Kerala Court February 2010 Judgments

Muhammed Basheer Vs. Kannur District Co-operative Bank Ltd.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT577

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. By virtue of Section 31(i) thereof, the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, for short, the 'Act', does not apply to any security interest created in agricultural land. The issue raised in this Writ Appeal is as to whether such exemption applies to lands on which rubber plants/trees are grown.Views in the impugned judgment:2. Learned single Judge noted that the term 'agricultural land' is not defined in the Act. Therefore, it was taken that the term had to be read and understood as in common parlance. With that, the decision in State of Kerala v. Lucy Kochuvareed 1987 (1) KLT 578 was distinguished and it was held that considering the scope and ambit of the relevant provisions of the law and also the scheme of the statute, it can only be read and understood as not including rubber plantation even by the farthest stretch of imagination. The Writ Petition was accordingly dismissed. Hence thi...

Saju K. Scaria and Mohanan K. Scaria Both Sons Scaria Vs. State of Ker ...

Court: Kerala

Antony Dominic, J.1. Heard both sides.2. Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P1, an order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions in Appeal No. 570/2009. Petitioners are owners of 8.83 cents of land in Sy. Nos. 1018/11 and 1018/9A of Kothamangalam Village. For the purpose of constructing a two storied building with shop rooms, they submitted Ext.P3 plan to the Municipality for approval and for a building permit. Municipality considered the matter and Ext.P2 building permit was issued. Ext.P3 plan was also approved.3. It is stated that on the strength of Exts.P2 and P3 petitioners commenced construction and thereupon the 2nd respondent lodged a complaint with the Municipality against the work undertaken by the petitioners. It is stated that thereupon a stop memo was issued. Thereafter, enquiry was conducted and by Ext.P4, the stop memo issued by the Municipality was withdrawn. Second respondent thereupon filed Appeal No. 570/2009 before the Tribunal For ...

Krishnapriya, D/O. Rajan Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the 5th respondent to consider the Exhibit P5 representation and thereby direct to return the T.C. and other certificates to the petitioner along with the amount received at the time of admission, within a time limit in the interest of justice.Issue such other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts of the case so as to secure the ends of justice.2. There is an interim order issued at the stage of admission to the following effect:There will be an interim order directing the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations to direct the5th respondent college to return to the petitioner the certificates produced by her at the time of admission and also to issue transfer certificate to her on the petitioner producing a copy of this order before the 5th respondent college.3. The said interim order is not ...

M/S. Force Motors Ltd. Vs. Sreeja Sivadas and Another

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT Appellant is the 2nd additional opposite party in CC.15/2006 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. In appeal filed by the 1st opposite party as FA.82/09 this Commission has set aside the order of the Forum. Hence we find that there is no scope for admitting the appeal as already the order of the Forum has been set aside. Hence the appeal is dismissed in limine. Office is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Forum urgently....

M/S Tata Motors Officers and Network, Passenger Car Business Unit Mark ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/dealers and manufacturers in OP No. 98/04 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellants are under orders to refund a sum of Rs. 3,53,780/- with interest at 6% and to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- as well as costs of Rs. 1,000/-. 2. It is the case of the complainant that she purchased a Tata V2 Indica Car for a sum of Rs. 3,65,517/- from the 3rd opposite parity/dealer. For registration and tax etc. she had to spend more than Rs. 20,000/- and for insurance Rs. 12,366/- and Rs . 8,000/- was spent for accessories. On the 3rd day of the date of purchase itself it was found that the engine oil was completely burned off. The vehicle was taken to the dealer and filled with fresh engine oil. The same was repeated a number of times. Further there was no proper pulling and the car had other defects like persistent starting trouble, improper functioning of the radiator, excess smoke emitting etc. As direc...

V.S.A. Subramaniam and Another Vs. the General Manager, International ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The complainants are the husband and wife/the second complainant being the Power of Attorney Holder of the first complainant who then was working abroad. It was submitted that the first complainant died on 07-03-2003. Copy of the death certificate was produced. The case of the complainants are as follows: 2. The first complainant was employed at Dubai. The first complainant had entrusted cheque dated 01-12-1999 drawn on Abudhabi Commercial Bank by one Ahmed Saif Khamis Magid Almarri for a sum of UAE Dirhams 20,000 to the second opposite party bank for collection and crediting the same into his account on 01-12-1999. On enquires it was found that the amount has not been credited. From 20-01-2000 he was making enquiry. Vide letter dated 30-03-2000 the first complainant, the International Banking Division of the second opposite party bank informed that there is a possibility that the instrument could have been lost in transit and that efforts are...

St. Anthony’s Motors India Ltd. Represented by Its Director, Kafe ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the 2nd opposite party/dealer in CC.151/09 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The complaint was allowed. The appellant stood ex parte before the Forum. The matter relates to the alleged manufacturing defect to the Tata Sumo vehicle purchased. It is pointed out that there is no expert evidence in the matter also. There is no proper explanation for the absence of the appellant before the Forum. 2. In the circumstances the order of the Forum is set aside on condition that the appellant/2nd opposite party pay a sum of Rs.6000/- to the complainant or deposit the same before the Forum which can be withdrawn by the complainant. On payment of the cost the Forum will permit the opposite parties to file version and contest the matter. The Forum will issue notice to the complainant also. 3. The matter stands posted before the Forum on 30.3.2010. Office is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Forum urgently....

Venu Vs. Commissioner of Excise

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT771

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The writ petitioner is the appellant. He was granted the privilege to vend toddy in shop Nos. 36 to 40 in Group No. VIII of Kodungallur Excise Range, for the year 2009-2010. But, he was not granted licence to run toddy shop No. 36, for the reason that the building, wherein it is proposed to be housed, comes within the objectionable distance prescribed under Rule 7(2) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 (for short, 'the Rules'). The appellant's claim for licence was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Thrissur, by Ext.P5 order dated 11.8.2009. His revision against Ext.P5 order was dismissed by the Excise Commissioner, by Ext.P8 order dated 27.10.2009. The relevant portion of Ext.P8 reads as follows:Until 2007-2008, the Toddy Shop was licensed in Building No. X/434 under the protection of 2nd proviso of Rule 7(2) of Disposal Rules, 2002. But during 2008-2009, the above toddy shop was not licensed in the same building. As per the 2nd provi...

P. Raghavan S/O. K.K.K. Ponnan, Chargeman Vs. Ksrtc Rep. by Its Managi ...

Court: Kerala

Antony Dominic, J.1. The petitioner was a Chargeman, who retired from the Edappal Depot of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation on 31/07/2003. While he was in service, he availed of certain financial assistance from the Kerala State Financial Enterprises and the Kerala State Transport Workers Co-operative Society Ltd. According to the petitioner, the liability was being discharged by way of instalments, which were recovered by the employer from his salary. It is stated that although such recoveries were made in time, delay was caused in remitting the amount to the respective institutions. As a result of which, those institutions levied overdue interest on the petitioner. The petitioner submits that by way of overdue interest, Rs. 28,255/- was levied, and that the said amount was recovered from his terminal benefits.2. The contention of the petitioner is that default was occurred at the hands of the KSRTC, in as much as, it had after making recoveries in time, did not make timely...

Venugopalan Nair Vs. Mohamedkunhi

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT971

ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J.1. The parties are referred to herein as the landlord and the tenant. R.C.R. No. 79/07 is filed by the tenant. R.C.R. No. 195/07 is filed by the landlord. The revision petitioners/tenants are aggrieved by the judgment in the Rent Control Appeals. Since the landlord's case for eviction in the context, of the ground under Section 11(2)(b) was declined by the authorities below concurrently on the ground under Section 11(2)(b) and since we do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety with the decision of the authorities below in the context of the ground under Section 11(2)(b) we do not propose to refer to the rival contentions in the context of that ground. We confirm the order of authorities below declining eviction under Section 11(2)(b). We however observe that the cause of action for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent is a recurring one and it is always open to the landlord to seek eviction on the ground of arrears of rent once it is seen th...