Kerala Court July 2010 Judgments

Paulson Peter Vs. P.A. Pius

Court: Kerala

P.N. Ravindran. J.1. The petitioner in W.P(C) No. 20842 of 2008 has filed this Contempt Case alleging that the respondent herein, who is the Secretary of Kottayam Municipality, has deliberately failed to comply with the undertaking given to this Court as recorded in Annexure A1 judgment.2. The petitioner, who is a resident of Vadavathoor in Vijayapuram Grama Panchayat of Kottayam district, had filed W.P(C) No. 20842 of 2008 seeking a direction to the Kottayam Municipality to shift the Municipal waste dumping yard from Vadavathoor to another appropriate place. He had also sought a direction to the Kottayam Municipality to strictly comply with the provisions of the Kerala Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000 and a direction to the District Collector, Kottayam to monitor the dumping and processing of waste by the Kottayam Municipality in the Municipal waste dumping yard at Vadavathoor. W.P(C) No. 20842 of 2008 was heard and disposed of along with a connected writ pe...

V.K. Anil Kumar Vs. S. Rajesh Kumar and ors.

Court: Kerala

P.S. Gopinathan, J.1. The 4th respondent in WP(C). No. 15828/2005 assails the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 5-11-2005. The first respondent herein is the petitioner in WP(C). The father of the first respondent, late Sivasankara Pillai was working as an Upper Primary School Assistant in an aided school of which the 4th respondent is the Manager. While so, on 21-10- 1985 Sivasankara Pillai died in harness. The first respondent was then aged 11 years. He attained majority on 20-5- 1992. On 19-8-1992, the first respondent filed an application, copy of which is marked as Ext.R4(d) seeking employment on compassionate grounds. On 19-8-1997, the first respondent sent Ext.P2 reminder letter to the 4th respondent. On 18-9-2001 a leave vacancy of Peon arose in the school. In that vacancy, one Ravikumar was appointed. On 17-9-2001, the father of the appellant, who was working as a Full Time Menial in the very same school, died in harness. That vacancy was filled up by appointing one S...

A. Misbah, Social Worker Vs. Union of India (Uoi),

Court: Kerala

J. Chelameswar, C.J.1. This writ petition is filed with the prayers as follows:(i) To call for the records relating to Exts.P-1 to P- 6 and to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents to fill up the posts of Junior Engineers as stated in Ext.P-4 from the Islanders, i.e. from Lakshadweep applicants in respect of the posts in the Harbors of Lakshadweep and also not to effect any appointment from persons other than Lakshadweep Islanders;(ii) To issue any writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to consider Exts.P5 and P6 representations and not to make any appointment to the post notified as per Ext.P-4 till Ext.P-1 Circular is implemented;(iii) To issue a writ of mandamus commanding the 5th Respondent to implement Ext.P-1 Circular and also Ext.P-2 in respect of Class III and Class IV employment by appointing locals;(iv) To cancel Ext.P-7 notification and to direct the Respondents to conduct fresh interview after conducting written test from among islanders, depending...

P.Kunhamu. Vs. Arun Kumar K.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker896

1. The one and perhaps the only important issue which arises for decision in this revision under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is, whether the single Rent Control Petition instituted by the respondents for evicting the revision petitioners two tenants occupying two rooms in a larger building, on the ground under Section 11(3) of the Act, is maintainable? The revision petitioner in RCR.189/2008 at the earliest opportunity itself raised the contention that the Rent Control Petition is not maintainable in law as the landlord has instituted a single Rent Control Petition for evicting himself and another tenant, who were governed by two different tenancies. The above contention did not find favour with either the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority. The Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority after appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties, came to the conclusion that the need which was projected by the landlord in the context of the ground under sub-section 3 of Secti...

The Manager, Federal Bank Limited, Adimali Branch, Adimali Vs. Kannan ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/bank in CC.176/08 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for deficiency of service and Rs.2000/- as cost. 2. It is the case of the complainants/husband and wife that they had a joint account in the appellant bank and that a signed cheque was kept in the business premises of the complainants shop when the first complainant went to Tamilnadu for business purpose. It is his case that the neighbourhood business man by name Kissigner willfully obtained the same without the knowledge of the 2nd complainant. Hence in order to avoid misuse of the cehque complainant 1 and 2 issued a written stop memo to the bank. On 22-6-2007 also a stop payment memo was given to the bank but the said cheque was produced by one Kilpart of Ernakulam district for a sum of Rs.30,000/- dated:10-4-2007. The opposite parties returned the cheque noting fun...

K.T.Udayan. Vs. Chief Conservator of Forests.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker146

1. Petitioner is working as Deputy Ranger, presently posted at Malakkapara Forest Station. According to the petitioner based on Ext.P1application, Ext.P2 order has been issued, transferring and posting him to Mudickal. Complaint is that though Ext.P2 order was issued as early as on 5.7.2010, so far he has not be relieved to enable the petitioner to join Mudickal. 2. In view of the complaint thus raised by the petitioner this writ petition was adjourned with a direction to Government Pleader to obtain instruction. On instruction what the Government Pleader submits is that the substitute of the petitioner Sri. Mohandas has not so far reported for duty. It is stated that the petitioner holds charges of the station and therefore unless the substitute joins duty he cannot be relieved. 3. In the circumstances as pointed out by the Government Pleader, this court will not be justified in issuing a direction to relieve the petitioner as sought for. 4. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of...

MukthA.K.N, Vs. Adv.Y.Abdul Azeez and Others

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN: MEMBER This appeal is preferred against the order in IA.418/09 in CC.197/09 of CDRF, Kollam. The above said IA was filed by the opposite party questioning the maintainability of the complaint on the ground of limitation. The opposite partys contention was that the complaint was barred by limitation as 2 years have elapsed from the date of cause of action. The opposite party relinquished the vakalath on 12.6.06 and the complaint was filed only on 3.7.09 by which period the limitation prescribed under Consumer Protection Act was crossed over and as there was no petition to condone the delay, the opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the complaint in limine. 2. The appellant/complainant filed objection stating that she had filed an appeal before the Honble High Court and a complaint against the opposite party before the bar council after the disposal of her case before the Family court, Kollam. In which the opposite party had relinquished the vakalath and h...

Secretary, Vatakara Co-operative Hospital, Vs. M.V. Leela and Another

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the first opposite party in OP No. 10/2003 in the file of CDRF, Kozhikode. The appellant as well as the second opposite party are under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- to the complainant as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- towards costs. 2. It is the case of the complainant that on 18-06-2002 she went to the first opposite party hospital and consulted the second opposite party doctor for pain and swelling on the toe of her right leg. The doctor examined her and applied dressing on the big toe of the right leg. After returning home she had severe pain and swelling at the toe and on the next day she again went to the hospital and consulted the above doctor. She was admitted at the hospital and the doctor removed the toe nail without conducting the required tests etc. On 20-06-2002 her condition became worse. The doctor advised her that it appeared that the infection was spreading towards the knee and referred her to the Medical Co...

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Sulthan Bathery Branch Vs. Poulose ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/Insurance Company in CC.92/2008 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.56,078/- for the damages sustained to the vehicle insured with the opposite party. The case of the complainant is that the Maruthi Omni Van owned by him and having full coverage with the opposite party and having all India Tourist permit, met with an accident while playing through the state of Karnataka on 19.5.07. He has spent Rs.80,000/- for rectifying the damages to the vehicle. The claim was repudiated on the ground of permit violation which is incorrect. He has claimed Rs.80,000/- with interest at 18% and Rs.20,000/- as compensation. The opposite parties have contended that the vehicle was not having authorization as required in the permit. The authorization expired on 17.5.06. Hence, the same amounted to policy violation. The surveyor has assessed the loss after deducting depreciation at ...

Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. Calicut Vs. C. Raj ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/Insurance Company in OP No. 375/2002 in the fie of CDRF, Kozhikode. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 38,661/- as repair charges and a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and cost of Rs. 500/-. It is the case of the complainant that the Tata Mini Lorry insured with the opposite parties overturned on 02-07-2001. The repair charges amounted to Rs. 38,661/- as per the bills of the repairer. The claim was repudiated. The opposite parties/appellants have contended that there was violation of policy conditions as the investigator has reported that the vehicle was driven at the time by the complainant who did not have a driving licence. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 and Exts. A1 to A8. The Forum has noted that in Ext.P2 FIR the person who was driving is mentioned as one Anoop and not the complainant. The complainant has also produced the driving licence of the above person. The ...