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.
Clarence Anto Vs. Additional Chief Secretary and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-21-2010
R. Basant, J.1. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to produce the body of his brother Shyam Antony alias Airport Shyam who is detained as per Ext.P1 order dated 18/2/2010 passed by the second respondent under Section 3 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as the KAAPA).2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader in detail. The learned Counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order on the sole ground that there has been no proper application of mind by the detaining authority before the order of detention was passed. In support of this, he has advanced various contentions. On the basis of the arguments advanced, we feel that the only question to be considered is:Whether there has been proper application of mind by the second respondent before passing Ext.P1 order of detention.3. We deem it necessary to narrate the facts in detail befo...
M/S Great India Product, B8, Industrial Estate, Kollam, Rep. by Its Pr ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-21-2010
SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is directed against the order dated 8th August 2006 of the CDRF, Kollam in OP No. 534/2003. The above complaint in OP No. 534/2003 was filed by the appellants herein as complainants against the respondents as opposite parties to get a compensation of Rs. 20,400/- for the illegal disconnection of supply of electrical energy and also to cancel the demand for Rs. 17,277/- towards the cost of the energy meter which was damaged and also to cancel the demand for Rs. 30,000/- towards additional cash deposit and also for further compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony and pain suffered by the complainant. The opposite parties entered appearance in the said complaint and filed their written version denying the alleged deficiency of service. They contended that the demand for Rs. 17,277/- was made for the damage caused to the energy meter installed at the premises of the complainant and that the power supply was disconnected because o...
S. Anilkumar Vs. the Manager, Bank of India, Neeramankara Branch, Thir ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-21-2010
M.V.VISWANATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 12.4.07 passed by CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in CC.No.325/05. 2. We heard both sides. 3. The appellant is the complainant in CC.325/05. The aforesaid complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent/opposite party Bank in not releasing the balance loan amount of Rs.6 lakhs. The opposite party bank entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. The opposite party contended that there was no sanctioning of the loan for Rs.8 lakhs. But the complainant was sanctioned a loan of Rs.2 lakhs under cash credit facility. The opposite party bank has also contended that the complaint is not maintainable as there was no sanctioning of the loan for Rs.8 lakhs as alleged by the complainant. The Forum below considered the preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the complaint in CC.325/05 and found that there was no deficiency in service o...
The Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board, Thiruvananthapuram and ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-21-2010
SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is directed against the order dated 7th November 2006 passed by CDRF, Idukki in CC. 36.2006. The above complaint was filed by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellants opposite parties to get the P2 bill dated 8.2.2006 for Rs.4,39,309/- cancelled. The complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing P2 bill demanding Rs.4,39,309/-. It was further alleged that the said bill was issued without any basis and that there was no theft of electrical energy as contended by the opposite parties. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version contending that there was theft of electrical energy and criminal case was registered as Crime No.25/06 under Section 135 of the Electricity Act 2003 by the Marayoor Police and that the theft of electrical energy was detected by the Anti Power Theft Squad who conducted the inspection on 8.2.06. Thus, the opposite parties denied...
T.M. Mathew Vs. the Manager, Monal Motors, Swaraj Mazda Authorized Dea ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-21-2010
SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellant herein was the complainant and respondents were the opposite parties in CC No. 78/2006 on the file of CDRF, Wayanad, Kalpetta. The above complaint was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in supplying a vehicle chasis with manufacturing defects. The opposite parties entered appearance before the Forum below and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency of service. They contended that the warranty for the vehicle was provided by the manufacturer of the vehicle and that the complaint filed without impleading the manufacturer as a party is bad for non-jointer of necessary parties. They also denied the case of the complainant regarding manufacturing defect. Thus, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 2. Before the Forum below, the complainant was examined as PW1 and Manager of the Financier of the vehicle was examined as PW2. The expert Commissioner who examined the ve...
The Secretary, Kseb, Pattom, Tvpm and Others Vs. Sulekha Saidu Mohamme ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-21-2010
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/KSEB in CC:187/05 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as compensation for deficiency in service in not reconnecting the supply even after depositing the amounts due. 2. The case of the complainant is that on 17/8/2005 her electric connection was disconnected for non payment of electric charge. She remitted the amount on 24/08/2005 but reconnection was effected only on 30/8/2005. Then she complained before the Chief Engineer, KSEB Secretary, Honble Minister for power and after the matter was reported in leading Malayalam Dailies. It is also mentioned by the complainant that on 19/8/2005 itself she went to the office to remit the amount but it was not received. The Assistant Engineer directed her to remit the amount on 24/8/2005. 3. On the other hand, the opposite parties have contended that the complainant is a chronic defaulter. It is admitted that on 24...
B. Ammini Vs. State Bank of Travancore,
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-20-2010
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The appellant filed a petition under Order XXXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking leave to institute a suit as an indigent person. In that, she filed an interlocutory application seeking an order of temporary prohibitory injunction restraining a secured creditor and its officers from invoking the provisions of Sections 13(4) and 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, hereinafter, the 'SARFAESI Act', for short. By the impugned order, the court below, on an elaborate consideration of the facts also, dismissed that application. This appeal is hence filed.2. We do not deem it necessary to go into the facts of the case at all. As already noticed, the relief sought for is for an order of temporary prohibitory injunction against invoking the provisions of Sections 13(4) and 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, among other things, provides that no injunction shal...
Vijayan A. S/O. Appu Vs. State of Kerala and V. Bindu, Village Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-20-2010
ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. Petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No. 199/2010 of Balussery Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Section 294(b) and 353 of Indian Penal Code seeks to quash Annexure A1 F.I.R and subsequent proceedings. The petitioner is a first Grade Surveyor presently working in the office of the Re-Survey Superintendent, Sulthan Bathery. According to the petitioner he had purchased 21.3 cents of land in Survey No. 50/1 of Sivapuram Village as per Document No. 2616/2009 dated 8.6.09 of Sub Registry Office, Thamarassery Town. The petitioner thereafter submitted Annexure A2 application before the Village Officer, (the second respondent herein, namely V. Bindu) Sivapuram, Karimala for effecting mutation of the revenue register in his name so as to enable him to pay the land revenue. Along with the said application he submitted a copy of the registered sale deed in his favour as evidenced by the contents shown on Annexure A2 application. The Village Off...
Purushothaman S/O. Kandan Vs. Balakrishnan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-20-2010
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Heard.2. The appellant challenges the order dismissing an application instituted for leave to sue as an indigent person. The court fee payable by him on the plaint is Rs. 58,700/-.3. In his application before the court below, he had stated that he is an indigent person; that he retired from the Food Corporation of India and that his only income is the pension that he gets. He had stated that his monthly income by way of pension is Rs. 4,150/-, which is hardly sufficient for purchasing medicines and for meeting family expenses. The petitioner, going by the Indigent O.P., was aged 78 years at the time of its institution. He had stated in his application that he resides in a house in the property which his wife had obtained in lieu of acquisition of land by the Government. He had pleaded that he has no further income or job and has also no immovable property. He further stated that the only immovable property belongs to him is the plaint schedule property...
Sivaprasad Vs. P.S. Lakshmy D/O. Sivaprasad,
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-20-2010
R. Basant, J.1. The rival contestants are before this Court and both of them claimed to be aggrieved by the impugned order under which the claim of three children, aged 20, 17 and 8 years respectively was allowed in part and their father, one of the contestants was directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/-, Rs. 750/- and Rs. 750/- per mensem respectively to the three claimants, his children.2. Appeal No. 814/2009 has been filed by the claimants-children, aggrieved by the quantum of amount fixed. Appeal No. 271/2009 is filed by the father contending that he is not liable to pay any amount to the claimants. Paternity is admitted. That the mother of the claimants, i.e. the wife of the respondent expired on 31/7/2007 and that he got remarried immediately thereafter is not disputed. Without dispute, the respondent- father has properties in his name. He has a workshop. He has an autorikshaw. The respondent-father admittedly has landed properties also in his name.3. Claimants/chi...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »