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.
M/S Pawan Investments Represented by Its Proprietor Mr. Prakashchand V ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jun-23-2010
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...
Santhoshkumar Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-22-2010
ORDERK. Hema, J.1. This petition is for bail.2. The alleged offences are under Sections 120B, 420, 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner(A5) committed forgery by creating false Demand Drafts by using cheque leaves. This was done for the purpose of producing before the Check Post, when live chicken was being transported in bulk from different parts of Tamil Nadu to Kerala. The Demand Drafts were produced towards Value Added Tax to be paid by dealers while transporting live chicken from other States to Kerala. A huge loss to the tune of Rs. 14 crores was caused to the Government. The offences were detected when the Demand Drafts were sent to Bank.3. Petitioner was taken into custody on 30.1.2010. 25 cases were registered against him. The arrest of petitioner in this case was recorded on 28.4.2010. In all the cases together, petitioner is in custody for the past about five months. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that he ha...
Nisha Biju, NithIn View and Stanley Jacob @ Sabu Vs. State of Kerala R ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-22-2010
ORDERK. Hema, J.1. This petition is for anticipatory bail.2. The alleged offence is under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, defacto complainant was induced to pay Rs. 65,000/- to first accused, for the purpose of arranging a visa and he paid the money to first accused in the presence of second accused. It is second accused who had introduced defacto complainant to first accused. The visa was arranged, and defacto complainant went abroad and he was instructed by first accused to meet one Mr. Robert. He met Mr. Robert and he demanded to pay Rs. 35,000/- more to him, for arranging the job. He paid the said amount also. He worked there for some time, but the job was not to his satisfaction. Hence, he returned to India, but the Airport authorities found out that visa was a fake one and hence he was arrested and detained in prison for four months, in Malaysia. His relatives spent Rs. 2 lakhs to get him released from jail and thereafter, when...
Salimlal (Podiyan) and Others Vs. Sobha and Others
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jun-22-2010
SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellants were the opposite parties 3,6,7 and 4 respectively and the respondents 1 and 2 were the complainants 1 and 2 respectively and the respondents 3,4,5 and 6 were the opposite parties 1,2,5 and 8 respectively in CC No. 275/2006 on the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The complaint therein was filed for getting refund of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- deposited by the first complainant and Rs. 35,000/- deposited by the second complainant with interest, compensation and costs. 2.The opposite parties 1 and 5 entered appearance and filed joint written version contending that the complainants are not consumers coming within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and that the first opposite party is the President of Sree Narayana Prarthana Samithi and he participated in the meeting of the SNPS Trust being the President of the aforesaid SNPS; that the SNPS Trust is constituted and functioning under the SNPS. It was further contended that the 5th oppo...
The Director, Muthoot Finance Pvt. Ltd., Muthoot Chambers and Others V ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jun-22-2010
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in CC.111/09 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The appellant is under orders to return the pledged ornaments on receiving the loan amount with 17% interest. The appellants are also under orders to pay Rs.1500/- as costs. 2. The matter relates to the gold loan availed by the complainant for a sum of Rs.78,000/- by pledging 98.600 grams of gold. The rate of interest mentioned in the token was 17% per annum. When he approached the opposite party to close the loan the amount claimed was very high. Subsequently the notice was received on 9-5-2009 informing that the ornaments will be sold in auction on 6-6-2009. When approached the opposite party was not willing to show the statement of accounts. The complainant is ready to remit the amount of interest as per the argument. 3. In the version filed by the opposite parties it is contended that the rate of interest mentioned was only for 3 months. It is denied that the comp...
M.C. Sanalkumar Vs. the State of Kerala,
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-21-2010
Antony Dominic, J.1. Challenge in this writ Petition is against Ext.P9 order reverting the petitioner from the post of Printer Grd. II. to the post of Lascar Grd. II. Reason stated in Ext.P9 is that since the petitioner did not complete 2 years duty within the continuous period of 3 years, his probation has not been declared.2. It is stated in Ext.P9 that though the petitioner was appointed as Printer Grd.II on 6.3.2000, till now the petitioner has not completed 2 years duty within a continuous period of 3 years for declaration of his probation. It is also stated that there is no provision for further extension and that therefore he is reverted.3. Counsel for the petitioner relies on Exts.P1and P2. According to the petitioner by Ext.P1, the third respondent required the 2nd respondent to place a proposal for declaration of probation of the petitioner and on that basis the 3rd respondent placed Ext.P2 proposal before the 2nd respondent. It is stated that in Ext.P2 the 3rd respondent has...
S. Ashok Kumar, Assistant Development Vs. State of Kerala, Secretary t ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-21-2010
Antony Dominic, J.1. The petitioner was advised by the Public Service Commission for appointment to the post of Assistant Grade-II in Finance Department of the Government of Kerala and he joined the post on 18/05/1981. He was promoted as Assistant Grade-I with effect from 11/05/1983 and was again promoted as Senior Grade Assistant with effect from 26/06/1988.2. While so, the PSC recruited the petitioner as Block Development Officer in the Rural Development Department in the quota for by transfer appointment. Accordingly, the petitioner was relieved from the Finance Department as per Ext.P1 order dated 13/10/1993. Thereupon the petitioner joined the Rural Development Department, and subsequently, was promoted as Assistant Development Commissioner with effect from 05/06/2004. It is also stated that in the meanwhile as per Ext.P2 dated 23/12/1998, the petitioner was promoted as Selection Grade Assistant in his parent department.3. Meanwhile on 03/04/1995, before he could complete the prob...
C.V. Pappachan, Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-21-2010
Antony Dominic, J.1. Ext.P9 order to the extent the petitioners are shown as Assistant Commandants on supernumerary basis in the Armed Police Battalion is under challenge.2. Short facts are that by Exts.P1 & P2 orders issued by the 1st respondent, the petitioners were promoted as Assistant Commandants on supernumerary basis invoking Rule 39 of the General Rules. While continuing as such, complaining of delay in the matter of regularisation in the services, they approached this Court in O.P. No. 6668/1996. That Original Petition was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment dated 17/02/2003 directing that appointments and promotions of the petitioners be regularised.3. Meanwhile, Exts.P1 & P2 orders were challenged before this Court in O.P. Nos. 19716/1995 and 3750/1994. Those Original Petitions were dismissed by Exts.P4 & P5 judgments upholding Exts.P1 & P2. Subsequently, in compliance with the directions in Ext.P3 judgment, promotion of the petitioners was regularised by Ext.P6 order dated 21/03...
Mrs. Molly Joseph Vs. Thressia
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-21-2010
A.K. Basheer, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the decree and judgment in O.S. No. 4/1994. The appellants are respectively defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 in the above suit.2. The bone of contention in the suit primarily revolved around the genuineness and validity of Ext.A6 Will. The court below held that Ext.A6 Will is the last Will of the testator and accordingly granted Letters of Administration in favour of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 19 in these appeals is the sole legal representative of deceased respondent No. 1.3. When the appeals came up for hearing on an earlier occasion, we heard learned Counsel for the parties and we were prima facie satisfied that the finding entered by the court below as regards the validity of Ext.A6 Will does not call for any interference. However we requested learned Counsel on either side to try for a compromise and suggested that the parties do appear before us.4. It is quite heartening to note that the parties who have been at loggerheads...
P. Samraj S/O. M. Paramu Vs. the State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-21-2010
Antony Dominic, J.1. Petitioner was the Secretary in charge of Kallara Grama Panchayat during the period from 8.2.2008 to 2.6.2008. On certain allegations of misconduct concerning the tender that was awarded for the construction of the office building, he has been placed under suspension by Ext.P1 order. He applied for review of the suspension, that was considered and was rejected by Ext.P11. It is challenging Exts.P1 & P11 that the writ petition is filed.2. Petitioner relies on Ext.P13, the Government order issued on 24.4.2010 deleting the finding in the impugned proceedings that on account of the misconduct loss was caused to the Panchayat.3. Learned Counsel submits that the main allegations based on which he has been placed under suspension are three fold. First is that the details of the offer mentioned in the tender documents were not incorporated in the agenda of the Panchayat meeting or the agreement. According to the petitioner, his specific case is that this allegation concern...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »