Kerala Court June 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.
Peringottukara Finance Investment Company Ltd., Rep. by K.J. Sreekumar ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jun-29-2010
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT Appellant is the opposite party/financial institution in OP.141/2003 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The appellant is under orders to refund the amount of interest recovered in excess of 24.44% and also to pay Rs.2000/- as compensation and cost of Rs.1500/- etc. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he had availed a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from the opposite party private bank and that they collected an excess of Rs.47,892.50 when the loan was closed. It is the contention that the opposite party violated the provisions of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958. The excess amount is sought to be refunded with compensation of Rs.2000/- and cost of Rs.1500/-. 3. The opposite parties have contended that the amount was availed agreeing to pay interest at 22% per annum calculated on quarterly basis on the strength of a promissory note; and further that the appellant has agreed to pay 7% of the balance amount due as service charges and also penal interest at 6%...
The Assistant Executive Engineer, K.S.E.B, Mankompu, thekkekkara and O ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jun-28-2010
COMMON JUDGMENT: SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR, MEMBER The CDRF, Alappuzha vide its order dated 19-01-2005 in OP No. 253/2003 has directed the opposite parties to issue Ext.A4 bill in agricultural tariff itself and to pay Rs. 25,000/- with 10% interest from 05-11-2003 till payment as compensation along with costs of Rs. 500/- to be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. It is aggrieved by the said directions that appeal 311/2005 is filed by the opposite parties calling for the interference of this Commission as to the sustainability of the order. The complainant has also preferred another appeal as Appeal No. 396/2008 for enhancement of the compensation as he is aggrieved by the low amount of compensation ordered by the Forum below. 2.The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he is a consumer of the opposite parties having an agricultural connection with Consumer No. 2426 and that the connection was for the purpose of conducting a hatchery under the agricu...
T. Moidu Vs. Alambath Meethal Fousiya and Another
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jun-28-2010
SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant was the second opposite party and the respondents 1 and 2 were the complainant and first opposite party respectively in OP No. 111/2000 on the file of CDRF, Kannur. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 in not completing the finishing work of the residential building owned by the complainant. Thereby the complainant claimed refund of R. 4,50,000/- with compensation under various heads and also for costs. 2. The opposite parties 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed separate written version denying the alleged deficiency of service on their part. The first opposite party contended that the agreement to carry out the finishing work was entered into between the complainant and the second opposite party and that the second opposite party had taken all the responsibility for completion of the work specified in the agreement. It was further contended that the first opposite ...
Dr. Reji George, Orthopedic Surgeon, District Hospital Vs. Babykutty, ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jun-26-2010
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellant is the first opposite party in OP No. 112/2002 in the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta. The second opposite party/ Government of Kerala has been ordered to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and also costs of Rs. 1,000/-. 2.The case of the complainant is that he met with a road traffic accident on 06-04-2002 and was taken to General Hospital, Pathanamthitta and there from to District Hospital, Kozhencherry. The complainant was treated by the first opposite party doctor. The complainant had sustained right leg fracture and below knee slab was applied. He was discharged on 08-04-2002. A sum of Rs. 2,000/- was incurred towards treatment expenses. It is alleged that during his IP period at the hospital the first opposite party doctor compelled him to execute a Vakkalath in favour of one advocate from Pathanamthitta Bar by name Mr. Babu Varghese for filing MACT claim. The complainant was reluctant. He was also forced to sign on various pape...
Abhijith R. Prasad Vs. State of Kerala Represented and the Circle Insp ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-25-2010
ORDERK. Hema, J.1. This petition is for anticipatory bail.2. The offence alleged is under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. According to prosecution, petitioner morphed certain photographs of some women to make them appear to be nude using his computer. When the de facto complainant went to the petitioner's house, he happened to see the morphed photographs in the computer, while the petitioner was operating his computer. Hence, he made a complaint and case was registered under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was aged only 16 years at the time of alleged offence. He is a student. He had learned a software 'Photo shop' and he along with his friends edited the photos using the software 'photo shop'. But none of those photographs were published or transmitted or caused to be published in internet. Section 67 of the IT Act reveals that publication is an offence. The petitioner, later on realising th...
Seethi S/O. Muhammed Vs. State of Kerala and the Executive Engineer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-25-2010
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.1. The claimant is in appeal. His land with building in Cheranellur village was acquired for the purpose of widening of National Highway-17. The acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 14/03/02. The Land Acquisition Officer included the property in category-1 and awarded value at the rate of Rs. 1,08,800/- per Are. Before the Reference Court, the evidence consisted of Exts.A1 to A9, R1 to R4 and oral evidence of AWs.1 to 5 and C1 and C1(a). The Reference Court on the basis of that evidence would re-fix market value of the land at Rs. 1,52,320/- per Are. For the buildings which existed on the property, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded value of Rs. 64,630/-. For building value, the appellant/claimant relied mostly on the report submitted by the Commissioner who was assisted by an Engineer for valuing the building. The Commissioner had recommended that the correct market value of the building after deducting depreciation for 15 years com...
Jameela W/O. Hamsa Vs. the Special Tahsildar, Land and the Managing Di ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-25-2010
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.1. These three appeals are preferred by the claimants. The lands under acquisition were in Kalanad village and the acquisition was pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 30/10/99 at the instance of the Managing Director, Bakel Resorts Development Corporation. The Land Acquisition Officer relying on the basis document fixed the land value at Rs. 11,000/- per cent. The reference Court in the first instance would re-fix the land value at Rs. 9,000/- per cent. Appeal was preferred by the state to which cross objections were preferred by the claimant. This Court considering the appeals and cross objections vide judgment in LAA.584/06 and connected cases set aside the award of the Reference Court and remanded the cases back to the Reference Court giving opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence regarding the correct market value of the property. Pursuant to the remand additional documents were produced and witnesses were recalled and examined. The evidence...
M/S Air India, Erott Centre, Bank Road, Kozhikode and Others Vs. Tomy ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jun-25-2010
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/Air India Authorities in CC.79/06 in the file of CDRF, Kozhikkode. The appellants are under orders to pay Rs.13,366/- that the complainant had to spent for buying air ticket in another Airline, to refund ticket amount of Rs.8384/- and compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.1000/-. 2. The case of the complainant is that he had booked 4 air tickets in Air India Express flight from Mumbai to Kozhikode on 29-12-2005. On the above day he reached the Mumbai International Airport to board the Flight but found that the flight had gone on the previous day itself. No intimation was given to the complainant and his family and hence they were stranded at Mumbai airport. The opposite parties did not make any alternative arrangements. They were also not accommodated in any other flights of the opposite parties. The ticket amount was also not refunded. The complainant had to borrow money to buy 4 tickets in Jet Airwa...
M.K. Sadanandan and Another New India Assurance Company Reptd by Senio ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jun-25-2010
SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellants were the complainants and respondents were the opposite parties in CC.57/03 on the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in repudiating the Insurance claim preferred by the first complainant M.K.Sadanandan with respect to the policy issued by the opposite party/New India Assurance Company Ltd. under the Pravasi Suraksha Insurance Scheme. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. They contended that as per the terms of the policy of Insurance, the first complainant is not entitled to get the Insurance benefit as he had not lost total vision of his right eye as alleged. Thus, the opposite parties justified their action in repudiating the Insurance claim. 2. Before the Forum below, the complainants 1 and 2 were examined as PWs 1 and 2 and the Doctor who issued A7 medical certificate was...
Deputy Chief Engineer, Kseb, Electrical Circle Vs. S.Lalitha, Dakshina ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jun-25-2010
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT Appellants are the opposite parties/KSEB authorities in OP.143/2004 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The bills issued by the appellants stands cancelled and the opposite party/appellant is also directed to pay cost of Rs.750/- to the complainant. 2. The matter related to the alleged spurt in the reading after replacement of the mechanical meter by the electronic meter. According to the complainant the same was below 150 units and after replacement it rose to 400 units. 3. On the other hand the opposite parties have contended that there is no defect with the meter. The connected load was 12005 watts and the complainant had an Air conditioner as well. It is also contended that the officials of the board inspected the premises and found dampening of the wall, which also would have contributed. 4. During the proceedings the complainant applied for inspection of the meter by the Electrical Inspector. The Electrical Inspector as per Ext.X1, on 6/5/200...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »