Kerala Court February 2010 Judgments

Ajitha Vs. M/S. Automotive Marketing (P) Ltd. and Others

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in CC 216/06 in the file of CDRF, Kannur. The complaint filed claiming a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with interest and Rs. 25,000/- as compensation stands dismissed. 2. It is the case of the complainant that she purchased an Eicher Tipper for Rs. 8,79,800/- by exchanging her Ashok Leyland Vehicle for a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/-. The 3rd opposite party/dealer agreed to pay a discount of Rs. 50,000/-. The opposite party also arranged for the complainant a loan of Rs. 3,50,000 from M/s Sundaram Finance. After the completion of the transaction, the opposite parties refused to pay Rs. 50,000/-, the offered discount. A credit note for Rs. 50,000/- was handed over. But no payment was made. Lawyer notice was issued on 14-07-2006 for which the opposite parties have replied raising untenable contentions. 3. Opposite parties 1 and 2 have filed joint version and the 3rd opposite party filed a separate version containing the same content...

The Secretary, K.S.E.B., Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram and Others Vs. Jos ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN: MEMBER This appeal is preferred against the order dated 29-09-2004 in OP No. 258/99 of CDRF, Kottayam whereby the opposite parties are directed to cancel Ext. A1 demand notice for Rs. 8,073/- and Ext. A1(a) demand notice for Rs.1,463/- and to issue a fresh demand notice in respect of Ext.A1 demand notice for the energy consumed without penalty. The Forum below has also ordered cost of Rs. 750/- to be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant. It is aggrieved by the said directions that the present appeal is filed by the opposite parties. 2. The case of the complainant before the Forum is that he is running a small-scale industrial unit and that on 10-03-1999 a bill for Rs. 8,073/- and on 16-03-1999 another bill for Rs. 1,463/- were served on him. It is his further case that he is not liable to pay the said amount and alleging deficiency of service, the complaint was filed before the Forum praying for directions to cancel the demand notice for Rs. 8,073...

Sreedharan Vs. Alex Joseph, S/O. Joseph

Court: Kerala

ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J.1. The tenant is in revision being aggrieved by the judgment of the Appellate Authority ordering his eviction on the ground of bonafide need for own occupation. The respondent landlord sought to evict him on the ground of arrears of rent and bonafide need for own occupation. Eviction sought on the ground of arrears of rent was declined concurrently by the Rent Control Court and Appellate Authority and it is conceded by both sides that the above ground does not survive in any manner. The need projected by the landlord in the context of Section 11(3) was that the landlord wants to occupy the petition schedule premises as well as the two rooms which are adjacent to the same for the purpose of conducting a studio and colour lab after renovating the building. The tenant filed objections disputing the bonafides of the need. Protection of the second proviso to Section 11(3) was also claimed by the tenant. The evidence before the Rent Control Court at trial consisted ...

B. Santhakumariamma Vs. Chellamma and ors.

Court: Kerala

S.S. Satheesachandran, J.1. Writ petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 784 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Munsiff Court, Cherthala. The above suit was one for partition, and the respondents are the defendants. After evidence was completed in the case the plaintiff moved an application for amending the plaint which was objected to by the defendants. The learned Munsiff declined the amendment applied for. Then the plaintiff moved for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. That was also opposed to by the defendants. The learned Munsiff after considering the submissions made by both sides dismissed the application for withdrawal of the suit holding that after trial the suit cannot be allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to file fresh suit. Ext.P11 order so passed by the learned Munsiff is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. I heard the counsel on bot...

Gouriamma Vs. Yohannan Luckose

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT275

Thomas P. Joseph, J.1. The substantial question of law framed for a decision is:When a claim or objection under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the Code') is entertained by the executing court and later dismissed for default, can the aggrieved party maintain a suit to establish the right claimed by him over the property attached in view of the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 58 of the Code?2. Short facts necessary for a decision of the question are: Respondent No. l instituted O.S. No. l09 of l981 on 18.12.1981, according to him against respondent No. 2 for recovery of money. That resulted in Ext.A1, compromise decree dated 03.01.1982. Respondent No. 1 initiated execution proceeding and on 02.03.1982 the suit property was attached for realisation of the amount due to respondent No. l. On 11.07.1983 appellants and two others filed E.A. No. 118 of 1983 in the executing court under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code claiming right over the property attached and cont...

Saumya Ann Thomas Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT869

R. Basant, J.1. Is the stipulation of a period of two years as the minimum mandatory period of separate residence in Section 10A(1) of the Divorce Act right, just and fair? Is it arbitrary, fanciful and oppressive? Does that stipulation offend Article 14 and/or Article 21 of the Constitution? Does that stipulation deserve to be read down to 'one year' to save the provision from the vice of unconstitutionality? These interesting contentions are raised for our consideration in this Writ Petition.2. These questions arose for consideration before us in this Writ Petition as also in W.P.(C) No. 24219/08. Both were heard together. We have had the advantage of hearing Sri. G. Shrikumar, the learned Counsel who was requested to render assistance as amicus curiae to this Court. We have also heard the arguments of Advocates M/s T.S. Harikumar, Liji J. Vadakkedom,. H.B. Shenoy and T.P.M. Ibrahim Khan, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India. W.P.(C) No. 24219/08 is being disposed of by a...

Sunil S/O. Nagappan Vs. K. Shamsudheen and ors.

Court: Kerala

ORDERS.S. Satheesachandran, J.1. Writ petition is filed by the claimant in an application for compensation pending on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. The application was filed to seek compensation for the injury sustained by him in a motor accident. That application was initially filed under Section 166 of the MV Act 1988 as amended by Act 54 of 1994 claiming a sum of Rs. 1,78,000/-. Later, he moved an application for amending the claim as under Section 163A of the MV Act to get compensation under the structured formula. Claimant, a painter, in his application has shown his income as Rs. 3,600/- per month. After the amendment of the petition as one under Section 163A of the MV act, the claimant moved an application for correcting his annual income limiting it to Rs. 40,000/-. That amendment was opposed by the respondent 3 and 6. The insurance company contending that the application as amended, under Section 163A showing an income, as stated earlier, above Rs....

Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The order dated 29-04-2008 in CC No. 48/2006 of CDRF, Alappuzha is being assailed in this appeal by the opposite parties on the ground that the Forum below did not appreciate the evidence of payment of the amount by the opposite parties at the time of passing the order. 2. The complainant approached the Forum stating that the opposite parties did not pay the amount towards compensation for the trees cut and removed by them even though he had given repeated requests. The 3rd opposite party filed version stating that the Tahsildar appointed by the opposite parties has assessed the compensation and the same is to be paid from the office of the Tahsildar functioning at the Collectorate, Alappuzha. It was also contended by them that they are not liable to pay the compensation as required by the complainant. 3. The opposite parties filed the valuation statement, which is marked as Ext.B1. On the side of the complainant Ext.A1 to A4 were marked through the...

Subrahmaniyan Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT470

V.K. Mohanan, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of the sole accused in S.C. No. 71/2002 of the Court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge(Adhocl),Thodupuzha, who challenges his conviction and sentence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act (for short, 'the Act' only).2. The prosecution case is that on 14.6.99 at 3 p.m. the accused was found in possession of 3 litres of arrack in a plastic can at Vattappara junction at a place called Pothamedu. On the basis of the said allegation, crime No. 8/99 of Devikulam Excise Range was registered. After investigation, a final report was filed in the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Devikulam, whereupon C.P. No. 3/2001 was initiated and by order dated 6.10.2001, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha where the case was instituted as S.C. No. 71/2002, which was made over to the court of Assistant Sessions Judge, but subsequently, it was transferred by the Sessions Court to the trial court for disposal. ...

Assistant Engineer, Kseb, Electrical Section, Wayanad and Another Vs. ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellants were the opposite parties and the respondent was the complainant in CC.151/08 on the file of CDRF, Wayanad, Kalpetta. The complaint therein was filed by the respondent herein alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellants/opposite parties in issuing A1 bill dated 11.11.08 demanding a sum of Rs.9306/-. The opposite parties entered appearance before the forum below and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. They contended that the complainant is not a consumer of the connection with Consumer No.5348 and he has no locus standi to file the complaint against the opposite party. It was further contended that the unauthorized use of electricity was detected by the surprise inspection conducted by the first opposite party and thereby the A1 penal bill was issued. The opposite parties have also contended that the complainant is not a consumer and he is not entitled to get any relief in the matter. 2. Befo...