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.
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Jessy Emmanuel Pod ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Nov-24-2010
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in I.A.464/2010 in CC.387/09 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. 2. Revision petition is filed over the order in the I.A allowing the prayer of the complainant for appointing a surveyor to assess the loss and damage caused to the vehicle. The Forum has allowed the petition and directed both sides to submit a panel. The contention of the appellants/opposite parties is that there is already a survey report and hence another survey report is not required. We find that there is no merit in the above contention. The complainant is at liberty to adduce further evidence if he is not satisfied with the report of the surveyor appointed by the opposite party. Hence we find that there is no scope for admitting the revision petition. The revision petition is dismissed in-limine. Office will forward copy of this order to the Forum....
The Managing Director, Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. and Others Vs. Saram ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Nov-24-2010
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC.61/06 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- with interest at 9% and Rs.500/- as cost to the complainant. 2. The case of the complainant is that he has paid an excess amount of Rs.29,972.82 and also Rs.3000/- more than the amount due towards the hire purchase finance provided by the opposite parties. The facility was availed on 30/6/2000. Though the loan provided was Rs.4.5.lakhs as per the chart of the appellant he was liable for an amount of Rs.5,95,500/- in 35 instalments. The last date for payment of instalments is 1/6/2003. He has sought for return of the excess amount paid and compensation of Rs.50,000/- etc. 3. The opposite parties has filed version contending that the instalments were not paid on the due dates and hence as per the agreement an additional charge at the rate of 36% per annum is liable to be paid on the defaulted arrears till pa...
M.K.Koya Vs. Union Territory of Lakshadweep and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-23-2010
THOMAS P JOSEPH, J.O.P(C).No.818 of 2010Dated this 23th day of November, 20101. Respondent No.1 appears through counsel. Notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with in view of the order I propose to pass. 2. Defendant in O.S.No.1 of 2004 of the court of learned District Judge, Kavaratti and petitioner in I.A.No.62 of 2005 is the petitioner before me. That is a suit filed by the respondents for recovery of what they called, arrears of rent from petitioner for conducting canteens in three ships conducting service between the main land and the Island of Lakshadweep. According to the petitioner, though the original contract was for a period of two years from 13-12-1999 with a stipulation that it could be extended for a further period of six months, he was under compulsion to run the canteen until 30-11-2003. Respondents have sought for recovery of arrears of rent on the strength of agreement executed between petitioner and respondents stipulating payment of Rs.1,73,000/- per month as again...
The Excise Commissioner Vs. Viswanathan Nair and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-23-2010
THOMAS P JOSEPH, J.W.P(C).No.23095 of 2010Dated this 23rd day of November, 20101. Judgment disposing of the writ petition on November 18, 2010 is recalled. Heard both sides. 2. This petition is filed by the Excise Commissioner challenging Ext.P3, notice directing him to appear in the court of learned Sub Judge, Cherthala and give explanation why suo moto proceeding shall not be initiated against him. That notice was issued pursuant to certain steps taken for attachment of the amount in the hands of petitioner and on his failure to deposit the amount as directed by the court. In this petition it is contended that as the order is passed under Rule 46 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "the Code") it is not sustainable. According to the learned Government Pleader proper course would have been to attach the amount in the hands of petitioner invoking Rule 52 of Order XXI of the Code. Learned counsel for respondents submit that substantial amount is due to the respondent...
Mohammed Rasheed M and anr. Vs. H.Velayudhan and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-23-2010
M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.Crl.M.C.No.4588 of 2010ORDER1. Petitioners are accused 1 and 9 in C.P.No. 37/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Hosdrug, registered on the basis of Annexure-A final report submitted in Crime No.369/2008 of Bekal Police Station. As only accused 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 10 appeared, the case against them was committed to the Sessions Court after splitting up the case against the absconding accused. Later, the case against the absconding accused was transferred to the register of long pending cases as L.P.No.111/2010. Petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in L.P.No.111/2010. On committal, learned Sessions Judge took the case as S.C.No. 272/2009. By Annexure-B judgment, those accused were acquitted of the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 326, 427 and 307 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that in view of the order of acq...
Sreedevi Vs. the Director General of Police and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-23-2010
R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.W.P.(crl.) No.452 of 2010Dated this the 23rd November, 20101. The petitioner, a woman aged 44 years has come to this Court with this petition for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for trace and produce her daughter Sreeja, a young woman aged 22 years (date of birth - 22.12.1988). Sreeja, the alleged detenue has passed the B.Com Degree. She was found missing from 6.10.2010. The petitioner apprehended that the alleged detenue was being detained illegally by the fourth respondent in active collusion with the fifth respondent, his father. The parents had registered a crime, but they had not traced the alleged detenue. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner came to this Court with this petition on 15.11.2010. This petition was admitted on 16.11.2010. Notice was ordered to the respondents. The case was posted to this date. 2. Today when the case is called, the petitioner is present. She is represented by a counsel. Her husband Saju has a...
Jayakumar,s/O.Kuttan Pillai Vs. the Secretary to Government and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-23-2010
R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.W.P.(Cri) No. 439 of 2010-SDated this the 23rd day of November, 20101. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce his daughter `Arunima' - a young girl aged above 18 years (date of birth - 10/5/1992). She was a student of Plus 2 Course. She was found missing from 2/11/10. Complaint was filed. A crime was registered on 3/11/10. As the police did not trace the alleged detenue, the petitioner came to this Court with this petition on 9/11/10. 2. This petition was admitted on 10/11/10 and the matter was posted to this date. Notice was issued to all the respondents. 3. Today, when the case is called, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the alleged detenue shall be appearing before this Court later and accordingly the case was taken up after the alleged detenue reached the Court. As the alleged detenue comes to Court along with/in the custody of respondents 7 and 8, ...
T.G.Vinaya Kumar @ Vinayan Vs. Central Board Film Certification and or ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-23-2010
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.W.P.(C) NO. 32841 OF 2010Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2010J U D G M E N T1. Petitioner is a producer of films. In this writ petition, his main grievance is that since he is at loggerheads with respondents 2 and 3, he apprehends that, on producing and submitting his films for certification of the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent will not do so without the clearance of respondents 2 and 3. 2. The contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that a film is to be certified by the 1st respondent in terms of the provisions contained in the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and Cinematograph (Certification Rules), 1983. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules requiring that a producer should have membership with respondents 2 and 3 or that a producer should obtain any certificate or clearance from respondents 2 and 3 for the 1st respondent to consider the film for certification in accordan...
K.P.Yoonus, S/O. Muhammedkutty Vs. Pallipparambath Jumailath, D/O. Ali
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-23-2010
R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.CMA No.349/2007 & MAT Appeal No.84 of 2007Dated this the 23rd November, 2010ORDER/1. This petition is to condone the delay of 617 days in filing the Matrimonial Appeal. The appeal in turn is directed against an order dismissing the application to appoint the petitioner as the guardian of his child. 2. We are not satisfied that there is any justifiable reason to condone the long delay of 617 days. We have perused the proceedings and we find that as early as on 5.7.2007, the bench which dealt with the matter had directed the appellant to file a fresh affidavit properly explaining the delay. No affidavit has been filed so far. We are not satisfied that the delay deserves to be condoned. The learned counsel for the appellant presses for further time to file a fresh affidavit, as already directed. We are not satisfied that any further time need be granted for filing such further affidavit to explain the delay. 3. We are satisfied that the delay does not deser...
Sureshan, S/O.Apputty Vs. A.Abdul Karim and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-23-2010
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, J.Crl.A. No. 1672 of 2005Dated this the ..th day of November, 20101. This appeal is filed by the complainant in S.T. No. 2560 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -V, Kozhikode against the order of acquittal of the first respondent herein under Section 256 Cr.P.C. dt.3.11.2003. That was a case filed by the complainant against the first respondent herein alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act involving a cheque for Rs.30,000/- On 3.11.2003, the accused was acquitted under Section 256 Cr.P.C. as the complainant was absent. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor.3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant/complainant could not be present before the court below on 3.11.2003 as he was laid up with fever and body pain and the complainant was present in Court on all other hearing dates and there was no wilful laches or negligence on his part...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »