Kerala Court April 2010 Judgments

C. Krishnakumary Vs. the Asst. Engineer, Kseb, Electrical Major Sectio ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in CC:127/07 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The complaint has been dismissed holding that the same is not maintainable as RR proceedings have already been initiated and that RR proceedings started meant that the sovereign functions began and hence the Forum has no jurisdiction. 2. We find that the finding of the Forum is incorrect. Sovereign functions and RR proceedings has no connection. It is the basis for initiating the RR proceedings that has been questioned. Hence the finding of the Forum is set aside. 3. It is also seen that the entire evidence has been adduced that consisted of the testimony of PW1 to PW3, DW1,Ext.P1 and Ext.D1. 4. The Forum is directed to dispose of the case on merits. 5. The matter stands posted before the Forum on 28/5/2010. The office is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Forum urgently....

The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company and Another Vs. Kamaru ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

COMMON JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellant in appeal:75/09is the 1st opposite party/New India Assurance Company Ltd. and the appellants in A:108/09 are the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties/Financiers in CC:129/05 in the file of CDRF, Kasaragod. The 1st opposite party/appellant in A:75/09 is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- with interest at 9% from the date of complaint and opposite parties 2 and 3/financiers/appellants in A:108/09 are under orders to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant. 2. The case of the complainant is that his Maruthi car covered by the policy of the 1st opposite party was stolen on 12/8/2002. The vehicle has hypothecated with opposite parties 2and 3. According to him he intimated the matter to the insurer and the financier immediately. The financier recovered the amounts advanced. The insurer repudiated the claim on the ground of delay in submitting the claim. According to the complainant the delay if any was on the part of the financi...

Adv. M. Philip Koshy Vs. Prof. Saji Chacko

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT413

ORDERP. Bhavadasan, J.1. This is a petition filed under Section 24 C.P.C., seeking transfer of OP (Election) No. 49/05, pending before the District Court, Pathanamthitta to any other District Court within the State.2. The petitioner gives his reasons for the above prayer thus:The first respondent filed O.P. (Election) No. 49/05, challenging the election of the petitioner before the District Court, Pathanamthitta. He had contested from Ward No. 2 of Mallappally Division of the Pathanamthitta District Panchayat. Several grounds are raised challenging his election. A copy of the election petition is Annexure A1. It is claimed that the petitioner raised a preliminary objection, regarding the maintainability of the petition on the ground of lack of material facts and on other grounds. While so, it is submitted, the election petition was allowed, to be amended, curing the defects and incorporating additional pleadings and also holding that the petition was maintainable. The petitioner challe...

Pradeep Kumar Vs. Chengannur Municipality

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT484

Antony Dominic, J.1. Issues raised in these Writ Petitions are connected, and therefore, these cases were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. The documents referred to in this judgment are those produced in W.P.(C) No. 9468/2010.2. In 2005, election was held to Chengannur Municipality and the petitioners herein were elected from Ward Nos. 9 & 6 respectively.3. In the election, the Left Democratic Front (hereinafter referred to as LDF for short) secured majority and the 5th respondent herein was elected as the Municipal Chairman. The petitioners herein belong to the United Democratic Front (hereinafter referred to as UDF for short), the opposition coalition.4. While the petitioners were continuing as members, one of the members of the UDF coalition moved a no confidence motion against the 5th respondent, and this was seconded by the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 9468/2010. In terms of the provisions contained in Section 19 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (herei...

Mathew T. Thomas Vs. Prof. Saji Chacko

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT596

P. Bhavadasan, J.1. A very short question, i.e., as to when the notice contemplated on a combined reading of Section 100 and the proviso to Section 101(b) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is to be issued, arises for consideration in this Writ Petition.2. The brief facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Writ Petition are as follows:The petitioner was the elected candidate in the election held on 24.09.2005 to the Panchayat. The first respondent herein filed O.P.( Election) No. 49/05, raising several allegations which, according to him, will invalidate the election of the petitioner. He also sought for a declaration that he is the duly elected candidate.3. A preliminary objection was taken regarding the maintainability of the petition. Thereafter, the election petitioner sought amendment of the petition. The Court below held that the petition is maintainable and the amendment was allowed. It was carried to this Court in W.P.(C) No. 27757/0...

Jose K. George Vs. Chengannur Municipality and ors.

Court: Kerala

Antony Dominic, J.1. Issues raised in these writ petitions are connected, and therefore, these cases were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. The documents referred to in this judgment are those produced in WP(C) No. 9468/2010.2. In 2005, election was held to Chengannur Municipality and the petitioners herein were elected from Ward Nos. 9 & 6 respectively.3. In the election, the Left Democratic Front (hereinafter referred to as LDF for short) secured majority and the 5th respondent herein was elected as the Municipal Chairman. The petitioners herein belong to the United Democratic Front (hereinafter referred to as UDF for short), the opposition coalition. 4. While the petitioners were continuing as members, one of the members of the UDF coalition moved a no confidence motion against the 5th respondent, and this was seconded by the petitioner in WP(C) No. 9468/2010. In terms of the provisions contained in Section 19 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (hereinaft...

The Managing Director, Kinetic Engineering Ltd., Maharashtra Vs. M.P. ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated:6/7/2009 of CDRF, Malappuram in OP:139/03 whereby the 2nd opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- along with 9% interest per annum from the date of complaint with costs of Rs.5000/- to the complainant. 2. It is the case of the complainant that on 15/10/2001 he purchased a Kinetic Challenger Motor Cycle from the 1st opposite party which was manufactured by the 2nd opposite party. The opposite parties offered 2 years warranty and assured mileage of 70 Kms per litre. The consideration was paid by a loan arranged through 1st opposite party from Kinetic Finance Ltd. which is an associate business concern of the 1st opposite party. The complainant had to incur Rs.20,000/- as finance charges. Within 2 weeks of purchase the vehicle showed certain defects and though it was repaired the defects persisted and showed further complaints. The vehicle was taken for repairs to the 1st opposite party se...

Bharathi Airtel Limited, Kerala (Circle) Sl Avenue and Others Vs. Kira ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC:276/08 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The appellant is under orders to pay Rs.2500/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost. 2. At the time of hearing the counsel for the appellant has produced the receipt from CDRF, Kottayam wherein it is noted that DD for Rs.3500/- has been deposited at the CDRF. It is submitted that the appeal is not pressed. Recording the above submission the appeal is closed....

The Secretary, Kseb, Vydhyuthi Bhavan, Tvpm and Others Vs. K.V.Narayan ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/KSEB in OP:177/03 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The bills issued by the appellants towards back assessment stands cancelled. It is also ordered that the appellants will refund Rs.2798/- paid by the complainant with interest at 24% per annum and also to pay cost of Rs.750/-. 2. The matter relates to the back assessment for a period of 4 years and also the amount claimed subsequent to the application for dismantling at the building which was demolished. It is thereafter the Revenue Recovery proceedings have been initiated for a sum of Rs.12,597/-. 3. The complainant was issued with bills back assessing from September 1996 onwards on objection raised by the audit party in March 2009 on the ground that no segregation was effected with respect to power load and light load in the welding workshop of the complainant. Hence the penal bill including 50% of the energy consumed was issued on the ground of non segreg...

M/S Agro Sales Corporation, Pitchu Iyer Junction Vs. Mr.Vidya Chandra ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/dealer in OP:A-15/2005 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The appellant is under orders to pay Rs.4724/- with interest at 9% from 19/1/2005 and compensation of Rs.1000/- and cost of Rs.450/-. The case of the complainant is that he used the herbicide purchased from the appellant in his 6 acres of paddy field and it was totally ineffective in destroying the herbs. He paid Rs.2685/- for the purpose and spent Rs.600/- to spray the same. When the matter was reported to the opposite party he suggested 2 more herbicides for which he had to pay Rs.500/- and Rs.1450/- respectively and spent Rs.600/- for spraying. Subsequently for removing herbs with the help of labourers he had to spend Rs.2808/-. The contention of the opposite parties/appellants was that the herbicide was not used as per the directions in the instructions supplied. It is also contended that the complaint is bad for non-jointer of necessary parties ie th...