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 Branch Manager, Popular Vehicles and Services Ltd., Kochi, Ernakul ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-22-2010
SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellant herein was the 1st opposite party and the respondent 1 to 5 were the complainant and opposite parties 2 to 5 in CC.No.144/07 on the file of CDRF, Wayanad, Kalpetta. The complaint in CC.144/07 was filed by the 1st respondent as complainant against the opposite parties 1 to 5 alleging deficiency in service in effecting sale of Maruthi Zen car bearing Reg.No. KL-07 BC/6190. The complainant alleged that the opposite parties 1 to 3 colluded together and thereby created documents to appear the 2005 model vehicle as 2006 model vehicle and such an entry was also made in the registration certificate of the vehicle showing the year of manufacture as 2006. The complainant alleged that he suffered loss of Rs.75,000/- by purchase of the said vehicle from the 5th opposite party. Thus, the complainant claimed the aforesaid sum of Rs.75000/- with compensation of Rs.10000/- for the mental agony suffered by him. He requested to make the opposite partie...
State of Kerala Vs. T.K. Surendranath,
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-21-2010
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.1. Under challenge in this appeal preferred by the Government is the award of Land Acquisition Reference Court, Thiruvananthapuram in a case pertaining to acquisition of land in Thycaud village at the behest of TRIDA. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 27/06/03. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 2,71,700/- per Are. The only tangible item of evidence before the Reference Court was Ext.A1 judgment. Under Ext.A1, the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 5,47,289/- per Are which the Reference Court had re-fixed at Rs. 17,31,306/- per Are. The court below relying practically on Ext.A1 took the view that the value of the acquired property should be at least 60% of the property shown in Ext.A1. After making some additions for the passage of time, the court below re-fixed the value at Rs. 24,23,828/- per Are.2. Various grounds have been raised in the memorandum of appeal and Smt. Latha T. T...
Telma Antony Vs. the Superintendent of Police,
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-21-2010
1. The petitioner has come to Court complaining that her daughter Samantha Maria, a girl aged 18 years (born on 20.12.1991), is missing. She was missing from 10.04.2010. Police investigation did not help the petitioner to trace her daughter and it was, in these circumstances, that she came to Court with this petition on 19.04.2010.2. When this petition came up for admission on 20.04.2010, notice was issued to the 3rd respondent. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were directed to investigate the matter and file a report within two weeks. When this petition came up for admission hearing on 20.05.2010, the learned Government Pleader reported that the alleged detenue was produced before the Magistrate and after confirming that the alleged detenue is not under any illegal confinement, the Magistrate had permitted her to leave the court. As the petitioner complained that she had obtained no opportunity to meet her daughter after 10.04.2010 and apprehended that her daughter is under confinement, we dir...
Sunny Thomas Vs. K.V. George
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-21-2010
ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J.1. Under challenge in this revision under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is the order passed by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority concurrently on the ground of arrears of rent and requirement of reconstruction. As for the eviction order passed on the ground of arrears of rent, having gone through the findings entered by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority, we are of the view that those findings have been entered on the basis of legal evidence. Moreover, it is well known that eviction orders passed under Section 11(2)(b) are virtually provisional, and are always liable to be vacated by making requisite deposit under Section 11(2)(c). The above order is confirmed. However, the revision petitioner is given one month's time to get the order of eviction vacated by filing petition under Section 11(2)(c).2. The other ground on which eviction order passed is on the ground of reconstruction. Keeping in mind the well known contours of our ju...
Ayyappan S/O. Isakkimuthu and ors. Vs. State of Kerala Rep. by the Spe ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-21-2010
ORDER4. This is an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC seeking admission of additional evidence in the appeal. The appellant/petitioner has not made out any case as envisaged by Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for admission of further evidence in this appeal. It is seen from the impugned judgment that Ext.A1 produced by the appellant was the only item of tangible evidence to substantiate the appellant's claim for enhancement which was limited to Rs. 2 lakhs percent. Ext.A1 was in respect of acquisition of an identical property and was a court judgment having probative value. The court below accepted the above contention and relied on Ext.A1 and awarded enhancement to Rs. 95,220/- per Are. The appellant has raised grounds 'A' to 'F' in the memorandum of appeal. Significantly it is not urged that the court below did not afford opportunity to the appellant for producing suitable documents. The ground raised is only that the Land Acquisition Officer did not consider any suitable document fo...
Preman C.G. Vs. the Sub Inspector of Police and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-21-2010
R. Basant, J.1. The petitioner is the father of the detenu Prajeesh, who has been detained as per Ext.P6 order dated 12/10/2009 passed by the 3rd respondent under Section 3 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as KAAPA). The said detenu was arrested on 28/12/2009. The order of detention was approved under Section 3 of the KAAPA by the Government under Ext.P10 order on 07/01/2010. The records placed before us further show that the reference was made under Section 9 by the Government to the Advisory Board on 08/01/2009 and the Advisory Board furnished its opinion under Section 10 on 25/2/2010. The order confirming the detention of the detenu under Section 10(4) was passed on 03/03/2010 and the same was served on the detenu in jail on 09/03/2010. The detenu continues under detention as he was ordered to be detained for a period of six months from the date of his arrest. Such detention is authorised for a period of six months from 28/12/2009.2. We ...
Santhakumari Ponnayyan W/O. Ponnayyan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-21-2010
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 her daughter Anupama Devi, aged 20 years (date of birth: 24.4.1990). It is her apprehension that the alleged detenue has been detained illegally by respondents 6 to 9.2. This petition was filed on 11.5.2010. The same was admitted on 13.5.2010. Notice was ordered to the respondents. The case was posted to this date.3. Today, when the case is called, the petitioner is present along with her Counsel. The alleged detenue and the 6th respondent have been brought to Court. They are not represented by any Counsel. As the alleged detenue comes from the custody of/along with the 6th respondent, we permitted the alleged detenue to remain alone in the Chamber until we met her after lunch recess. Her mother was permitted to interact with her. No other person was permitted to be present in the course of the interactions between the mother and the daughter.4. After lunch,...
P.T. Babu S/O. Dasan Vs. K.V. Padmanabhan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-21-2010
ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J.1. Under challenge in this revision under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thalassery passing a summary order of eviction against the revision petitioner tenant on the reason that he did not pay the arrears of rent admitted as well as the rent which fell due subsequent to the commencement of the proceedings in spite of time granted and without showing any cause against the passage of such order. Understandably, on the basis of the impugned order, the RCA filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority. We are informed that the order which was impugned in the RCA itself was a summary order of eviction under Section 12(3) passed by the Rent Control Court. It is transparently clear that the petitioner had not paid the arrears of rent admitted or the rent which fell due subsequent to the proceedings and had not shown any valid cause against passage of the summary order of eviction eithe...
Anjaneyan U. @ Ani S/O. Mr. M.N. Kartha Vs. Anju Thomas D/O. Mr. Thoma ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-21-2010
R. Basant, J.1. The respondent/wife had filed an application for divorce as O.P. No. 250/08. It was allowed and that order was passed ex parte. Long later, the appellant herein filed an application to set aside the ex parte order along with an application to condone the delay. Those applications were allowed subject to conditions. Conditions were not complied with by the date on which the appellant was expected to comply with the the order. The petitions were consequently dismissed. According to the appellant, there was an order of stay in a transfer petition and it was hence that the amount was not paid within the stipulated time. On the very next day payment was offered and the same was not accepted. The court below has dismissed both the applications for non-payment of the amount.2. An application was filed to restore those petitions. The court below, by the impugned order, has dismissed the same. Aggrieved by that order, the appellant has come up before this Court.3. The learned Co...
Dafini Cleatus W/O. John Jacob Vs. John Jacob S/O. Jacob,
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-21-2010
ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. Petitioner, who is the wife of the first respondent herein filed Annexure A1 complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistraate, Thiruvananthapuram against the first respondent and his parents alleging offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506(1) and read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the petitioner, the acts of matrimonial cruelty were committed at Thiruvananthapuram and at Kollam. The learned Magistrate forwarded Annexure 1 complaint to the Museum Police, Thiruvananthapuram under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Museum police instead of conducting investigation into the alleged offences, had forwarded Annexure 1 complaint to the Kollam East Police Station. Both the Museum Police as well as Kollam East Police have registered separate cases as Crime No. 20/2010 and Crime No. 95/10 respectively. The petitioner would content that when the offences were committed within the local limits of two police stations...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »