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.
Graceamma Thomas Vs. the Commissioner of Police,
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-12-2010
K.M. Joseph, J.1. Petitioner seeks the following relief:to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding and compelling the 1st respondent to afford adequate and effective police protection to the life of the petitioner, enabling her to do the maintenance work with her workers in the building bearing No. TC 50/822-9 and also to complete the compound wall in Sy. No. 3541/1-1 of Manacaud Village.2. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 2 to 4.3. We heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the party respondents and also the learned Government Pleader. After hearing them we do not think that it is an appropriate case for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226. Learned Counsel for the petitioner expressed apprehension about threat to life. Learned Counsel for respondents 2 to 4 would categorically submit before us that respondents 2 to 4 have no intention to cause any threat to the life of the petitioner. We re...
Delta Plywoods and Boards, Ernakulam District Vs. K.V. Saji and Anothe ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jul-12-2010
SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER By the order dated 18-10-2007 in OP No. 144/02, the CDRF, Wayanad has directed the opposite parties to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 82,584/- with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and it is aggrieved by the said direction that the second opposite party has come up in appeal 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 has purchased plywood sheets worth Rs. 35,663/- on 04-08-2000 from the first opposite party, which were manufactured by the second opposite party. The same were purchased for innovation work such as showcase, almirah and other kitchen works in the newly constructed house of the complainant. It was alleged that the complainant was assured by the first opposite party that the plywood items were of good quality manufactured by the second opposite party and that the first opposite party was the dealer of the seco...
Hdfc - Chubb General Insurance Co. Ltd. Mumbai and Another Vs. Mrs. C. ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jul-12-2010
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU:PRESIDENT The appellants are opposite parties 1 and 2 HDFC/Chubb General Insurance Company in O.P. 1093/05 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The appellants are under orders to pay to the complainant Rs. 5,00,000/- the assured amount with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of petition till realization and Rs. 1500/- towards cost. 2. The petitioner is the widow of the assured who died on 22.6.2004 while crossing the railway line as hit by a train. The deceased had remitted the premium of Rs. 1,263/- vide cheque dated. 14.6.2004. He had also forwarded two more cheques, dtd. 14.6.2005 for premium of the next 2 years. The assured amount was Rs. 5,00,000/- The policy was issued on 19.6.04. The claims submitted was repudiated contenting that the assured died prior to the date on which the policy became effective. On the petition filed by the complainant the Ombudsman allowed the petition in part and ordered an ex-gratia payment of Rs. 1,84,189/- ie, the exact a...
Mary W/O. Jose, Vs. Kshemavilasam Kuri Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-09-2010
Thomas P. Joseph, J.1. Petitioners are judgment debtors in O.S. Nos. 196 and 198 of 2002 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Muvattupuzha. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are facing warrant of arrest in execution of the decree in the said cases. Petitioners filed I.P. No. 3 of 2007 in the same court to declare them insolvents. That petition was dismissed for default. It is in the meantime that the executing court ordered warrant of arrest against petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 filed Exts.P5 and P6, applications in the executing court to recall the warrant of arrest issued against them. Learned counsel states that the said applications are coming up for hearing on 20.07.2010 and 24.07.2010. Petitioners therefore request that until those applications are disposed of warrant of arrest issued against petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 may be kept in abeyance.2. I have heard learned Counsel for petitioners and gone through the petition. Having regard to the circumstances stated I direct that ...
Sadanandan Vs. Aishwarya Trust
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-09-2010
Thomas P. Joseph, J.1. This Writ Petition is in challenge of Ext.P2, order issuing warrant of arrest against petitioner-judgment debtor in E.P. No. 18 of 2007 in O.S. No. 73 of 2000 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Cherthala. Respondent-decree holder obtained a decree for payment of money against petitioner and put the decree in execution. Respondent wanted personal execution against the petitioner. Respondent filed proof affidavit on 24.06.2010. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed to cross-examine the respondent and petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 500/- as batta. Commissioner reported that petitioner has not cross-examined respondent-decree holder. Petitioner also did not adduce any evidence. Relying on the uncontroverted proof affidavit of respondent and Exts.A1 to A4 executing court found that petitioner has means to discharge the decree debt but neglected or refused to pay the amount and accordingly Ext.P2, order was issued. Petitioner has now been taken to custody and is u...
T.G. Mathew Vs. Cheriyanadu Panchayath
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-09-2010
Thomas P. Joseph, J.1. Writ Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 328 of 2002 of the court of learned Munsiff, Chengannur, sued the respondents for a declaration that the pathway passing through his property is his private road and for injunction against respondents converting it into a public road. Petitioner was enjoying the benefit of an order of temporary injunction as per Ext.P1 which was in force until the suit was dismissed on 30.06.2010. Immediately thereon, petitioner applied for carbon copy of judgment as per C.A. No. 947 of 2010 but, that carbon copy has not so far been issued to him. Apprehension of the petitioner is that in the meantime, respondent No. 1 is taking hasty steps to convert the disputed road into a Panchayat road. Petitioner therefore seeks a direction to the learned Munsiff to issue carbon copy of the judgment and in the meantime, to direct respondent No. 1 to maintain status quo. Learned Counsel states that information received is that respondent No. 1 is ...
New India Assurance Company Limited, Represented by the Divisional Man ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jul-09-2010
SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN: MEMBER This appeal is preferred against the order dated 31.10.08 of CDRF, Wayanad in CC.49/08. The complaint was preferred by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellant as opposite party whereby the Forum directed the opposite party to pay Rs.1,00,000/- with 12% interest from 13.6.06 till payment along with cost of Rs.1000/- to the complainant. 2. The case of the complainant was that he wa as mediclaim policy holder which covers the family members for the period from 13.2.06 to 12.2.07 on paying a premium of Rs.6643/- with the assured sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. The complainant was a student of 12th standard during the period of policy. He was a member in the school football team and sustained an injury on the knee while playing football and underwent treatment at Sree Ramachandra Medical Centre on 10.4.06. After medical examination it was understood that the complainant had a disease named osteod osteoma and had to spent Rs.1,25,000/- for tests an...
Vijay Anand, Manager, Professional Couriers Vs. Basheerkutty, Cheerama ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jul-09-2010
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT Appellants are the opposite parties/couriers in CC.148/09 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The appellants are under orders to pay Rs.2450/- the value of the parcel and Rs.550/- courier charges collected and Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as cost. 2. The matter is with respect to non delivery of the parcel entrusted with the opposite party on payment of Rs.550/- towards the courier charges. Not only the parcel was not delivered but the parcel returned was an empty one without the article entrusted. 3. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, RW1, Exts.A1 to A4 and Ext.B1. We find that the Forum has considered the evidence adduced in the matter in detail. It is seen that the parcel had weighed 5.Kg. It did not reach the destination but was returned after so many days. It was found that the mobile number of the addressee was also provided. Further no records as to the intimation given to the addressee were produced. There ...
Trivandrum Golf Club Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-08-2010
Thomas P. Joseph, J.1. This Writ Petition is in challenge of Ext.P5, order dated 28.06.2010 on I.A. No. 3456 of 2010 in O.S. No. 60 of 2010 of the court of learned Additional Sub Judge-II, Thiruvananthapuram. Petitioner sued respondents for a declaration that termination of licence agreement between itself and respondent No. 1 is illegal and for consequential reliefs. There was an application for temporary injunction to restrain respondents from dispossessing petitioner but ultimately, this Court allowed the respondents to take possession of the suit property which the Supreme Court has confirmed. The Supreme Court has directed learned Additional Sub Judge to dispose of the suit within three months from the date of respondents filing written statement. Case stood posted on 10.07.2010 for respondents to file written statement. While so, petitioner filed I.A. No. 3456 of 2010 on 19.06.200 for amendment of the plaint and I.A. No. 3457 of 2010 to advance hearing of the suit. Case was poste...
Shamseer T. Vs. Sub Inspector of Police and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-08-2010
K.M. Joseph, J.1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:a) issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 to 4 to give adequate and effective protection to the life and property of the petitioner and his family members.b) issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction, directing respondents 1 to 4 to take effective steps against respondents 5 to 10 to prevent them from causing any damage to the life and property of the petitioner and his family members.2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. The petitioner and his family, including his mother, her sister, his sister and two school going brothers are residing in the property owned by his mother and her sister. His father is employed abroad. Petitioner's mother and her sister filed a suit before the Munsiff Court, Koothuparamba in connection with the construction of a road through their property and Ext.P2 interim order was p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »