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.
Thankamani Sathyan, W/O.Late Sathyan and ors. Vs. Parappurath Musthafa ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-23-2010
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ.R.C.R.Nos.362, 363 & 364 OF 2010Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2010O R D E R1. Under challenge in all these revisions is the judgment of the rent control appellate authority confirming the common order passed by the rent control court under Section 11(4)(iv) of Act 2 of 1965. In R.C.R. No.362/2010, which corresponds to RCP No.15/2005 and RCA No.26/2006, the eviction order was passed under Section 11(2)(b) also. As the eviction order passed under Section 11(2)(b) is tentative and is liable to be vacated by making requisite deposits under Section 11(2)(c), we are not at all impressed by the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners against the eviction order under section 11(2)(b) passed in that case. 2. The grounds prominently raised in all these revisions are directed against the eviction order concurrently passed by the Rent Control Court and the appellate authority under Section 11(4)(iv). Sri.V.Premchand, learned counsel for t...
Divakaran Vs. Shylaja and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-23-2010
R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.CMA No.3001/2010 & MAT Appeal No.931 of 2010Dated this the 23rd November, 2010ORDER/1. CMA No.3001/2010 is to condone the delay of 443 days in filing the Matrimonial appeal No.931/2010. Mat Appeal No.931/2010 is directed against an order under which maintenance was granted to the claimants, i.e. the wife and two minor children of the appellant. Marriage is admitted. Paternity, though disputed, that controversy was set at rest with Ext.C1 DNA test report. The presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act also settled the controversy. 2. Separate residence from 13.6.2000 is admitted. According to the appellant, such separate residence was consequent to the detection of alleged adultery between his wife, the first claimant and another. The alleged adulterer was not even named in the counter statement filed. The bizarre theory is that while the appellant and his wife were sleeping in the bed room, the alleged adulterer came into the bed room and had adul...
Ranjith Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-23-2010
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, J.Crl.A. No. 1958 of 200Dated this the 23rd day of November, 20101. This appeal is filed by the complainant in C.C. No. 252 of 1995 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Varkala, The second respondent herein was the accused in that case, which was filed by the complainant alleging commission of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 2. The allegation is that the accused borrowed a amount of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant and on 1.5.1994 towards the discharge of that liability, the accused issued Ext.P1 cheque bearing dt.1.7.1994. When the complainant presented that cheque for collection through his bank, it was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused. When the complainant received the memo in respect of that fact, the complainant approached the accused directly and informed her about the dishoour of the cheque. Thereafter the complainant issued a lawyer notice on 1.12.1994. The accused had shifted her residenc...
K.M.Geetha Vijay, W/O. Vijayakumar and ors. Vs. Gopalakumaran and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-23-2010
THOMAS P JOSEPH, J.O.P(C).No.792 of 2010Dated this 23rd day of November, 20101. Notice to respondents is dispensed with in view of the order I propose to pass. 2. Plaintiffs in O.S.No.422 of 1999 of the court of learned Additional Sub Judge-II, Thiruvananthapuram is the petitioners before me seeking to quash Ext.P3, order and issue direction to the learned Sub Judge to complete examination of witnesses in the case. This court called for a report from learned Sub Judge. Learned Sub Judge has submitted report dated 20-11-2010. 3. O.S.No.422 of 1999 is being tried along with a few other cases including three land acquisition reference matters. It would appear from the report of learned Sub Judge that evidence in the cases started on 7-12-2009 by appointing an Advocate Commissioner for recording deposition of witnesses. Thereafter case was posted on several dates as revealed in the report and in the meantime it was revealed that some original documents produced in court were missing. It is...
Sarankumar Vs. Secretary, Greater CochIn Development
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-23-2010
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.W.P.(C) NO. 34299 OF 2010Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2010J U D G M E N T1. Ext.P1 is the allotment order issued by the GCDA allotting a HIG flat to the petitioner for a total sale consideration of Rs.4,20,425. It is stated that initially an amount of Rs.2 lakhs was paid and the balance was repayable in 168 instalments with interest at 13.5%. Though the petitioner submits that repayments were made, he also admits that default was later committed. Finally, he was issued Ext.P3 notice calling upon him to remit an amount of Rs.5,29,051. He requested for waiver of penal interest and thereupon was issued Ext.P5 notice requiring him to remit an amount of Rs.6,61,537. At that stage, by filing Ext.P6, the petitioner has asked for a statement of account. It is stated that he was issued Ext.P7 notice stating that the dues remaining outstanding was Rs.6,66,486. Correspondences were exchanged between the parties and finally he was issued Ext.P9 eviction notice. This led t...
K.P.Umadevi Vs. Kerala State Council for Child Welfare
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-23-2010
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J.W.P.(C)No.36615 Of 2009DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010J U D G M E N T1. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner, who is an Accountant in the Kozhikode Balasevika Training Centre, aggrieved by the proceedings for recovery of an amount of Rs.31,464/- from her, as evident from Exhibits P6 and P11. The petitioner's case is the following. 2. The petitioner is working as Accountant-cum-Typist in the Kozhikode Balasevika Training Centre from 8.11.1985 onwards. One Smt.Kamala was the Principal at that point of time, who died on 25.7.2004. It is stated that during the financial years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05, huge amounts were due to the Training Centre from the 1st respondent and since sufficient funds were not there, the Principal herself was collecting the fees and doing the financial dealings. Ultimately a meeting was held on 10.6.2004 of the Principals and the decisions thereon are recorded in Exhibit P2 which is the copy of the minutes. It is sp...
Chinnamma, W/O. Late Lonappan @ John A. and anr. Vs. Balan S/O. Thatta ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-23-2010
A.K. Basheer & P.Q. Barkath Ali, JJ.CRP.No. 464 of 2002Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2010Order1. This revision petition is at the instance of the landlords of a commercial building. They impugn the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority remanding the case to the Rent Control Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. 2. Eviction was sought under Section 11(2)(b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act 1965. 3. When this case came up for consideration before us on the last occasion we had requested the parties who were present in Court to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement. It is heartening to note that the parties have compromised the matter. The terms of compromise have been incorporated in the joint petition filed by the landlords and the tenant. 4. It has been agreed that the tenant shall pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards the entire arrears of rent, interest, cost etc. payable up to December 31, 2010. The payment shall be made on o...
Shanmugham Vs. Omana
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-23-2010
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.A.S.NO.68 OF 1998Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2010.J U D G M E N T1. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge's Court, North Paravur in O.S.No.315/1994. The suit is one for specific performance of a contract. It is the case of the plaintiff that the property belonged to the defendants and by virtue of an agreement dated 5.2.1994 it was decided to sell the property at the rate of Rs.475/= per cent on or before 5.2.1994. Rs.5,000/= was advanced on the date of the agreement and subsequently on 18.4.1994 another Rs.5,000/= was paid. Term of the karar was extended up to 10.6.1994. Total consideration of the property would come to Rs.63,650/=. The plaintiff was ever ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and therefore, he had sent a notice directing the 1st defendant to come to the Sub Registrar's office but she did not come. The defendants are attempting to get away from the contract, hence the suit for spec...
The Canara Bank, Head Office and Another Vs. C.K. Gopakumar, Proprieto ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Nov-23-2010
SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellants were the opposite parties 1 and 2 and respondents 1 and 2 were the complainant and third opposite party respectively in the complaint in CC.No.156/09 on the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not sanctioning the subsidy of Rs.1,25,000/- to the complainant. It was further alleged that there was deficiency in service on the part of the second opposite party/Canara Bank, Thirunakkara, Kottayam in submitting the relevant documents to the third opposite party Khadi and Village Industries Commission to sanction the subsidy amount of Rs.1,25,000/- in favour of the complainant. According to the complainant he did not get the subsidy of Rs.1,25,000/- because of the deficiency in service on the part of the second opposite party. Thus, the complainant claimed the subsidy amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of Rs.5000/-. 2. The ...
V.R. Baby and Another Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Nov-22-2010
COMMON JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:PRESIDENT The appellant in A.177/09 is the complainant and the appellants in A.503/09 are the respondents/insurance company in OP.96/03 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The opposite parties/insurance company is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.1,81,463/- and cost of Rs.2000/- to the complainant. 2. The grievance of the complainant in A.177/09 is that the matter has been disposed of after a lapse of about 6 years and yet no interest has been awarded. It is also pointed out that the opposite parties had not offered or tendered any amount prior to the filing of the complaint. 3. It is the case of the complainant that the Cielo car owned by him was damaged in a fire accident. The repair cost as per the estimate of the manufacturer amounted to Rs.3,80,000/-. The opposite parties have offered only Rs.1.25.lakhs. The vehicle has been insured for a sum of Rs.3,25,000/-. The complainant has claimed the above amount and interest at 18% and damages of Rs...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »