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-2010
1. Petitioner is challenging order dated November 24, 2007 passed by Learned Additional District Judge in O.P (Ele.) No.123 of 2004 awarding enhanced compensation on a petition filed by the respondents under Sections 10 to 16 of the Indian Telegraphs Act read with Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act claiming additional compensation for value of improvements cut and removed and compensation for diminution in land value. 2. It is not disputed that certain valuable improvements were cut and removed from the property of respondents for drawal of 110 KV line. Petitioner awarded `.6,123/- as compensation. Respondents claimed additional compensation. Petition was opposed by petitioner contending that no additional compensation is payable for value of improvements and the claim for compensation for diminution in land value cannot be allowed. In the court below respondents proved Exts.A1 to A3. Petitioner did not produce any evidence. Neither side produced oral evidence also. Based on Exts...
M/S. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Vs. the State of Kerala, and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-2010
1. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P4 common order issued by the appellate authority through which interlocutory applications for stay filed along with various statutory appeals, filed against assessments pertaining to various months in the year 2008-09 and 2009-2010 were disposed of. The appellate authority had insisted a condition for payment of the 50% of the amount due, while granting interim stay. 2. According to the petitioner, the interim order was issued without proper application of mind in a mechanical manner and it was issued without proper advertence to the grounds raised in the appeal. It is further contended that the condition imposed is highly rigorous and it had caused onerous liability on the petitioner, which could not be complied with under the present financial situation of the petitioner company. 3. On a perusal of Ext.P4, I notice that the appellate authority had illustrated almost all the contentions raised in the appeal. It is evident that the interlocutory ap...
The Manager, P.M.S.A.V.H.S.School.. Vs. State of KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-2010
1. These two writ petitions have been filed by the Managers of the respective Vocational Higher Secondary schools aggrieved by the exclusion of those schools from the list of schools prepared for starting Higher Secondary Courses. Since common questions have been raised, they are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The facts of W.P. (C) No.24119/2010 show the following: The school in question is an aided school situated in Ponmala Grama Panchayat in Malappuram District. The same is the only high school available in the entire Panchayat and there is no other Higher Secondary school therein. The students had to seek admission in the adjacent Grama Panchayat, viz. Kottakkal Grama Panchayat to pursue their higher secondary course, which is situated more than 8 kms. away from Ponmala Grama Panchayat. As early as in 2004, by Exts.P1 and P2 the Grama Panchayat had requested the Government to sanction Higher Secondary section in the petitioner's school. Ext.P3 is the copy of the norms a...
The Koncherry Coir Factories. Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer-ii.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-2010
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P6 and P7 orders of assessments completed under Section 17D of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (KGST Act), with respect to the years 2003-04 and 2004-05. The orders in question are impugned without filing statutory appeals on the ground that the assessments were completed without affording the petitioner any reasonable opportunity for production of books of accounts and for objecting to the proposal. 2. According to the petitioner, the business premises of the petitioner remained closed since the bank from where the petitioner had availed financial assistance had locked the factory premises and kept the same under their lock and key, pursuant to proceedings initiated on the basis of default committed in repayment of amounts due. It is stated that the assessments were finalised imposing the huge liability on the petitioner which is not actually due in view of the trading account produced as Ext.P1 and P2, which reveals that the petitioner was doing...
Chandrika AmmA. Vs. Karimbrokandy Kannan.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-2010
1. The plaintiff, who was successful before the trial court, but was non-suited by the lower appellate court, is the appellant before this court. 2. The suit was one for recovery of possession, on the strength of title. It appears that there was an earlier rent control proceeding between the parties. In the rent control petition, the respondent/defendant took up a contention that the land had been taken by him on lease and that he had put up the building. For reasons best known to the appellants, faced with that contention, they chose to withdraw those proceedings. Thereafter, they instituted the present suit. 3. In the present suit, the respondent/defendant contended that he was a tenant falling within the ambit of Act 2 of 1965 and therefore, a suit for eviction is not maintainable. 4. The trial court accepted the plea of the plaintiffs that the defendant cannot be heard to say that he was the tenant of the building and that he cannot go behind the earlier contention that he had take...
Divakaran.K,s/O.Sankaran Kutty Nair. Vs. Union of India-represented by ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-2010
1. Identical facts and issues involved in these writ petitions and therefore, they were heard jointly and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitioners are Ex-servicemen. Admittedly, all of them are registrants with the 6th respondent, the Kerala State Ex-servicemen Development and Rehabilitation Corporation (hereinafter referred for short 'KEXCON'). The facts and documents are being referred to hereafter in this judgment in the manner they are set out in WP(C) No.22624/2010 unless otherwise specifically mentioned. 3. As per Ext.P1 the 6th respondent invited applications from among ex-servicemen who have registered with KEXCON for appointment as security guards on contract basis in the institutions belonging to Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) in Kannur ad Kasaragod Districts. In response to Ext.P1, the petitioners in these writ petitions submitted applications. Essentially, the challenge in these writ petitions is against the fixation of seniority of security gu...
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Dixon Carvalio, S/O. Kasper.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-2010
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated October 10, 2003 in O.P.(MV)No.885/2000 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur awarding a compensation of Rs. 3,83,000/- for the loss caused to the claimants on account of the death of deceased first claimant in a motor accident. The appellant is the third respondent/Insurance Company in the O.P. 2. During the pendency of the O.P., the first claimant died. His legal heirs were impleaded as supplemental petitioners 2 to 8 in the O.P. The accident happened on July 27, 2000 at about 5.45 a.m. while the deceased first claimant was riding his motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL 7/J 5978 along Vypin-Munambam public road and when he reached near Njarakkal Hospital junction, Njarakkal, he was knocked down by the mini lorry bearing Reg.No.KL 8/C 3578 driven by the second respondent. Deceased first claimant sustained the following injuries in the accident: Lacerated wound on the occipital region, righ...
M. Maheendran Vs. Mrs. Prameela Kalidasan
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Nov-25-2010
JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Appellant is the opposite party/contractor in CC.211/09 in the file of CDRF Kasargod. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- and compensation of Rs.25000/- and cost of Rs.7000/-. The appellant was exparte in the proceedings before the Forum. 2. It is the case of the appellants that notice was not served. Forum has noted that registered postal acknowledgment due was sent to the opposite party but the acknowledgment card was not returned. The Forum has treated service as deemed service under Section 28(A) (3) of the Consumer Protection Act. The appellant has no case that the address is defective. All the same in view of the fact that the matter has been disposed of uncontested and a considered order is desirable in view of the amount involved the order of the Forum is setaside on condition that the opposite party pay a sum of Rs.7500/- towards cost to the complainant or deposit the same before the Forum which can be withdrawn ...
M.V.Kannan Vs. N.Raghavan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-24-2010
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, J.Crl.A. No. 2055 of 2003Dated this the 24th day of November, 20101. This appeal is filed by the complainant in S.T.C. No. 210 of 1995 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur. The first respondent herein was the accused in that case, which was filed by the complainant alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 2. The case of the complainant is briefly as follows. The accused borrowed Rs.83,000/- from the complainant in February, 1994 for the purpose of his daughter's marriage. He promised to repay the amount in March, 1995, when he was about to retire. For the said amount the accused issued two cheques in favour of the complainant for Rs.69,000/- and Rs.14,000/- The cheques were not dated at that time. The accused permitted the complainant to enter the date and present the cheques for collection in March, 1995. 3. On 1.8.1994, the complainant received an information that the accused was arranging for a volun...
Dr. Vivek Mathew James and ors. Vs. the Secretary to Government and or ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-24-2010
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.W.P.(C) NO. 34936 OF 2010Dated this the 24th day of November, 2010J U D G M E N T1. Petitioners completed MBBS course from the Government Medical College in the State of Kerala. They got admission in the merit Quota, in terms of the prospectus and bonds were executed agreeing to do rural service. 2. On completion of the course, petitioners are required to do rural service for one year. Although, petitioners do not dispute the liability for rendering rural service, contention raised is that since they are preparing for the entrance examination for post graduate courses, they should not be compelled to render rural service, atleast till their P.G. admission process is completed. Seeking such relaxation, they filed Ext.P4 representation before the first respondent. But there was no reply to the said representation. It is in these circumstances Writ Petition has been filed seeking relaxation from the bond obligation to the extend stated above. 3. Learned Government Pleade...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »