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.
The Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority Vs. Smt.Soudh ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Nov-22-2010
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite parties/Water Authority in CC.77/10 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad. The complaint stands allowed. The opposite party/appellant was exparte before the Forum. The appellant has contended that it was on account of the lapse on the part of the counsel for the opposite parties that the matter could not be contested. The complainant is a commercial establishment. In the circumstances the order of the Forum is set aside on condition that the opposite party pay a sum of Rs.5000/- or on deposit of the same before the Forum which can be withdrawn by the complainant. On payment of cost the Forum will permit the opposite party to file version and contest the matter. The Forum will issue notice to the complainant. The matter stands posted before the forum on 27/12/2010. The office will forward copy of this order to the Forum....
Kunjimon and Another Vs. Sangam Financiers, Repd. by Managing Partner ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Nov-22-2010
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:PRESIDENT The appellants are the complainants in OP.486/02 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The appeal stands dismissed. We find that the complaint has been dismissed on the ground that the complainant has clubbed together several causes of action. We find that the above finding is clearly erroneous. The complaint has been filed seeking repayment of the amounts deposited with the opposite parties/financiers. All the deposits are by the same complainants. We find that the complaint has been dismissed without proper adjudication. In the circumstances the order of the Forum is set aside. We find that the LCR is retained by the Forum. The Forum is directed to issue notice to the opposite parties and dispose of the matter on merits. The case stands posted before the Forum on 31/12/2010. Office will forward a copy of this order to the Forum....
The Manager, Punjab National Bank, Payyannur Branch Vs. Measwaran Namb ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Nov-20-2010
SRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA, MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Kannur in OP.407/03, order dated 8th April 2005. The appellant is the opposite party and the respondent is the complainant. This appeal prefers from the impugned order passed by the Forum below directed the opposite party to refund the interest an amount of Rs.29,339/- along with compensation of Rs.1000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.500/-to the complainant within one month from the date of the order. In short; the complainant has made a fixed deposit in erstwhile Nedungadi Bank Ltd; for Rs.6,84.311/- on 2.8.2000 maturing on 2.8.03 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. On 28.2.03, the Nedungadi Bank was amalgamated with Punjab National Bank as per notification of Government of India. When the complainant approached for matured proceeds of the deposit, the bank unilaterally reduced the rate of interest and paid reducing amount Rs.29,339/- in the interest amount. Hence the complainant for getting...
M/S.Ambika Textiles Vs. Mr.Salim, Proprietor and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-19-2010
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, J.Crl.A. No. 1244 of 2004Dated this the 19th day of November, 20101. This appeal is filed by the complainant in C.C. No. 103 of 2001 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothamangalam against the judgment of acquittal dated 17.4.2004. The first respondent herein was the accused in that case, which was filed by the complainant alleging commission of an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 2. Briefly the allegations in the complaint are as follows. The complainant is a proprietorship firm by name M/s. Ambika Textiles, a whole sale dealer, in textiles and the accused purchased goods on credit basis from the complainant and towards the partial discharge of the debt due to the complainant he issued a cheque bearing No.015107 dated 31.3.2000 for an amount of Rs.31,000/- drawn on the Idukki District Co-operative Bank Limited, Adimaly Branch. When the complainant presented the said cheque for collection before the bank, it was dishonoured due to insufficie...
Sankaranarayanan, S/O. Balakrishnan Vs. K.K.Ramachandran and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-19-2010
M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, J.Crl.R.P. No: 652 of 2003Dated this the 19th day of November 2010O R D E R1. This Revision petition is filed by the accused in S.T. No.3727 of 1999 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Wadakancherry challenging the conviction and sentence passed against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The cheque amount was Rs.20,000/-. In the Trial Court, the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay compensation of Rs.22,000/-. The appeal against that conviction and sentence was dismissed. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant and the public prosecutor.3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner reiterated the same contention raised before the Trial Court and the appellate court. Learned counsel for the complainant supported the judgment of the court below.4. The courts below have concurrently held that the cheque in que...
Anju M.Thomas Vs. the Registrar,mahatma Gandhi University
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-19-2010
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.W.P.(C) No. 32581 of 2010 WDated this the 19th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T1. Ext.P12 order passed by the respondent University rejecting an application made by the petitioner for an eligibility certificate is under challenge. 2. On an earlier occasion, an order was passed by the University rejecting the application of the petitioner. That order was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No.17547/2010. The writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P10 judgment, quashing the impugned order and directing that on the production of the additional materials the matter shall be reconsidered. Accordingly, petitioner produced further materials, claim was reconsidered and it is in pursuance thereof that Ext.P12 order has been passed. 3. In the impugned order, the stand taken by the University is that on perusal of the documents, it was found that the petitioner has not studied Chemistry and Biology in Grade XI and Physics, Chemistry and Biology in Grade XII. It is stated ...
Dr.P.P.Mohamed Vs. the Chancellor
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-19-2010
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.W.P.(C) No. 28205 of 2010-ADated this the 19th day of November, 2010.1. An appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the punishment imposed on him stands rejected by the Chancellor as per Ext.P5, stating that it is not admissible as per the rules. The objection raised regarding the admissibility of the appeal is that there is non-compliance of the provisions of Statute 56, Part III of Chapter IV of the Calicut University First Statutes, 1977, in filing the appeal. 2. Ext.P3 is the proceedings by which the Syndicate imposed a punishment of compulsory retirement on the petitioner who was functioning as Registrar of the University. Ext.P4 is the appeal filed before the Chancellor under Statute 52(b) read with Section 7(3) of the Calicut University Act.3. Under the Statute, the appeal had to be presented before the authority which passed the order impugned in the appeal. The petitioner, after the receipt of Ext.P5, tried to salvage the situation by filing another...
Siddappa Ifs Vs. the Kerala Lok Ayukta,thiruvananthapuram and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-19-2010
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.W.P (C) No.17526 of 2010Dated this the 19th November, 2010J U D G M E N T1. Petitioner challenges Exts.P7 and P8 and seeks a prohibition restraining the first respondent from proceeding with Ext.P7 complaint. 2. The briefly stated facts are that in 1979, petitioner was appointed into the Indian Forest Service and was alloted to the Kerala Cadre and joined service as Assistant Conservator of Forests. He earned various promotions and in the year 2002, he was promoted as Chief Conservator of Forests. By Ext.P6 order dated 31.3.2010 extending him the benefit of Ext.P1 guidelines providing for promotion to those who have completed 25 years of service , petitioner was promoted as Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and was posted against a leave vacancy. Accordingly, he joined the higher post and retired from that post on 31.3.2010 itself. 3. The case of the petitioner is that such promotion in pursuance to Ext.P1 guidelines was based on Ext.P2 representation ...
Assia Beevi, W/O.A.Muhammed Syed and ors. Vs. K.Harikumar, S/O.Krishna ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-19-2010
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.R.C.R.No. 205 OF 2010Dated this the 19h day of November, 2010O R D E R1. Under challenge in this revision filed under Section 20 is the judgment of the rent control appellate authority remanding the rent control petition to the rent control court for a fresh decision on the grounds under sub section (3) of Section 11 and clause(iii) of sub section (4) of Section 11. The rent control court ordered eviction against the respondent/tenant on both the above grounds. 2. Appeal was preferred by the tenant before the appellate authority. One ground, which was seriously urged before the appellate authority, was that the rent control court was in error in dismissing the commission application filed by the tenant for issuance of a commission for local inspection, so that evidence could be had regarding the tenant's defences under section 11(3) and also under Section 11(4)(iii). It was urged that the commission application should not have been dismissed by t...
Sasidharan Vs. Prajeesh, Thayyil House and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-19-2010
K.M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.W.P.(C).No. 2256 of 2010 FDated this the 22nd day of November, 20101. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to respondents 3 and 4 to afford adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner, in the event of any obstruction from members of the second respondent union, in the petitioner discharging his duty as toddy shop worker in Kuttikkad toddy shop. 2. The case of the petitioner briefly is as follows. One K.P. Wilson was the registered toddy shop worker in Kuttikkad toddy shop in Mala range. He had relinquished his work in the toddy shop. The petitioner was appointed by the first respondent licensee to do the work in Kuttikkad toddy shop from 1.12.2009 onwards. The petitioner has actually worked in the Kuttikkad shop from 1.12.2009, as can be seen from Exts.P3 and P4. However, the members of the second respondent union is unnecessarily and illegally obstructing the work of the peti...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »