Court : Kerala
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner seeks an order for police protection to his life and property. He also alleged that he is victimised by the police. He says that the 7th respondent is the builder of a complex in which the petitioner has title and possession to one floor. He says that he lives there with his wife and children. They also have a driver and a maid. The petitioner, who is an Advocate, states that his office is also situated in that portion. His repeated complaint is that he is being harassed by the police at the instance of the 7th respondent with whom he has certain disputes relating to the use of the terrace portion of the building. He says that while the complaint of the 7th respondent has been registered, his complaint, including of assault, has not been registered in spite of a wound certificate being issued by the General Hospital. There is nothing on record, as of now, to indicate that the petitioner has given a First Information Statement. It is poin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
C.K. Abdul Rehim, J.1. This appeal is preferred against order of the Company Court in C.A.337/10 in C.P.11/2003. The appellant herein is a person who had participated in the tender for disposal of assets of the company in liquidation. With respect to the tender, the Official Liquidator had published notices in 'Malayala Manorama' as well as 'New Indian Express' dailies. 12 sealed tenders were received. The highest among them was Rs. 1,62,88,000/-. The Official Liquidator filed a report seeking to accept the highest offer. The highest bidder is the the second respondent herein.2. The company application was filed by the appellant stating that, he could not properly inspect the properties and therefore the correct idea with respect to the market value of the property could not be gathered. The price quoted by him was Rs. 1,58,51,585/- only. But through the company application he is making an offer of Rs. 1,73,00,000/-.3. Heard Sri. N.J. Johnson, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. Rakesh Kumar,J. In this case, none has appeared on behalf of the petitioners. On 26.4.2010, when the case was called out, none appeared and thereafter, the case was adjourned for a day as a last indulgence. Thereafter, on 27.4.2010 again, none appeared on behalf of the petitioners, however, Mr. Bhubneshwar Prasad, learned counsel appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2. I have also heard Shri Hriday Prasad Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State.2. Three petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding in Complaint Case No.C R 1206 of 1998/T.R. No.630 of 1999 and also for quashing of the order dated 6.4.1999 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Its Class, Darbhanga. By the said order, the learned Magistrate, after conducting enquiry, was satisfied that prima facie case against petitioners were made out for the offence und...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in OP No. 243/1999 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The appellants are under orders to transfer the shares in the name of the late father of the complainants within one month and also to pay compensation of Rs. 250/- and costs of Rs. 200/-. 2.It is the case of the complainants that the 40 shares held by the late father of the complainants were sought to be transferred in the name of the complainants which the opposite party has not complied with. The main contentions of the opposite parties are that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainants are not consumers and hence there can be no question of deficiency in service. It was also contended that as one of the complainants is a Non-Resident Indian without the permission of the Reserve Bank of India the shares cannot be transferred. It was also contended that the complainants are not entitled to get the shares got automatically transferred as per t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/Postal Authorities in CC No. 158/2007 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 14,060/- with interest at 9% per annum and also to pay compensation and costs of Rs. 2,000/-. 2.The case of the complainant is that she joined in the Postal Life Insurance Policy Scheme on 27-12-2003. The sum assured is Rs. 1,00,000/-. The premium is to be paid at the rate of Rs. 380/- per month. She has already remitted 37 months of the premium, which will altogether work out to Rs. 14,060/-. In the policy it is clearly stated that the policyholder is entitled to get bonus for the amounts paid as well as the surrender/paid up value. After remittal of the premium up to 07-02-2006 she opted for surrendering the policy. But the opposite party has only allowed a sum of Rs. 5,795/-. She has sought for the return of Rs. 14,060/- with bonus and interest and also compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and costs ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in OP.80/2004 in the file of CDRF, Kannur. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- with interest at 6% from September 2002 and also Rs.5000/- as compensation with Rs.1000/- as cost. 2. The case of the complainant is that he availed facility of vehicle loan of Rs.4,50,000/- from the opposite parties/appellants vide agreement dtd. 6.6.02 for the purchase of a stage carriage. No repayment was made. As the opposite parties did not return the RC of the vehicle he could not ply the vehicle. The vehicle was surrendered in September 2002. It was assured at the time of surrender that the complainant will be paid the balance amount after the sale of the vehicle which will be sold for a sum not less than Rs.6,25,000/-. When the complainant approached for refund of the balance amount the opposite parties issued a lawyer notice dtd. 31.10.03 directing the complainant to pay Rs.3,75,000/- allegedly due ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN: MEMBER The appellant is the complainant in CC.91/09 of CDRF, Ernakulam. The complaint therein was filed seeking for a direction to the 2nd opposite party to resume the water connection. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he is a member of Kanam Mala Vikasana Samithy which was registered for the supply of drinking water and the members of the samithy decided to collect a sum of Rs.150/- each from its beneficiaries to meet the expenses of the inauguration of the project and the complainant received a notice from the 1st opposite party stating that if he did not remit the contribution of Rs.150/- together with the water charges for the month of 2006 December and 2007 January, his connection would be disconnected. Then the complainant asked the 2nd opposite party to furnish the income and expenditure account of the samithy. But he was reluctant to give the same and thereafter on 26.2.07, the water connection of the complainant was disconnected by the oppos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellant is the first opposite party in CC No. 71/2006 in the file of CDRF, Kasaragod. The appellant along with the second opposite party is under orders to refund a sum of Rs. 58,000/- to the complainant. It is also directed that on receipt of the amount the complainant shall return the original RC to the first opposite party. The first and second opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- towards costs. 2.It is the case of the complainant that he availed a vehicle loan for a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- from the first opposite party with respect to the Jeep having Reg. No. KL 06/A-5002 on 21-12-2003, which was payable with interest within a period of 24 months. The amount to be repaid with interest would work out to Rs. 1,48,000/-. Two blank signed cheques from the guarantor was also obtained. The complainant remitted Rs.78,000/-. Due to illness he could not remit the balance after 23-06-2005. The opposite parties seized the Jeep. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 6th July 2009 passed by CDRF, Kannur in OP.No.140/04. The above complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party/New India Assurance Company Limited in disbursing the benefits due to the complainant under the Pravasi Suraksha Kudumba Arogya Scheme. During the pendency of the complaint in OP.140/04, the complainant filed an Interlocutory Application to get the original complaint amended for the purpose of enhancing the claim from Rs.55,000/- to Rs.3,05,000/-. The Forum below allowed the said Interlocutory Application filed by the complainant for amendment of the original complaint. The opposite parties had also filed additional version based on the aforesaid amendment sought for. The parties have also adduced evidence based on the said amendment. But unfortunately, the Forum below failed to consider the relief sought for in the amended complaint. It is true that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAAN NAIR, MEMBER By the order dated 21.4.04 of CDRF, Kollam the opposite parties are under directions to cancel Ext.P9 bill of Rs.68447/- and to issue a fresh bill for Rs.5670/- . It is aggrieved by the said directions, that the present appeal is filed by the opposite parties calling for the interference of this Commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below. 2. The complainants case in brief is that he is a consumer under the opposite parties and that though he was regularly paying the bills in respect of the electricity consumption made by him, the second opposite party issued a bill for Rs.68,447/- on 30.7.01 directing him to pay the same on or before 14.8.01. The complainant submitted that there were no circumstances warranting the issue of such a huge bill as he was regularly paying the bills and that there was no additional load in his premises as alleged by the second opposite party. His case is that the opposite parties are not entitl...
Tag this Judgment!