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.
Kodiyath Meethal Sajeevan Vs. Narayani W/O. Mannan Govindan and Daught ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-16-2010
ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J.1. The tenant challenges in this revision under Section 20 the order of eviction concurrently passed against him on the ground under Sub-section (3) of Section 11. The need projected by the landladies was that the building in question, which is the first floor portion of a two storied building, is needed bona fide for occupation by the second petitioner in the RCP who is the daughter of the first petitioner for the purpose of conducting tailoring business. The bona fides of the need was disputed by the revision petitioner. He contended that the real motive in filing the RCP was to let out the building after getting eviction for much higher rent. It was also contended that the RCP was liable to fail by virtue of the first proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 11. The revision petitioner also claimed protection of the second proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 11. Before the Rent Control Court, the second petitioner in the RCP, the daughter for whom the buildi...
Thomas P.C. Vs. the Conservator of Forests.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-16-2010
1. Petitioner retired from service on 31.7.2007 as Forester. Non disbursement of DCRG and dues under the family benefit scheme is what is complained of. 2. Learned Government Pleader has obtained instruction in the matter and submits that there are two ORS pending against the petitioner. It is stated that in relation to O.R.No.27/2001 report has been submitted exonerating the petitioner. It is also stated that in respect of O.R.No.28/2010, liability fixed is only of Rs.1400/-. According to the Government Pleader this liability has been fixed by order dated 2.12.2008. 3. It that be so, there is no reason why the entire amount due to the petitioner shall be withheld. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to disburse the amounts due to the petitioner towards his DCRG and dues under the family benefits scheme, after deducting Rs.1400/- being the liability fixed. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 3 weeks from the date...
C.V. Jolly Vs. Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Board,
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-15-2010
A.K. Basheer, J.1. Appellant, who is stated to be the President of Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samity of Varapuzha (Town Unit) has filed this appeal impugning the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition filed by him.2. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge found that the grievance of the appellant that his name had been excluded from the panel of nominees representing the employers in his area (Varapuzha Town Unit) was vitiated by extraneous consideration, malafides, political bias etc. could not be substantiated by him. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.3. The case of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that his organisation of which he is the President, had suggested his name as one of the representatives of the employers in Paravur Advisory Committee. Ext.P8 is stated to be the said list of nominees. However, according to the appellant, the District Committee tinkered with the said list and excluded his name and prepared a pane...
The Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India and ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jun-15-2010
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/LIC in OP No. 31/2005 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The appellant is under orders to pay the policy amounts with interest at the rate of 9% from 24-02-2005 and costs of Rs. 900/- 2. It is the case of the complainant that she is the nominee of the endowment assurance policy issued by the second opposite party on 03-06-2003 to her husband with the assured sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-. On payment of the annual premium of Rs. 26,428/-, the policy commenced on 22-05-2003. The second annual premium was due on 22-05-2004. The assured was employed in Kuwait. The policy was taken through the 3rd opposite party, LIC agent. In June 2004, the 3rd opposite party agent reminded the complainant with respect to the second premium and the premium amount of Rs. 26,428/- to be deposited within the grace period. The assured died in Kuwait on 12-10-2004 in a road traffic accident. The claim was repudiated as the amount collected by the...
Erummal HussaIn S/O. Muhammed Vs. M.P. Ibrahim S/O. Mammu Musaliar and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-14-2010
C.K. Abdul Rehim, J.1. Claimant before the Tribunal is in appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded. He sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident, which occurred on 29/7/1997, when a motor cycle knocked him down on a public road near to Kanhangad Market. He sustained frure to the neck of left Femur along with other minor injuries. Injuries sustained to the appellant had resulted in causing permanent partial disability, which was assessed by a Doctor who examined him in Ext.A8 Disability Certificate as 30%. The Tribunal found that the assessment regarding extent of disability is not proper and the assessment is not made in accordance with 'Mc'Brides Scale'. Considering the extent of disability as 5% and fixing monthly notional income at Rs. 1250/-, compensation of Rs. 8250/- was awarded on account of permanent disability.2. Counsel for the appellant argued that the tribunal went erred in not considering evidence adduced to the effect that the appellant was a hawker and...
P.K. Pavithran S/O. Chathu Vs. Shoukkath M.M. S/O. Mammu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-14-2010
ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J.1. The tenant, a goldsmith is in revision. He challenges the order of eviction concurrently passed against him by the Rent Control Court as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The need, which was projected by the landlord who is presently employed in a Gulf Country, was two fold. Firstly, the landlord wants to discontinue his employment in Gulf and come back to his home town and conduct business in the petition schedule building. Secondly, the landlord's father, who is a fish vendor, has stopped fish vending and the landlord wants to accommodate his father in the building, so that the father can start business in stationery in the building. When the Rent Control Petition went for trial, the first claim was given up and the claim that was pursued was the claim to accommodate the father for conducting stationery business. Before the Rent Control Court, the father was examined as PW1. He gave evidence to the effect that though he is 64 years old, he is ...
Vazhayil Karayi Vishalakshi W/O. Vijayan Vs. the Special Tahsildar, La ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-14-2010
ORDER3. Heard both sides. We are not fully convinced by the explanation offered by the appellant for the delay. However, on the consideration that as far as possible causes should be allowed to be adjudicated on merits, we are inclined to condone the delay imposing strict conditions. Accordingly, delay will stand condoned subject to the following conditions:i). The appellant will pay a sum of Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only) to the High Court Legal services Committee within three weeks from today and produce receipt.ii). In the event of the appeal being allowed and the appellant becoming eligible for enhanced compensation, such enhanced compensation will not carry interest otherwise admissible under Section 28 of the L.A. Act during the period of 2361 days condoned by this order.4. Incorporate a copy of this order to the judgment to be passed in the appeal. The Registry will send up the appeal for admission once the receipt against payment of the amount as ordered ab...
Lathika Viswanathan Vs. State of Kerala,
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-14-2010
Antony Dominic, J.1. The petitioner's husband, late Shri R. Viswanathan, retired from service on 31/01/2000, as an Assistant Conservator of Forests. According to the petitioner, by Ext.P2, he was sanctioned senior grade with effect from 31/12/1995. However, the benefit of Ext.P2 was given only with effect from 09/01/2003, the date on which the said order was issued.2. This issue according to the petitioner was the subject matter of litigation before this Court resulting in Ext.P3 judgment, where the claim was upheld and it was directed that the benefit of Ext.P2 should be given with effect from the date on which the benefit has been sanctioned and not from the date of the Order. It is stated that the judgment has been confirmed by the Division Bench by dismissing the appeal filed by the State, a copy of which is Ext.P4.3. Soon after Ext.P4 judgment, the petitioner's husband expired on 26/12/2006 and as a result thereof, the matter could not be prosecuted. It is stated that coming to kn...
M.S. Shihab Vs. the Intelligence Inspector
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-14-2010
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved of Ext. P7 notice issued under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act, whereby the timber transported by the petitioner in the vehicle bearing No. KL.4/8406 was detained on 12.06.2010 doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit to the extent as specified therein.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the defect noted in Ext.P7 notice is only trivial in so far as the insinuating circumstance is stated as 'under valuation' of the goods, which cannot be correct in view of actual invoice value and other aspects revealed from the documents produced along with the Writ Petition. The learned Counsel also submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to substantiate the position in the course of the adjudication proceedings and that the present request is only to have the vehicle as well as the goods released, enabling the petitioner to furnish security in the form of 'Bank Guarantee'.3. Heard the learned Government ...
Asokan Vasu Vs. the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-14-2010
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.1. The petitioner is a holder of FL-3 licence and is doing the business in running a hotel. The assessment in respect of the concerned assessment years were finalised as per Exts. P3 and P5, aggrieved of which, the petitioner has preferred Exts. P4 and P6 appeals, which are stated as pending consideration before the first respondent . The petitioner has approached this Court because of the 'Garnishee' proceedings taken in the meanwhile, whereby the accounts of the petitioner in the 3rd and 4th respondent Banks have been caused to be frozen.2. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner cannot be heard to say that the proceedings have been pursued and finalised by the concerned respondents contrary to any of the provisions in the Statute, more so when the petitioner has no case that he has filed any Interlocutory Application for stay along with the appeal and he has not obtained any interim stay in this regard. This ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »