Kerala Court June 2010 Judgments

P.S.Rajan, M/S Rajan and Associates Vs. A.S. Menon

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The opposite party has filed an application to admit the appeal treating that there is no delay. The order of the Forum is dated:4/9/2008 and the revision has been filed on 12/4/2010. The contention is that the copy of the order was given to the appellant only on 6/10/09. We find that the order mentioned is a preliminary order with respect to the issue of limitation. Of course the order is a one sentence order. The Forum ought to have pronounced a speaking order. It is not proper for the Forum to dispose of the matters in the above manner. 2. There is no provision to issue preliminary orders/interim orders etc by post to the parties. In the circumstances we find that the revision is hopelessly barred by limitation. Hence the Revision Petition is dismissed. The copy of this order will be forwarded to the Forum....

The Kerala State Electricity Board, Rep. by Its Secretary, Trivandrum ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is directed against the order dated 13th January, 2006 passed by CDRF, Kottayam in OP.No.176/2005. The above complaint was filed against the appellants/opposite parties alleging deficiency in service in issuing Ext.A4(a) demand notice dated 25.7.2005 demanding a sum of Rs.3000/- for the unauthorized use of electrical energy for industrial purpose. The notice served on the opposite parties was accepted and they entered appearance by filing written version denying alleged deficiency in service on their part. They contended that the impugned A4(a) demand notice dated 25.7.05 was issued based on the B2 mahasar prepared by the Assistant Engineer of the concerned electrical section. Thus, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 2. Before the Forum below Ext.A1 to A5 documents were marked on the side of the complainant and B1 and B2 on the side of the opposite parties. DW1, the then meter reader and DW2, the then Assis...

United India Insurance Co Ltd Regional Office, Sharanya Hospital Road ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/United India Insurance Company Ltd in OP.318/03 in the file of CDRF, Kasaragod. The appellants are under orders to pay the assured sum of Rs.1 lakh to the complainants. 2. The case of the complainants who are the LRs of the deceased assured is that the assured died while running behind a cow. According to them the deceased felt chest pain while running and fell down. He was feeding the cow in the garden when it ran away. There was an Insurance coverage under Kamadhenu Insurance Scheme with coverage with respect to accidental death to the members of the family of the owner of the cow. The coverage was rupees one lakh for death due to accident. It is the case of the complainants that the deceased was immediately taken to KasaragodTalukHospital where from the doctor referred him to District Hospital Kasaragod. But on the way he died. The claim was repudiated. 3. The opposite parties have contended that the d...

Pratheesh Thomas Vs. State Bank of India, Irinjalakuda Branch

Court: Kerala

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.1. The petitioner had availed a loan of Rs. 12 lakhs from the respondent Bank in March 2009, creating security interest over the property in question. However, the re-payment was not effected promptly; under which circumstances, the Bank proceeded with steps under the SARFAESI Act, declaring the account as NPA, which is under challenge in this Writ Petition.2. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 4.5.2010, coercive steps were intercepted, on condition that the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000/-, which is stated as complied with.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to clear the entire 'overdue' amount and the prayer is only to provide some breathing time to clear the same.4. The learned Counsel for the Bank submits that the 'overdue' amount was Rs. 87,352/- as noted in Ext.P2 communication dated 15.4.2010 and that after giving credit to sum of Rs. 25,000/- already satisfied ...

NazaruddIn A. Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board and ors.

Court: Kerala

Antony Dominic, J.1. The petitioner is a Sub Engineer in the Kerala State Electricity Board, aspiring promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. Ext.P8 is the list of eligible Sub Engineers prepared for effecting temporary promotions to the post of Assistant Engineers. In Ext.P8, the petitioner's name has been included at Serial No. 31. Although several persons, who are included in Ext.P8 list, were temporarily promoted as per Rule 31 of the KS & SSR, the petitioner's name was not considered for the reason that disciplinary proceedings were pending against him.2. Ext.P2 is the order placing the petitioner under suspension. However, the petitioner submitted that by Ext.P7 order he was reinstated. On reinstatement, the petitioner contended that, his ineligibility, which justified his exclusion from temporary promotion, ceased to exist and therefore he should be given the benefit of temporary promotion. It is with this grievance, this writ petition has been filed.3. The learned Counsel ...

Tomy A.J. Vs. State Bank of Travncore,

Court: Kerala

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.1. The petitioner is challenging the steps taken by the respondent Bank invoking the provisions under the SARFEASI Act, for realisation of the amount stated as due under the loan transaction, which was availed by the petitioner in connection with the business.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the default was never wilful but because of some unforeseen circumstances and that the petitioner might be permitted to clear the overdue amount and to have the loan account regularised.3. The respondents 1, 2 and 3 filed a statement pointing out the actual facts and figures. Para 4 of the statement stated as follows:Now the total outstanding due as on 1.6.2010 is Rs. 7,53,863/-. Rs. 2,56,630/- and the said amount is paid forthwith and the over due amount as on 1.6.2010 is if future remittances are made promptly, the Bank is willing to regularise the account subject to the condition that in case of any default the Bank may be given the liberty to proc...

Bency Vs. Preceline George

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLJ993

ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. Petitioner is the wife of the first respondent. Their marriage was solemnized on 7.6.2009. Thereafter the marital partners fell apart. The wife now seeks a direction to the fourth respondent, Sub Inspector of Police, Thrikkakara Police Station to investigate Annexure - A1 complaint registered as Crime No. 639/2010 for an offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 I.P.C. and a direction restraining the fifth respondent, Sub Inspector of Police, Mannarcaud from conducting any investigation consequent on the transfer of the F.I.R by the Thrikkakara Police to the Mannarcaud Police.2. Annexure - A1 complaint filed by the petitioner before the J.F.C.M Court-I, Aluva was forwarded by the Magistrate to the Thrikkakara police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The Thrikkakara police registered a case as Crime No. 639/2010 for an offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 I.P.C. On 9.4.2010 the learned Magistrate received from the Thrikkakara poli...

R.V. Sureshkumar, Proprietor Vs. the Secretary, Kerala State Electrici ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT Revision petitioner is the complainant in CC.329/2009 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. Revision petition is filed over the order in IA.408/2009 restraining disconnection on deposit 50% of the bill amount. The contention of the revision petitioner is that he should not have been directed to deposit 50% of the bill amount which according to him casts a heavy burden. At the time of hearing both the counsel conceded for a direction to the Forum that the matter be disposed of at the earliest. In the circumstances the Forum is directed to dispose of CC.329/09 within three months from the date of receipt of this order. Office is directed to forward the copy of this order to the Forum urgently....

SibIn Paul Vs. State of Kerala Represented by the Director of Survey a ...

Court: Kerala

Antony Dominic, J.1. PSC invited applications to the post of Surveyor Grade II in the Survey and Land Records Subordinate Service. The qualification for the post as has been prescribed in the Special Rules are pass in SSLC examination and pass in Surveying and Levelling (Higher MGTE or KGTE with Chain Survey Test). Petitioner possesses pass in SSLC and a certificate in KGCE in Civil. He applied for the post, he was called for written test and on passing the examination, he was called for certificate verification. He produced the certificates, but however, holding that the petitioner is unqualified for the post, his candidature was rejected. It was thereupon that the writ petition is filed.2. Petitioner accepts that in terms of the Special Rules, the qualification prescribed is pass in KGTE, and that what he possesses is SSLC with KGCE in Civil Engineering. However, counsel for the petitioner relies on Exts.P2, P11 and P12. Ext.P2 is an order issued by the 1st respondent after consultat...

Nandakumar Vs. the Regional Transport Authority,

Court: Kerala

K. Surendra Mohan, J.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P6 judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT for short) directing him to submit a fresh application for the grant of a permit. The contention of the petitioner is that he had filed an affidavit before the STAT requesting that a permit be granted on his application, curtailing the route with respect to which he had applied for permit.2. The petitioner had submitted an application for the issue of a regular permit to operate on the route, North Parur-Thevara Junction via Cherai, Narakkal, Kalamukku, Gosri Bridges, Ernakulam High Court Junction, Menaka, Boat Jetty and Pallimukku in respect of his stage carriage No: KL-07/AN 567. The application was rejected on the ground that for a distance of 6 km, the route was overlapping the notified route, Trivandrum-Kannur, approved by notification No: 42/09/Trans dated 14/7/09. The petitioner challenged the rejection of his application for regular per...