Kerala Court September 2010 Judgments

B.Muhammedkunhi Vs. K.Abdulla

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker224

1. In both these writ petitions, the petitioners are challenging the common order passed by the State Election Commission in O.P.Nos.76/2009 and 77/2009, produced as Ext.P4, whereby the petitioners have been disqualified from the membership of Meenja Grama Panchayat in terms of the provisions of the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1999. 2. The first respondent in the writ petitions is the petitioner before the State Election Commission. The petitioners and the first respondent were elected in the elections conducted in September, 2005 from different wards of Meencha Grama Panchayat. They contested as candidates of a political party, viz. Indian Union Muslim League which is a constituent of the United Democratic Front (UDF). The Indian Union Muslim League had three members, Indian National Congress two and Kerala Congress (M) one and all these parties formed the constituents of U.D.F. The L.D.F. had four members and B.J.P. had also four members. 3. The first res...

Renga Swamy Chettiar Vs. Mari Chettiyar

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker521

1. Question raised for a decision in this revision is whether a  document of sale executed pursuant to an agreement for sale and  a decree for its specific performance passed before Section 28A of  the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 (for short, "the Act") as amended by  the Kerala Finance Act, 2009 came into force is liable for stamp  duty based on fair value of the land as on the date of registration  if the document is presented for registration after Section 28A of  the Act came into force?2. Petitioner before me entered into an agreement to  purchase the suit property from respondent No.1 as per an  agreement dated 04.03.1995 for a total consideration of  Rs.60,000/- and paid Rs.10,000/- as advance at the time of  agreement. Though petitioner was ready and willing to perform  his part of the contract and get the sale deed executed,  respondent No.1 was not agreeable and that led to petitioner  filing O.S. No.1243 of 1995...

The General Manager, State Bank of Mysore, Rep.by the Branch Manager, ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties /State Bank of Mysore in CC.39/05 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad and under orders to refund the fixed deposit amount with interest and cost of Rs.500/-. 2. The case of the complainant is that he had an FD for five years of Rs.5000/- with the opposite party and the FD receipt was deposited before the sales tax department with an endorsement that payment on endorsement from STO 2nd circle, Palakkad. The fixed deposit bears an interest of 12% per annum from 21.7.97 to 21.5.02. The FD receipt was deposited with the Sales Tax Department as security for the sales tax. The complainant was having a coconut oil mill which was closed due to bad business. There was loan for starting the unit from the opposite party. The loan was subsequently remitted and the account was closed in the middle of 2004. Subsequently the complainant has requested Sales Tax department to release the FDR given as security. The FDR was handed ove...

The Proprietor, Dee Jee Engineering Corporation, Thrissur.Vs. M.K.Ravi

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in OP.181/01 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad. The appellant is under orders to refund a sum of Rs.12460/- with interest at 6% per annum etc. 2. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a heavy duty drilling machine with accessories from the opposite party for a sum of Rs.12460/- and the same was delivered at Meppady through KRL parcel service on 28.4.2001. The complainant is a blacksmith. On opening the parcel the machine was supplied was found to be broken. Although contacted a number of times and as directed the machine was sent back the same or another machine was not supplied. 3. The opposite parties have contended that the Forum at Wayanad has no jurisdiction as the premises of the opposite party is situated at Thrissur. It is contended that the machine was forwarded through the parcel service at the request of the complainant and on payment of the charges by the complainant. It is denied that the defect...

The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., T.S.M., Complex, P ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/Insurance Co. in OP.274/02 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.25,085/- to the complainant towards the expenses incurred for repairing the vehicle and also Rs.1000/- as compensation and Rs.250/- towards cost. 2. The case of the complainant is that the car purchased on 22.8.02 and insured with opposite parties sustained damages in an accident on 1.9.02. The claim was repudiated alleging that the registration period of the vehicle had expired. 3. The opposite parties/appellants have contended that the vehicle was not having valid registration and hence the appellants are not liable. It is also pointed out that the amount assessed by the surveyor is only Rs.19135/-. The temporary registration was only upto 26.8.02. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavits of the respective sides and Exts.A1 to A7 and B1 to B3. 5. The counsel for the respondent/complai...

M/S Popular Vehicles and Services Ltd., Kochi Vs. V.M. Mujeeb and Othe ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU PRESIDENT The appellant is the 2nd opposite party in OP.66/2005 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The appellant is under orders to rectify the defects of the vehicle and also to pay Rs.2500/- as compensation and Rs.500 as costs. 2. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Maruti Esteem (diesel car) from the 2nd opposite party/dealer. It is stated that immediately after the purchase of the vehicle the battery was found to be defective. Battery was found to be of the previous year and the dealer replaced it. Within 4 months the vehicle had to be garaged for about 8 times at the authorised service centre. It is alleged that the vehicle is having manufacturing defects. He had paid a sum of Rs.5.5lakhs as purchase price. The vehicle was subsequently valued by the 3rd opposite party the sister concern of the 1st opposite party at Rs.3.5 lakhs. The value of the brand new car has depreciated by about 2 lakhs within a period of 6 months. The complainant has so...

K.S. Ajayan Vs. Secretary, Ochanthuruth Service Co-operative- Ernakula ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in OP.167/04 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The complaint stands dismissed. 2. The case of the complainant is that he was a subscriber of the Soubhagya Deposit Scheme started by the opposite party, Co-operative Bank. In the printed notices issued, the opposite parties had provided the details of the deposit scheme. The complainant remitted Rs.300/- per month expressing his willingness to remit at the above rate for 25 years. According to the said scheme the complainant would get Rs.8,28,000/- at the end of 25 years. After 19 years and 9 months the opposite party stopped the scheme and asked the depositors including the complainant to withdraw the amount admissible and reinvest the same in some other scheme. It is alleged that the act of the opposite parties in stopping the scheme amounted to deficiency of service. A direction is sought permitting the complainant to contribute to the scheme at the rate of Rs.300...

B.P. Haneefa Vs. M/S Cholamandalam Ms General- Insurance Co. Ltd., Chi ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in OP.79/05 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The complaint stands dismissed. 2. It is the case of the complainant that the pick up autorikshaw owned by him met with an accident on 11/12/2004 as it collided with a Jeep. According to him he sustained a loss of Rs.30,977/-. The claim was repudiated on the ground that the complainant was not having the badge to drive the transport vehicle at the time. 3. In the version filed it is contended that the driver was not having license and badge and that the license issued was only to drive 3 wheeler non transport vehicle. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, Exts.A1 to A3 and Exts.B1 to B4. 5. The Forum has dismissed the complaint. The complainant has produced Ext.A3 copy of the driving license which would show that he is having the license to drive 3 wheeler non transport vehicle. The date of issue of the license is 28/5/2004. It is not disputed that...

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Represented by Its Divisional Manager, Th ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the 3rd opposite party/Insurance Company in OP No. 131/2004 in the file of CDRF, Kannur. The appellants including the first opposite party are under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- with interest at 8% per annum from the date of the order and also Rs. 500/- towards costs to the complainant. 2. The complainants and the legal representatives of the deceased Sreenivasan who was covered by the Master Policy with respect to accidents and issued by the 3rd opposite party through the first opposite party. The deceased was a fisherman who was a member of the organization represented by the first opposite party. The case is that on 08-07-20003 during fishing in the high seas he fell in the boat when trying to pull the fishing net and sustained internal injury. He was brought dead to the hospital. It is stated that at the time sea was very rough and it was due to the sudden rolling of the boat that he fell. The deceased had no pree...

Abraham C. Kuruvila Vs. Sam Mathew @ Binoy

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in CC.79/08 in the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.3,25,150/- with interest at 8%. There is a delay of 264 days. The appellant/complainant was exparte before the Forum. It is the case of the petitioner that he was unaware of the proceedings before the Forum and that he was employed abroad and that the Establishment was closed in the year 2008 itself. 2. The respondent/complainant has filed objection. 3. We find that the matter is with respect to the alleged excess amount received for construction of a residential building and incomplete construction of the building. In view of the fact that the order is not a considered one and the amount involved is somewhat large it appears that in the interest of justice the matter requires a considered disposal. It is submitted that the petitioner has already deposited Rs.1.lakh before the Forum as per the order of the Honble H...