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.
Radhakrishnan Nair S/O. Somasekharan Vs. Madhusoodhanan Nair S/O. Bhas ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-05-2010
Thomas P. Joseph, J.1. Petitioner is a non party to the pending suit, O.S. No. 40 of 2005. Petitioner filed O.S. No. 240 of 2008 in the court of learned Sub Judge, Neyyattinkara against respondent No.2 for recovery of money and attached property of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1 obtained decree for recovery of Rs. 1,60,000/- from respondent No. 2 in O.S. No. 40 of 2005 of the same court and is taking steps to bring the 44 cents belonging to respondent No. 2 and which petitioner claimed, he has attached in O.S. No. 240 of 2008 for sale in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 40 of 2005. Contention of petitioner is that respondent Nos. 1 and 2, to defeat petitioner is colluding and has shown a meager amount as price for the 44 cents. Respondent No. 1 has not even mentioned in proclamation schedule attachment of property in O.S. No. 240 of 2008. In the circumstance petitioner filed E.A. No. 346 of 2008 in E.P. No. 75 of 2006 in O.S. No. 40 of 2005 purportedly under Order 21 Rule 58 and...
The Managing Director, Asianet Satellite Communiation Ltd. Vs. R. Ayya ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jul-03-2010
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in CC.291/09 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellants are under orders to supply a Samsung Microwave Oven worth Rs.5000/- and compensation of Rs.2000/- and cost of Rs.500/-. The amount is to be paid within one month from the date of order failing which the amount shall carry interest at 12%. 2. At the time of hearing the counsel for the appellant, on behalf of the appellant and the respondent/complainant who appeared in person agreed that the appellant shall pay the balance of Rs.3,990/- ie Rs.1010/- (Rs.5000/- - Rs.3990/-) along with compensation and cost without interest. Hence the matter is settled on the above terms. The appellant shall pay the amount to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant would be entitled for interest at 18% on the amount of Rs.3510/- from today. The appeal is disposed of as above. The office is directed t...
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Represented by Di ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jul-03-2010
COMMON JUDGMENT SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER These two appeals are preferred from the order dated 13th October 2004 passed by CDRF, Alappuzha in OP No. 513/1999. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the par of the opposite parties 1 and 2 (New India Assurance Company Ltd.) in repudiating the insurance claim for Rs. 3,96,102/-. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency of service. They justified their action in repudiating the insurance claim for Rs. 3,96,102/- by stating that no such theft of merchandise was happened in the burglary committed on the night of 12-02-1998 or in the morning of 13-02-1998. Thus, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint in OP No. A-513/1999. 2. Before the Forum below, the complainant was examined as PW1 and two other witnesses on his side as PWs 2 and 3. Exts. P1 to P20 documents were also marked on the side of the complainant. On the side of the...
Suku S/O Damodaran, Vs. the State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-02-2010
Thomas P. Joseph, J.1. Petitioners are plaintiffs in O.P (Ind.) No. 71 of 2003 and O.S. No. 38 of 2006 both of the court of learned Principal Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. According to the learned Counsel for petitioners both the suits are in respect of the same property. In O.P(Ind.) No. 71 of 2003 the prayer is for recovery of damages to the tune of Rs. 49,50,000/-- on account of respondents allegedly trespassing into the suit property involved in O.S. No. 38 of 2006 and demolishing the structures allegedly belonging to the petitioners. In O.S. No. 38 of 2006 prayer is for declaration of title and possession of property in respect of which damages is claimed in O.P (Ind.) No. 71 of 2003. In O.S. No. 38 of 2006 petitioners filed I.A. No. 7445 of 2009 for issue of a commission but the suit was later dismissed for default. According to the learned Counsel for respondents I.A. No. 7445 of 2009 was also closed. Learned Counsel for petitioners would maintain that when O.S. No. 38 of 2006 ...
T.R. Veerakumar Vs. Remani Thankachi and Renuka Devi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-02-2010
Thomas P. Joseph, J.1. Writ Petition is filed by the claim petitioner who is the husband of respondent No. 2/judgment debtor and who lost the claim petition and whose appeal was returned for presentation in the proper Forum. Respondent No. 1 obtained a decree for payment of money against respondent No. 2 in O.S. No. 465 of 1997. When respondent No. 1 launched execution against respondent No. 2 and attempted to bring the property of respondent No. 2 (which was placed under attachment) to sale, petitioner appeared with claim petition stating that as per settlement deed No. 3257 of 2000 he got right and title over a portion of the property attached (5 cents in extent). Executing court found that claim is not sustainable in so far as settlement deed in favour of petitioner is after the attachment was made and hence it does not bind respondent No. 1. Claim petition was dismissed. Matter was taken up in appeal before the learned District Judge. Learned District Judge observed that since the ...
The Proprietor, M.S. Babu, General Automobiles, Angamaly Vs. P.V. Thom ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jul-02-2010
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the 1st opposite party/workshop owner in CC 63/2009 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The appellant is under orders to repair the scooter of the complainant within a month failing which to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- and compensation of Rs.2000/-. 2. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant did not receive notice from the Forum and hence he happened to be absent. We find that the above submission can not be accepted as such. The Forum has mentioned that the service of notice has been effected. All the same in view of the fact that the appellant has not been heard, the order of the Forum is set aside on condition that the appellant/1st opposite party pay a sum of Rs.3000/- to the complainant towards cost or deposit the same before the Forum which can be withdrawn by the complainant. The Forum will issue notice to the complainant and 2nd opposite party and dispose of the case on merits after giving opportunity to ...
Kunnath Lubna Vs. Dr. Muhammed Ismail, Ms, Fics and Others
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jul-02-2010
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT Revision petitioner is the complainant in CC.4/09/petitioner in IA.83/2010. The application filed by the complainant to get her examined by a Medical Board at District hospital/Medical College Hospital or Amritha Institute of Medical Science, Ernakulam for ascertaining disability has been dismissed by the Forum. It is the above order that is under challenge. 2. On a perusal of the order we find that the attitude of the Forum in this regard is totally incorrect. The Forum is expected to aid the consumer for ascertaining the correct state of affairs in such circumstances. Further no prejudice will be caused to the opposite parties if the application of the complainant is allowed. Hence the order of the Forum is set aside. The Forum is directed to address the Superintendent, Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode directing the Superintendent to constitute a committee of experts and get the petitioner examined and get the disability assessed if any. The F...
M/S Hykon India (P) Limited, Rep. by Authorized Officer K. Davis Anton ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jul-02-2010
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in CC.190/06 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The appellant is under orders to demonstrate the functioning of 2 UPS supplied to the complainant by connecting 11 computers each within one week failing which to refund Rs.55,000/- with interest at 12% from the date of complaint and cost of Rs.2000/-. 2. The case of the complainant is that the 2 UPS of 3KV each supplied for a sum of Rs.55000/- assuring that 11 computers can be connected to each of the UPS failed to work the computers. 3. On the otherhand the opposite parties have contended that the alleged nonfunctioning of the 11 computers was on account of erratic electrical supply and insufficient voltage. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1,DW1 Exts.P1,P2 and R1. 5. It is the contention for the counsel for the appellant that the reason for the nonfunctioning of the particular number of computers was on account of fluctuating and low electric sup...
Sri Ganesh Babu Vs. State of Kerala,
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-01-2010
Thomas P. Joseph, J.1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 149 of 2010 of the court of learned Munsiff, Devicolam. He sued respondents for a declaration of right of way over plaint B schedule to his property (plaint A schedule) and for injunction. According to the plaintiff, he has got a right of easement over plaint B schedule. It is also his case that he has no other access to plaint A schedule. When respondents made preparations to construct building obstructing plaint B schedule, he laid the suit and moved I.A. No. 800 of 2010 for an order of temporary injunction. Notice was ordered on that application and it is posted on 19-07-2010. In the meantime, respondents are making hasty preparations to construct structures obstructing plaint B schedule and hence this writ petition to direct learned Munsiff to consider and pass appropriate order on I.A. No. 800 of 2010 and to direct respondents not to o...
Lal Vs. Manappuram General Finance and Leasing Ltd, Kaloor, Ernakulam ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jul-01-2010
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in CC.470/08 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The complaint was dismissed for default. 2. In the circumstances, the order of the Forum is set aside on condition that the appellant/complainant pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- to the opposite party towards costs, or deposit the same before the Forum which can be withdrawn by the opposite parties. 3. The Forum will issue notice to the opposite parties and dispose of the case on merits. 4. The matter stands posted before the Forum on 19.8.2010. The office is directed to forward the copy of this order to the Forum urgently....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›