Kerala Court May 2010 Judgments

Sophiamma Jacob D/O. Jacob Vs. George Joseph S/O. Joseph

Court: Kerala

R. Basant, J.1. Respondent has been served. There is no representation for the respondent.2. The parties to this Mat. Appeal are divorced spouses. The appellant is the wife and respondent is the husband. Earlier proceedings between them were settled in O.P. No. 727/08. Document No. 4 is copy of the agreement filed in that proceedings and document No. 3 is the copy of the joint compromise settlement. Document Nos. 5 and 6 are copies of the affidavits filed by the contestants before the Family Court in O.P. No. 727/08.3. The marital tie has been dissolved. There is only one child born in the wedlock that is Aleniya Tessy George. That child is now aged 3 years.4. The appellant is employed abroad. The child has been living with its mother, the appellant herein all along. The appellant wanted a formal declaration of guardianship in order to enable her to take the child to her place of employment. To get such declaration of guardianship, she filed the present application O.P.(G&W;) No. 459 o...

The State of Kerala, Vs. Ramachandran V.K

Court: Kerala

P.S. Gopinathan, J.1. Respondents in WP(C). No. 19455/2009 are the appellants. The respondent herein is the petitioner in the writ petition. He is at present working as Asst. Educational Officer. He started his career as an aided school teacher. Later, he got appointment as HSA in government school. From that post he was promoted to the present post. While fixing the salary on the basis of the VIIth Pay Revision, the service rendered by the respondent in the aided school, though not countable for pay revision, was counted and pay was fixed. The audit party found out the same and issued Ext.P2 audit objection dated 4.5.2006. Steps were initiated for recovery of Rs. 25,117/-, which according to the audit party, found drawn excess by the respondent. He approached this Court by filing WP(C). No. 20844/2006 seeking an order to quash the recovery proceedings. In the meanwhile he filed a petition to the 3rd appellant to grant him a chance for re-option. Admitting that his challenge against th...

Mariamm Mathew @ Jessy Vs. Thomas Mathew @ Sunny

Court: Kerala

R. Basant, J.1. This Appeal is preferred against the dismissal (disposal) of O.P. No. 398 of 2008 by the Family Court holding that 'the present state of affairs regarding the custody of the children will continue'.2. O.P. No. 398 of 2008 was filed by the appellant/wife claiming the custody of 2 children, a son and daughter, born to the contestant couple in their valid matrimony. The children were in the custody of their father. The father and mother were both employed abroad. The children, though technically in the custody of the father, were residing in hostels in connection with their education in India.3. During the pendency of this appeal, it appears that, the parties have settled all their outstanding disputes. They have agreed that the son shall continue in the custody of the father while the daughter shall continue in the custody of the mother. It is submitted that the mother can be declared to be the guardian and the mother can be permitted to keep the minor daughter in her cus...

Hajarommabi P. Vs. the Director of Education,

Court: Kerala

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The Director of Education of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep issued an employment notice on 31.1.2009 inviting applications from qualified local candidates for appointment against posts shown in Annexure A thereto, which details the posts, pay band, qualifications required etc. Thirteen categories of posts of Post Graduate Teachers, on the basis of subjects, are enumerated in it. Qualifications for the posts in each category are Masters Degree in the subject concerned and qualification in Education as prescribed therein.2. The writ petitioner stood first in the selection to the category of Post Graduate Teacher (Botany). The third respondent was ranked eighth.3. The third respondent moved the Central Administrative Tribunal contending that the first rank holder, the petitioner herein, possesses only M.Sc. (Plant Science) which is not the same as M.Sc. (Botany).4. The petitioner and the third respondent are Post Graduates from the University of Calic...

Amina D/O. Late Aboobacker Vs. B.A. Abdul Hameed and the Sub Inspector ...

Court: Kerala

R. Basant, J.1. This petition is filed by the petitioner/mother complaining that her daughter aged 2 years and 9 months (born on 30/8/07) has been illegally taken away from her by use of force by the 1st respondent - her husband on 29/4/10. Thereafter the child, it was alleged, was being illegally detained by the 1st respondent - the father of the child.2. This petition was filed on 17/5/10. This judgment must be read in continuation of the earlier orders passed in this case resting with the order dated 24/5/10.3. The 1st respondent - husband, contends that the child was not forcibly taken away as alleged by the petitioner. The child was with the 1st respondent for the past about 10 months, it is contended.4. Another Bench vide earlier order dated 24/5/10 had directed that the child be permitted to remain in the custody of the petitioner. The case was posted to this date and accordingly it has come up for hearing today.5. Today, when the case is called, the petitioner and the 1st respo...

N.Surendran, Forester. Vs. the Chief Conservator of Forests.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker146

1. The petitioner is working as a Forester at Social Forestry Division, Palakkad. He applied for a transfer to Malappuram. Seeking consideration of his application he filed WP(C) No.11672/2010 before this Court. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment dated 05/04/2010 directing consideration of his representation. Thereafter also he made Ext.P5 representation. Accordingly, the claim was considered and by Ext.P6, the 2nd respondent rejected his request. Aggrieved by Ext.P6, he has filed Ext.P7 before the 1st respondent and seeks a direction for its consideration. 2. If as stated by the petitioner, Ext.P7 has been filed, and has been received and is pending before the 1st respondent, it is only appropriate that the 1st respondent shall consider Ext.P7 and pass orders thereon. This the 1st respondent shall do as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. 3. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with...

M/S Narmada Hardwares, Market Jn., Vithura P.O and Another Vs. R. Bhuv ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/Sub Dealer and manufacturer of Sankar Brand Cement, in OP 295/2000 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 35,060/- as compensation with future interest at 14.5% and also to pay Rs. 1,500/- as costs. 2.It is the case of the complainant that on 18-05-1999 he purchased 50 bags of Sankar cement from the first opposite party, local dealer for a sum of Rs. 8,250/- for the purpose of constructing a residential building at his village at Vithura, Thiruvananthapuram. The cement bags had the marks, ISI 1489 PORTLAND, POZZOLANA CEMENT FLY Ash 20/1999. He used 16 bags for casting sunshade, lining, lintel beams and pillars on 18-05-1999. It was found that even after 3 to 4 days after casting, the cement did not show any sign of initial setting and the mortar mixture remained in loose state. Cement ought to have set within 4 to 6 hours from the time of mixing. It so ...

The National Insurance Company Ltd., Chennai Division Vs. N. Janardhan ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is directed against the order dated:25th October 2006 passed by CDRF, Kasaragode in CC.1/06. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the 2nd opposite party/National Insurance Company Ltd in repudiating the insurance claim preferred by the complainant/insured with respect to the insured vehicle KL-14-A-5299. The Forum below allowed the complaint directing the 2nd opposite party/insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.33,597/- as the insurance amount with compensation of Rs.1000/- and cost of Rs.1000/-. It is against the said order the present appeal is filed by the 2nd opposite party. 2. We heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellant/2nd opposite party submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He relied on A3 drunkenness certificate and B1 to B3 documents with respect to the criminal case which was charged against the driver of the insu...

United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Divisional Office Vs. Sunny Thomas

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/Insurance Co. in OP.294/03 in the file of CDRF, Malappuram. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.15229/ with interest at 12% per annum and cost of Rs.2000/-. 2. The case of the complainant is that the mini lorry involved in the matter was used by him for carrying RMS mail on contract basis. On 26.5.03 when the vehicle was garaged for painting works it caught fire by electrical short circuit. According to the complainant it was stationed near a painting workshop adjacent to RMS office, Tirur. It is alleged that the vehicle sustained damages to the tune of Rs.75,000/-. Surveyor inspected the vehicle and assessed the damages but the claim was repudiated; and he has sought for Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and further Rs.10,000- and cost of Rs.2000/- 3. It is the case of the opposite party/appellant mentioned that the complainant in the claim form itself that the incident took place on 26.5.03 between 1...

The Asst. Engineer, Electrical Section, Kseb Pantheeramkavu and Others ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR, MEMBER This appeal is filed by the opposite parties in OP:25/03 before the CDRF, Kozhikkode who are under orders to change the tariff of the complainant with immediate effect and to refund the amount collected in excess from the complainant from June 2001 onwards. It is aggrieved by the said directions that the opposite parties have come up in appeal calling for the interference of this commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below. 2. The complainant has approached the Forum submitting that he is a consumer of the opposite parties under I(a) tariff and that he was regularly paying the bills and consequent to the issue of an excessive and exorbitant bill he filed an OP:386/01 before the Forum which was dismissed. However it is his case that the opposite parties had unilaterally changed the tariff to VII-A with effect from June 2001 and that he was compelled to pay the bills under threat of disconnection. Though the complainant ha...