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.
The Special Tahsildar (La) Vs. K.V. Arumughan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-16-2010
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.1. This appeal by the Government pertains to acquisition of land in Vengeri village pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 27/07/98 for the purpose of construction of Kozhikode byepass. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 33,622/- per Are. The Reference Court under the impugned judgment re-fixed the same at Rs. 60,000/- per cent.2. In the appeal grounds are raised contending that the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is inadequate. Our attention is drawn by the learned Government Pleader to our own judgment in LAA.136/02 which was in respect of acquisition of land in the same village for the same purpose but pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published four years earlier. We notice that under that judgment, we have approved the market value of the land at Rs. 30,000/- per cent only. We feel that since the property is situated within the area of Calicut Corporation addition of 15% per year [maximum rate permissi...
The Manager, Syndicate Bank, Nileshwar Branch Vs. P.R. Suresh Hedge
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jul-16-2010
SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA,MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by CDRF, Palakkad in the file of OP.No.235/01 dated 25th January 2002. The appellants are the opposite parties who preferred this appeal. According to the complainant he is a watch repairer and he was operating Pigmy deposit account No.10947 with first opposite party. He was served with a letter by OP.No.1 in August 2000 stating that on receipt of the above letter, he issued a letter to the first opposite party requesting to issue a clearance certificate in respect of his current account No.355, for the closure of the Pigmy deposit account and for refund of the amount. In pursuance of the letter, opposite party No.1 issued a clearance certificate to him on 15.2.01 in respect of the current account. But first opposite party did not comply with his request to refund the amount standing in the pigmy deposit account after closing the same prematurely. On 22.3.01, the complainant sent a registered letter to 2nd opposite p...
M/S.impex Elias Reptd. by Ots Power of Attorney Holder Smt. Veroni.X. ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jul-16-2010
SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA,MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by CDRF, Ernakulam in OP.No.273/04 dated 17th June 2005. This case related with a purchase of a Car Ultima XR tyres for Rs.10,400/-. The complainant is the purchaser of the above said tyres and opposite party is the dealer of the above mentioned tyres. The appellants are the complainant who prefers this order from the dismissal of the complaint by the Forum below. According to the complainant, the tyres and tools were fitted to the vehicle that there was a sound humming while the vehicle was in motion. The opposite party said that the above sound will stop after the vehicle runs above 500 kms. The technicians of Honda City confirmed that the tyres were not fit for the said car. The same opinion was given bythe representatives of JK tyres. The complainant therefore purchased 4 other tyres and tubes from another party. While this petition to give a direction to the opposite party to take back the tyres and tools and re...
M/S Kalpaka Kuries, Represented by Managing Partner, Jolly Paul, Chala ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jul-16-2010
SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA MEMBER The opposite parties filed this appeal from the order of CDRF, Thrissur in OP 704/03 dated 13.4.05. The respondent is the complainant. As per the complainant he joined a kuri for a sala of Rs.6 lakhs. He remitted the installment in May, September and January. Thereafter at the 15th installment the kuri was auctioned by the petitioner for Rs.70,800/- and out of that 50000/- was deposited with the respondent. Thereafter petitioner paid inclusive of 32 installment and thereafter the respondent assured that the receipt of the installments would be adjusted from the interest on the deposit and and that the kuri would be offer in May 2000. The deposit amount of Rs.50000/- and balance amount it would given to the petitioner. According to the complainant he approached the opposite parties for many occasions to get this money. But the opposite parties did not remitted this money to the complainant hence this complaint. The opposite parties appeared and filed version ...
Dr. Mammen Alexander and Another Vs. P.J. Aledander
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jul-16-2010
SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA,MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam in the file of OP.No. 206/02 dated 30th September 2004. The opposite parties are the appellants who prefers this appeal under the order that the opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation from negligence committed by the appellant/opposite parties. 2. This is a case for coming from the medical negligence alleged to commit by the appellant/opposite parties in the case of treatment. The complainant who is a mason in his employment who was traveling on his scooter on 30.7.01 met with an accident and he sustained injuries to his arms and legs and he was admitted in the first opposite parties hospital. The second opposite party /Doctor who attended the complainant and he taken his X-ray and informed him that his left foot was fractural. He was admitted in the hospital and applying plaster on 2.8.01 and he was discharged on 4.8.01with a direction to come on 4.10.01 for ...
Krishna Poduval Vs. Travancore Devaswam Board and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-15-2010
Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Petitioner's case is that based on the licence issued by the Devaswom Board fourth respondent is constructing temporary sheds and shops for carrying on business during the Karkadakavavu Festival blocking the road as well. Standing counsel for the Devaswom Board submitted that Board auctioned only the Board's premises for setting up temporary shops and no Devaswom Officer can permit construction of sheds on road. Considering the urgency of the matter, we do not think there is any need for us to issue notice to the fourth respondent because construction of temporary sheds should not be on public road and should not in any way prevent traffic on the road or even access to the temple. Devaswom Officer will ensure that sheds are constructed in Devaswom properties without obstructing free movement of devotees for darshan and for gaining access to the temple. If any construction is made on road or road margin, it is for the Revenue Divisional Officer to remove such str...
The Secretary, Kseb, Vydyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram and A ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jul-14-2010
SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR, MEMBER By the order dated:3/3/2009 in CC.15/07 the CDRF, Palakkad has directed the opposite parties to adjust Rs.11,973/- remitted by the complainant towards his future electricity charges with cost of Rs.1000/-. 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 29-06-2006 the Anti Power Theft Squad (APTS) headed by the Assistant Executive Engineer conducted a surprise inspection and found that the meter did not contain the seal of the Electricity Board and that there were some defects in the meter which were caused by the complainant. The site mehazar was prepared and that he was directed to pay the imposed penalty bill amount of Rs.11,973/- and on payment of the amount the connection that was...
The Manager, Hdfc Bank, CochIn and Others Vs. Prasad
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jul-13-2010
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC.165/06 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.1500/- towards cost. 2. It is the case of the complainant that the motor cycle purchased by him availing a loan of Rs.39,500/- from the opposite parties was forcibly re-possessed and sold although he had remitted the instalments in time. 3. The opposite parties/appellants have contended that all the cheques issued for repayment of instalments were dishonoured. According to them re-possession was made after giving notice to the complainant and as per the terms of the agreement. It is also mentioned that before selling also notice was issued. According to the opposite parties only the initial payment of Rs.10,000/- was made. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P4. 5. The appellant has sought for an opportunity to reagitate the matter. It is submit...
Bhaskaran Vs. Kozhikode District Co-operative Hospital Ltd. Eranlippal ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jul-13-2010
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The Revision Petitioner is the complainant in CC.416/09 in the file of CDRF, Kozhikkode. On the application of the opposite parties the Forum has directed that the matter has to be forwarded to a panel of experts relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Martin F. DSouzas case (2009 (3) SCC 1). The above order is challenged. We find that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in V.Kishan Rao Vs. Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital, 2010 V SCC 513 the order of the Forum is set aside. The Forum has directed to dispose of the matter on merits after directing the opposite parties to file version and contest the matter. The case stands posted before the Forum on 13/09/2010. The office will forward copy of this order to the Forum....
Amina, Vs. the Deputy Superintendent of Police and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-12-2010
K.M. Joseph, J.1. Petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:i. to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, order or direction directing the respondents 1 and 2 not to threaten and harass the petitioners and their family members at the instance of respondents 3 to 6.ii. to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents 1, 2 and 7 to grant adequate and meaningful police protection to the life of the petitioners from the threat of respondents 4 to 6.2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as follows:Petitioners are mother, brother, sister and wife of Unus A.H who married the 3rd respondent. There are various allegations made in paragraph 2 of the writ petition and in substance it is stated that the relationship between the 1st petitioner's son Unus A.H and the 3rd respondent was strained. He pronounced Talak. It is communicated by Ext.P1. The 3rd respondent complained of commission of offence under Section 498A read with Section 34 of I...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »