Kerala Court May 2010 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
The Manager, Amicus Communications Shilpam Vs. Santhosh Suresh Kumar.B ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-26-2010
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC.184/09 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as costs. 2. The appellant was ex-parte in the proceedings before the Forum although they had entered appearance and filed version. 3. The case is with respect to the Panasonic KX MB-262 CX (Multiplication printer, Scan and copier) purchased from the opposite party for a sum of Rs.7,300/-. It is alleged that during the warranty period itself, the machine was defective. He could only use machine for 1500/- print outs whereas it was offered that the machine can be used for 6000 prints without any problems. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, Exts.P1 and P2. 5. We find that no reason is mentioned in the appeal memorandum for the absence of the appellant before the Forum. The Forum has relied on the evidence of PW1, the complainant. We find that there is no p...
M/S. Sitaram Bajaj, @sitara, Auto Sales and Service Poonkunam Thrissur ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-26-2010
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in CC.188/06 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The appellant is under orders to deliver a new C.G.1000 three wheeler for a price of Rs.14,592/- as offered in the advertisement. The appellant is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.500/- towards cots. 2. The case of the complainant is that the price shown the advertisement in the Mathrubhoomi daily by the appellants for the above vehicle was Rs.14,592/-. He went to the opposite party/appellant with the above amount for purchase of the vehicle and the appellant refused to deliver the vehicle. 3. It is the case of the appellant that the cost of the vehicle is Rs.1,18,000/-. There was a star in the advertisement. It is mentioned in the side portion of the advertisement against the star that conditions applied. The appellant has produced a copy of the above advertisement. We find that the words conditions apply in a very small print whereas the rest of the advertisement ...
M/S.integrated Finance Co.Ltd. and Others Vs. Smt.Girija Nair
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-26-2010
JUSTICE SRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC.59/08 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The appellants are under orders to return the deposited amount of 70,000/- with interest 15% per annum from the date of deposit and a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as costs. 2. The complainant is with respect to the sum of Rs.70,000/- deposited with the opposite party in bonds with the assured growth of 15%. 3. The opposite parties were ex-parte in the Forum. 4. The evidence adduced consisted Ext.A1 to A3. 5. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the scheme propounded under the Companies Act has been set aside by the Division Bench of the Chennai High Court and that the matter is pending before the Supreme Court. He admitted that there is no stay order in the matter. 6. In the circumstances, the order of the Forum is sustained subject to the modification in the order with respect to the amount of compensation ordered. We find th...
Smt. C.M. Bindu Vs. the Branch Manager, Lic of India, Angamalli Branch ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-26-2010
SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellant was the complainant and respondents 1 and 2 were the opposite parties 1 and 2 respectively in CC.108/06 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in causing delay of 5 months in reviving the policy and that there was also deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in repudiating the insurance claim put forward by the complainant, the widow of the policy holder, Late V.Balagopalan. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency of service. They contended that there was no delay on the part of the opposite parties in reviving the policy and that the policy holder caused delay in producing the necessary documents to support the revival application dated:25/11/2002. It was further contended that there was suppression of the material facts by the policy holder because of his failure to ...
Sarasamma, Kizhakkadathu Veedu and Another Vs. the Assistant Provident ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-26-2010
COMMON JUDGMENT: JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellant in Appeal No. 325/2009 is the complainant/employee and the appellant in Appeal No. 422/2009 is the first opposite party/Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner in CC No. 121/2007 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The complaint was allowed in part, against which both sides have filed appeals. 2. The case of the complainant is that she was working at Palkulangara Cashew Factory owned by the second opposite party/Cashew Development Corporation. She joined on 24-05-1972 as a shelling worker. She was a member of the Employees Provident Fund. In 1973 she became a clerk-trainee. She continued in service till 30-06-2000. She continued in the Provident Fund Employees Pension Scheme till the above date. At the time of introducing the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 she was already a member of the Employees Family Pension Scheme 1971. Her pensionable service as past service is 22 years and eligible service is 5 years. Her past service...
Murukeshan S/O. Raman Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-25-2010
V. Ramkumar, J.1. In this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is the younger brother of one Sampath (aged 26 years) who died in police custody in the night of 29-3-2010 , seeks a direction from this Court to the 4th respondent, namely the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, ('C.B.I.' for short), New Delhi to investigate Crime No. 251 of 2010 of Town North Police Station, Palakkad by an efficient officer of the C.B.I.2. According to the petitioner deceased Sampath who had nothing to do with the murder of Sheela on 23.3.2010 at Puthoor in Palakkad was taken into custody by the Police on 28.3.2010 midnight from the house of his sister at Coimbatore and brutally tortured to death while in Police custody and the present investigation is only an 'eye-wash' to salvage the bigwigs in the State Police who are the real culprits. It is the case of the petitioner that the on-going investigation is influenced by unseen hands with the aim of ...
Mathew Franco Vs. State of Kerala and the Excise Inspector
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-25-2010
ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. Petitioners are accused 2 and 3 in Crime No. 157/2008 of Vellikulangara Police Station. First respondent is the defacto complainant. First respondent filed Annexure-A1 complaint against the first accused, the son and petitioners/accused 2 and 3, his parents, alleging that they committed offences under Sections 376 and 493 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The complaint was sent to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Annexure-A2 FIR was registered and the crime is being investigated. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings as against the petitioners contending that though the case is registered for the offences under Section 376 and 493 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, later, on investigation, it was found that first accused had married the first respondent at Coimbatore and the offence attracted is an offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal C...
V. Gopinathan Nair S/O. Vasu Pillai Vs. Sub-inspector of Police,
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-25-2010
1. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce his adult major daughter Sreekala, aged 21 years (date of birth 21.01.1990). The petitioner apprehended that his daughter Sreekala, the alleged detenue, was being illegally detained by the 2nd respondent, a young man, aged 26 years, in collusion with his mother, the 3rd respondent. This petition was filed on 18.05.2010. It was admitted on 19.05.2010. The case was posted to this date.2. Today when the case is called, the petitioner and his Counsel are present. Respondent No. 2 is present. He is not represented by any Counsel. The 3rd respondent has not entered appearance. Along with the 2nd respondent, the alleged detenue has come to Court. She is also not represented by any counsel.3. As the alleged detenue comes to Court along with the 2nd respondent, the person who is allegedly detaining her, we allowed the alleged detenue to remain alone in the Chamber wi...
Ramesh Kumar S/O. Raveendran Nair Vs. the State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-25-2010
R. Basant, J.1. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce his wife Mubeena Beevi aged 22 years (date of birth 19/5/1988). According to her, the petitioner and the alleged detenue are adult individuals. They had decided to get married. They have entered into Ext.P1 agreement. They had lived together for a period of about 1 = years. But later she was being illegally detained and confined by her mother - the 5th respondent and her brother - the 6th respondent.2. This petition was filed on 17/5/2010. The learned Government Pleader was directed to take instructions. On 21/5/10 it was directed that the alleged detenue must appear before this Court today.3. Today, when the case is called, the petitioner is present along with his Counsel. The 5th respondent has appeared before Court. One Advocate Mr. Althaf, who represented the 5th respondent before the lower court, has also come to Court along with the 5th re...
V. Ragini Vs. the Senior Divisional Manager, Lic of India, Divisional ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-25-2010
SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 06-09-2002 passed by CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in OP No. 416/2000. The compliant therein was filed by the appellant herein as complainant against the respondents/opposite parties alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. It was alleged that the repudiation of the insurance claim put forward by the complainant as nominee of the life assured would amount to deficiency of service and that the entrustment of the premium with the 3rd opposite party LIC Agent is to be treated as effective payment of the premium for the insurance policy. Thus, the complaint in OP 416/2000 was filed to get the insurance amount with 12% interest and compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and cost of the proceedings. 2. The opposite parties 1 and 2 filed written version denying the alleged defiency of service. They contended that the policy issued infavour of V. Radhakrishnan, the son of the complainant Ragini...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »