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.
G.Gopakumar . Vs. Sub Inspector of Police.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-29-2010
1. The petitioner has come to this Court through his power of attorney holder and mother with this petition for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for trace and produce his wife Arsha R.Nair, aged about 24 years (date of birth - 31/5/1986). 2. The petitioner and the alleged detenue Arsha R.Nair are married. Their marriage was solemnised and registered on 6.3.2009. They had resided at various places. Finally, they were residing at Vishakapattanam. One child was born in the wed lock. From 15.7.2010, the alleged detenue - wife of the petitioner was missing along with the child. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner came to this court with this petition on 3.11.2010. 3. This petition came up for admission hearing on 4.11.2010. The Bench was not pleased to admit the writ petition. Notice was not ordered. But the learned Government pleader was requested to take instructions and make submissions to enable us to decide on the question of admission. The matter was posted ...
R.Pradeep Kumar. Vs. State Bank of IndiA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-29-2010
1. The petitioner is a partner of M/s.Anjali Coir Mate and Mattings, Pozhikkara, Paravoor. Challenge in this writ petition is against sale conducted by the 2nd respondent in D.R.C No.1641/SBI/KLM, on the basis of Ext.P3 publication, on 11.8.2010. The firm had availed financial assistance from the 1st respondent Bank by creating equitable mortgage on various items of immovable properties. Consequent to default committed in repayment of the loans availed, the 1st respondent Bank filed O.A.No.270/2003 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the said Tribunal had issued a recovery certificate. As per Ext.P3 notice, auction of immovable property was proclaimed by the 2nd respondent in the proceedings initiated for execution of the recovery certificate. The sale which was originally scheduled on 6.1.2010 was adjourned for want of bidder, to 11.8.2010. The property having an extent of 27.65 Ares comprised in Re-Sy.No.43/5 and 43/6 of Paravoor Village was sold in auction for a sum of Rs.21,70,00...
M.S.Jasmi. Vs. the Intelligence Officer.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-29-2010
1. The petitioner is challenging Ext. P6 notice issued by the first respondent under Section 45 (A) of the KGST Act, seeking to impose penalty upon the petitioner, notwithstanding the fact that the proceedings initiated earlier by the very same respondent have attained finality when Ext. P3 order passed by the said respondent has been set aside by the Deputy Commissioner as per Ext. P5 order dated 18.11.06. 2. The gist of factual matrix shows that, the petitioner, who is a manufacturer of plastic granules, was confronted with some incriminating circumstances during the inspection conducted by the Intelligence Officer on 22.01.2002. In the course of such inspection, much suppression was detected, pursuant to which Ext. P1 notice was issued calling for explanation. In response of this, the petitioner submitted Ext. P2 reply, contending that there was no suppression or short accounting under any circumstances and further that the petitioner was only a manufacturer of 'plastic granules', w...
T.Mohammed Aslam. Vs. the Indian Bank.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-29-2010
1. Challenge in this Writ Petition is against proceedings initiated under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Consequent to failure in repayment of amounts availed by the petitioner from the respondent Bank under a cash credit facility, proceedings was initiated against the immovable property, which is the secured asset. The 3rd respondent had now issued Ext.P4 notice as contemplated under Rule 8 (1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement Rules, 2002) intimating steps contemplated under Section 13 (4). 2. It is noticed that the petitioner had not invoked any of the statutory remedies available at any stage of the proceedings. Hence considering the dictum laid by the Hon'ble apex court in United Bank of India v. Satyavati Tondon and others [2010 (8) SCC 110] it is not proper and justified for this Court to interfere with the proceedings invoking powers under Article 226. 3. Having confronted with the abo...
Philomina Ephrem. Vs.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-29-2010
1. According to the petitioner, she owns and possesses 2.92 acres of patta land situated in survey Nos.24/1-1 and 24/1-2 of Ayyappankovil village in Udumbanchola Taluk of Idukki district. She availed of a loan of Rupees 5 lakhs from the fifth respondent Bank mortgaging the said property. According to the petitioner, her son, who then possessed 15 acres of non patta land, was the guarantor to the loan. 2. Default was committed and while so, the Government of India issued Ext.P4, the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. On the basis that the petitioner is a "small farmer" as defined in clause 3.6 of Ext.P4, petitioner applied for waiver of the entire liability. However, treating the petitioner as an "other farmer" as defined in clause 3.7 of Ext.P4, only 25% of the liability was waived. It is aggrieved by the above, she has approached this Court. 3. Case of the petitioner is that she owns and possesses only 2.92 acres of land situated in the aforesaid survey numbers and...
JaIn M. Joseph and Another Vs. Joy Kuriakose
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Nov-27-2010
SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The order dated 30-09-2009 of CDRF, Idukki in CC No. 65/2008 is being assailed in this appeal by the opposite parties who are under instructions to supply 280 litres of Nerolac Emulsion paint to the complainant or to pay Rs. 36,000/- with labour charges of Rs. 12,000/- and cost of Rs. 2,000/- within one month from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the amount shall carry interest at 12% per annum from the date of default till date of payment. 2. The complainants case before the Forum bereft of unnecessary details in the complaint is that he has purchased 280 litres of Nerolac paint from the first opposite party during the period from May 2006 to July 2006 through the brother-in-law of the first opposite party and that after 4 months of painting, the painting pealed off from the walls and roof and when the matter was informed to the brother-in-law of the first opposite party, the first opposite party assured that he would take up the matt...
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. K.Satheesan
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Nov-27-2010
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/insurance company in CC.280/06 in the file of CDRF, Kannur. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.22,544/- and cost of Rs.1000/-. 2. The case of the complainant who is a coconut tree climber is that on 5/2/2006 he fell down from the coconut tree and sustained serious injuries and sustained fracture on one of the ribs on the right side. As per the medical certificate issued by the doctor it is advised to take rest up to 5/10/2006. As per the terms of the policy the opposite party is liable to pay 1% of the total policy amount per week during the period, the assured was unable to do work. The opposite party/appellant only allowed Rs.10,000/- as per the above condition and Rs.1,700/- for the treatment expenses. The contention of the opposite party/appellant is that he was an inpatient in the hospital only for one week and that he was not having total temporary disablement. It is only on humanitar...
Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Thirurangadi, Malappuram and O ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Nov-27-2010
COMMON JUDGMENT SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The above appeals are preferred by the opposite parties in CC No. 42/2007 and 43/2007 of CDRF, Malappuram, who are aggrieved by the directions contained in the common order passed by the Forum below in the above complaints by which the opposite parties are directed to cancel Ext.A1 bill for Rs. 80,138/- and bill for Rs. 30,658/- in CC No. 42/2007 and CC No. 43/2007 respectively. As the appeals are filed by the same opposite parties in both the complaints, we dispose of these appeals by this common order. 2. The complaint is one and the same in CC No. 42/2007 and CC No. 43/2007. His grievance is that he was issued with a bill for Rs. 80,136/- to his restaurant run by him for earning his livelihood and another bill for Rs. 30,658/- was issued in respect of his house. It is his further grievance that both the bills were issued without any basis and the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite parties to cancel the bill ...
R. Ajith Kumar. Vs. State of KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-26-2010
1. The writ petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers;' "i) To call for the records leading to Ext.P1; ii. To issue a writ of certiorari quashing ext.P1; iii. To issue a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ restraining the 6th respondent from proceeding against the petitioner and his assets under the Revenue Recovery Act. iv. Direct the respondents to first forfeit Ext.P3 and to proceed against the assets of the 4th respondent for the liability disclosed in Ext.P1 v. To declare that the petitioner is not liable to pay the amount shown in Ext.P1. ANDvi. To pass any other appropriate order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. 2. The sequence of events as narrated in the Writ Petition shows that the petitioner was working as Branch Manager of the 4th respondent Company dealing with some electronic items. When some electronic items were being transported in a truck it was intercepted on the way issuing notice under Section 29(A) of ...
Rajasekharan Pillai. Vs. Thomas P.Varghese.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-26-2010
1. Under challenge in this revision filed under Section 20 is the order passed by the First Additional Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kollam in I.A. No.1636/2007 in RCA No.24/2004. The RCA was filed by the revision petitioner against an order passed by the rent control court dismissing the rent control petition. The RCA was dismissed for default. Seeking restoration of the RCA, which was dismissed for default, the petitioner filed I.A. No.1623/2007. I.A. No. 1636/2007 was filed seeking condonation of the delay of 104 days, which had been caused in the matter of filing I.A. No.1623/2007. 2. Under the impugned order, the learned appellate authority has dismissed I.A. No. 1636/2007. The ground raised for condoning the delay was that the petitioner/appellant was laid up due to 'Amavatham' , a rheumatic ailment. Before the appellate authority, the petitioner alone gave evidence as PW1 and marked Ext.P1 which was a medical certificate issued by an Ayurvedic Physician who had treated the r...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »