Kerala Court July 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.
C.M.Cheru Vs. Senior Manager, Kunnamkulam Branch, the South Indian Ban ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jul-28-2010
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in CC.1065/05 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The complaint stands dismissed. 2. It is the case of the complainant who is the son of the aggrieved ie, mother aged 100 had five fixed deposits in the opposite party Bank and when the complainant went to the bank for renewal of the deposits it was told a sum of Rs.687/- has been already deducted towards TDS. It is submitted that the only income of the mother having is the interest from the deposits. In the amount of interest only below a taxable amount. The mother of the complainant was not liable to pay income tax. Hence the deduction of Rs.687/- towards income tax without intimating the mother of the complainant amounted to deficiency in service. She has sought for compensation of Rs.50,000/- as compensation. 3. The opposite parties have filed version contending that deducting TDS is statutory obligation and that there is direction that persons who are receiving Rs.50...
The Secretary K.S.E.B., Thiruvananthapuram and Another Vs. Jacob Mathe ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jul-28-2010
SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR MEMBER By the order dated 31.12.2002 in OP.74/95 the CDRF, Kottayam has directed the opposite parties to cancel Ext.A5 bill and to pay cost of Rs.750/- to the petitioner within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order. 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 complainant has approached the Forum stating that he is a consumer of the opposite parties and that on 19.1.95 he was served with a bill dated 18.1.95 for a sum of Rs.45279/- by the 2nd opposite party. The reason stated was that he had not installed capacitor and it was found out during the inspection of the Electrical Inspector during last week of October and that one phase of the meter was not recording consumption. It is his case that on 2.1.95 the Sub Engineer of the opposite parties had taken reading and he did not say anythi...
Sobhakumar Sobhanilayam Bungalow Perumthottamkinattuvila Vs. the Manag ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jul-26-2010
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The Revision Petitioner is the Decree Holder in EA.No.17/05 in OP.60/02 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The Revision Petitioner has sought for setting aside the order of the Forum directing the Decree Holder ie; himself to receive the articles produced by the Judgment Debtor/KSRTC. The respondent/KSRTC were under orders to return to the complainant/Revision Petitioner (i) 4 coil 7/60 copper wire, (2) three 100 A fuse and (3) one neutral pink. It is noted by the Forum/Execution Court that the Decree Holder has stated that the articles produced do not belong to him. The Forum has noted that as the articles were not produced during trial stage it would not be possible to identify the same. 3. The contention of the Revision Petitioner is that the opposite party/KSRTC considerably delayed to fulfill the order of the Forum to return the articles to the complainant. According to him, he was repeatedly requesting the opposite parties to retu...
Assistant Engineer, A.P.T.S., Kseb, Cannannoor and Others Vs. A.P. Lek ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jul-26-2010
SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellants were the opposite parties and respondent was the complainant in OP No. 261/05 on the file of CDRF, Kannur. The complaint was filed to get the invoice dated 09-09-2005 cancelled. The said invoice was issued by second opposite party demanding remittance of Rs. 32,400/- by way of penal charge for misuse of electricity supplied for agricultural purpose. The complainant contended that there was no such misuse of electrical energy and that he is not liable to pay the amount covered by A2 invoice dated 09-09-2005. 2. The opposite parties entered appearance before the Forum below and filed written version contending that A2 invoice and A1 letter demanding payment of Rs. 32,400/- were issued in accordance with the provisions of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. It was further contended that the complainant/consumer misused electrical energy supplied for agricultural purpose by using the same for domestic purpose. Thus, the opposite parti...
National Insurance Company Ltd. Noor Complex, Kozhikode Vs. M. Dinesh ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jul-24-2010
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/insurance company in CC.303/01 in the file of CDRF,Kozhikode. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- with interest at 12% from the date of complaint. 2. The case of the complainant is that the Mahindra jeep owned by him covered by the policy was stolen. He was paid only Rs.2,00,000/-. According to him the full insured value of Rs.3,00,500/- ought to have been paid. The opposite parties have disputed the claim contending that the amount assessed by the surveyor is Rs.2,00,000/-. 3. The evidence adduced consisted of Ext.P1 to P5 and R1 to R5. 4. We find that the survey report only mentions that the surveyor conducted an enquiry in the local market. According to him the market value of the 1/98 Model Mahindra CL 500 MD Jeep in good condition prevalid as on 16.5.2000 ie the date to theft was Rs.2,00,000/-. The Forum on the other hand has deducted 10% from the insurance value of Rs.3,00,350/- in the...
The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Ernakulam Distric ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jul-24-2010
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/Insurance Company in CC.62/07 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.32,320/- to the petitioner with interest at 12%. 2. The case of the complainant is that he is the owner-cum driver of the Bajaj autorikshaw and that during the period of policy coverage there was an accident on 11.3.06 and he sustained serious injuries ie, fracture on the right tibia. He was inpatient on 25 days and spent a sum of Rs.80,000/- for treatment. He could not drive the autorikshaw for 5 months after the accident. 3. In the version filed by the opposite party the case is that personal accident cover is restricted to certain eventualities named in the conditions of the policy ie death, loss of 2 limbs or one sight of two eyes or loss of one limb and sight of one eye, or permanent total disablement from other injuries other than named above. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1;...
George Joseph Vs. District Electoral and Registration and Kavalangad G ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-23-2010
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioner is a resident of Ward No. 5 in the Kavalangad Grama Panchayath. In the previous election held in the year 2005, there were 17 wards in the said Panchayath and now a new ward namely, Thadikulam is formed for which 133 families from the old Ward No. 5 (Vallanchira) and 133 families from old Ward No. 6 (Akolichal) and 130 families from old Ward No. 4 (Oonnukal) were grouped together.2. The petitioner's contention is that for the last three consecutive elections, they were under a reserved ward. Therefore, he has filed a representation before the District Collector to exclude the present ward from the process of fixing the reserved ward.3. The petitioner is relying upon the general guidelines issued by the Election Commission as per Exhibit P2 in this regard wherein it is provided that the wards which were reservation wards for the last election held in 2005 will automatically be converted as general wards and the reservation ward for the coming ...
K.J. Jose S/O K.J. Joseph Vs. the Secretary and State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-23-2010
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioner is the owner of a plot of land at Thevara, on the western side of the Thevara road. The total extent of the property comes to 27.888 cents. The petitioner submitted an application for constructing a multi-storied building in the said plot as per Exhibit P1.2. The respondent-Corporation, by Exhibit P3, informed the petitioner that the plan submitted by him is not in conformity with Rule 33 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999. Aggrieved by it, this writ petition is filed challenging the above Rules and the petitioner is seeking for a declaration that Rule 33 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 is ultra vires of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1994. A further relief is also sought to quash Exhibit P3 communication issued by the Corporation.3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Rules have been amended as per the Kerala Municipality Building (Amendment) Rules 2010, which was notified as per G.O.(Ms)...
Suresh Kumar Vs. the Regional Transport Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-23-2010
J. Chelameswar, C.J.1. Aggrieved by a judgment in so far as it did not permit the appellant to ply the vehicle (stage carriage), the partially successful writ petitioner filed this writ appeal.2. The appellant is a defaulter in payment of the motor vehicles tax for the period between 1.7.2009 and 30.6.2010. The case of the appellant is that as the vehicle broke down during the relevant period he could not generate any revenue out of it and therefore he had defaulted in the payment. In view of the default in payment of tax the respondent authority initiated proceedings for recovery of the amount of tax due. Hence the writ petition.3. By the judgment under appeal dated 21st May, 2010, a learned Judge of this Court partially allowed the writ petition interdicting the tax recovery proceedings on condition that the appellant herein clears all the arrears of tax demanded in five equal monthly instalments, first of which was directed to fall due on 10th of June 2010 and the other instalments ...
Varghese Pooppally (Cheriyan P. Varghese) and P.C. Sibimon Vs. the Sta ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-23-2010
J. Chelameswar, C.J.1. The writ petition is filed with the prayers as follows:i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to dissolve the Nehru Trophy Boat Race Society and further direct the 1st respondent to form an organization for conducting Nehru Trophy Boat Race completely under the control of the Government of Kerala;ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to control the functioning of Nehru Trophy Boat Race Society in terms of Exhibit P1;iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the first and second respondents to dispose of ExhibitP3 forthwith and further direct the respondents to submit entire accounts of the Nehru Trophy Boat Race Society for the past 15 years;iv) issue an interim direction directing the 1st respondent to dissolve Nehru Trophy Boat Race and further direct the 1st respondent to form an organization for conducting Nehru...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »