Kerala Court March 2010 Judgments

Chirayinkeezhu A. Babu Vs. Delimitation Commission

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLJ957

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The important question that is raised in this Writ Petition is with regard to the power of the Delimitation Commission of India to issue a corrigendum notification, after the publication of the order delimiting the Constituencies under Section 10(1) of the Delimitation Act (for short 'the Act'). It is also contended that the Statute does not confer any such power and the only provision is the one conferring power under Section 11 of the Act on the Election Commission to correct any printing mistake in any order made under Section 9 or any error arising therein by way of inadvertent slip or omission.2. The bare facts for the disposal of the Writ Petition are the following: The petitioner is a permanent resident and voter in Chirayinkeezhu Assembly Constituency and is a lawyer. Prior to the delimitation of the Constituencies, Chirayinkeezhu Panchayat was part of Attingal Assembly Constituency.3. After the formation of the Delimitation Commission in terms of t...

C. Mahmood S/O. Kunhi Assan Vs. V. Ashraf S/O. Aboobacker

Court: Kerala

S.S. Satheesachandran, J.1. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S No. 234 of 2003 on the file of Munsiff Court, Wadakkanchery. The above suit was one for perpetual prohibitory injunction, and the respondent is the defendant. Plaintiff is styled as one of the branches of a society which is stated to be administering the affairs and functions of a Masjid namely 'Masjidul Mujahideen'. Suit was laid imputing allegations against the defendant who is stated to be interfering with the administration of the above said Masjidul Mujahideen to restrain him by a decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction. The defendant resisted the suit filing a written statement traversing the allegations raised in the plaint. Later, the petitioner/plaintiff moved an application for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action stating that the subject matter involved in the suit being a wakf property, the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The application f...

Gopalakrishnan Vs. Srinivasan

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT216

Thomas P. Joseph, J.1. The suit property originally belonged to the late Appanna, father of respondent/ plaintiff as per order in O.A. No. 5670 of 1975. That property is situate in Muliyar Village within the local limits of the Sub Registrar, Kasargod. Respondent claimed that on the death of his parents the said property devolved on him and he has been possessing it. Appellant No. l is brother of the late Appanna. In the year 1988 appellant No. 1 and others on the strength of a sale deed allegedly executed by the late Appanna trespassed into the suit property. On enquiry respondent learnt that appellant No. 1 had got executed Ext.B2, assignment deed No. 1014 of 1978 dated 13.10.1978 by the late Appanna in respect of the suit property by undue influence and fraud. Respondent filed O.S. No. 352 of 1990 in the court of learned Munsiff seeking cancellation of Ext.B2, assignment deed and recovery of possession of the suit property. Respondent alleged that the late Appanna was suffering from...

Salvation Chitties (Pvt) Ltd, Rep. by Managing Director Vs. M.B. Ushen ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in CC:525/06 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.86000/- with interest at 12% per annum from 8/11/2005 with cost of Rs.1000/-. 2. The case of the complainant is that he was a subscriber in the chitty conducted by the opposite parties. The monthly instalment was Rs.2000/-. He had remitted 43 instalments. It is contended that the complainant was not permitted to remit the further instalments on the ground that the complainants ticket has become lapsed for non payment of the instalments. He has sought for return of the amount alleging unfair trade practice. 3. It is contended by the opposite parties that at the time of taking the lot the complainant had defaulted 5 consecutive instalments. Hence the complainants ticket has become lapsed and the same has been recorded in the passbook. It is denied that the complainant is entitled for Rs.86,000/-. 4. The evidence adduced ...

Kseb, Repd. by Its Secretary, Vydhudhi Bhavan, Pattom, Tvpm and Others ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/KSEB in OP:169/04 in the file of CDRF, Wayanadu. The energy bill issued by the appellants for a sum of Rs.80,030/- stands set aside. They are also directed to pay compensation and cost of Rs.500/-. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he is running a crusher unit. On 3/6/2004 the officials of the opposite party inspected the premises and recorded a mehazar mentioning that CT coil A and B phases are found open. The request to have the faulty meter sent for inspection was not heeded. A bill for Rs.80,030/- was issued on 23/6/2004. The same has been sought to be set aside. 3. The opposite parties have contended that the APTS conducted inspection on 3/6/2004 and it was found that phases A and C are open and only B phase was working. A mehazar was prepared and the complainant has signed in the mehazar. The defective phases were replaced. The bills issued are for escaped energy for the period from 2/04 to 5...

M/S. National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sisupalan and Others

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the 2nd opposite party/National Insurance Company in OP:362/01 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- with interest at 12% from the date of complaint and also to pay Rs.500/- as cost. 2. The case of the complainants who are the LRs of the deceased/insured is that the insured was murdered on 11/1//2001 and hence entitled for the policy claim. The Janatha Insurance Policy taken through the 1st opposite party/Malsya fed was repudiated on the ground that the incident occurred when the insured person was committing breach of law with criminal intent which is an exception as per the policy. 3. The opposite parties/appellants have contended that the insured was murdered by one Anu following enemity on account of the act of the deceased in molesting sister of the accused in public road. Hence the death of the insured was not an accident. The company is not liable to pay the amount. 4. ...