Kerala Court September 2010 Judgments

Geetha Viswanathan. Vs. Sasidharan.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker505

1. The appellants are the legal heirs of the original defendant who had been impleaded as additional appellants, consequent to death of their predecessor, during the pendency of the appeal before the court below. Concurrent decision rendered by two courts below that the respondent/plaintiff is entitled to recovery of possession of the suit property on the basis of his title is challenged in the second appeal. 2. Subject matter involved in the suit is fifteen cents of land with a building and three shop rooms in Maranelloor village. Admittedly, the above property was under the possession and enjoyment of one Pankajakshy on the basis of an assignment of mortgage over the property in her favour, in 1954. The mortgagor had instituted a suit for redemption of the property, in which Pankajakshy, the mortgagee, among other contentions had set up a claim of tenancy under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. That suit, which was not disputed, was dismissed for default. Asserting that she had obtained a...

Parakkattil Abu Vs. Pachiyath Beekkutty

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker239

1. Did the court below err in granting a decree of divorce in favour of the wife in distress under Section 2(viii) (f) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act Did the court below err in accepting the assertions of the wife meekly Did the court below armed with the dictum in Abdurahiman v. Khairunneesa [2010 (1) KLT 891] exhibit unholy/unworthy haste in disposing of the claim for divorce? Is the appellant/husband, in the light of undisputed facts and circumstances, entitled for the luxury of a further opportunity when the contentions that he wants to raise cannot admittedly help him to avoid the impugned decree? These questions arise for determination in this case. 2. This Matrimonial Appeal is preferred by the appellant/husband, claiming to be aggrieved by an order of dissolution of marriage passed under Section 2(viii)(f) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act in favour of the respondent, his wife. 3. Marriage is admitted. The marriage took place on 18.08.1980 admittedly. Two ch...

V.Vijayakumar Vs. M.T.Vijayan

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker244

1. The challenge in this Crl.Revision Petition is against the  conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner, who is the accused in a prosecution for the  offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable  Instruments Act (for short, the N.I.Act). 2. The case of the complainant, the first respondent  herein, is that the complainant and the accused are close  family friends and out of that relationship, the revision  petitioner/accused borrowed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from the  complainant on 5.12.2003 and on receipt of the said  amount, towards the discharge of the said liability, the  accused issued a cheque dated 5.12.2003. According to the  complainant, when the above said cheque was presented  for encashment, the same was dishonoured for the following  reasons: (1) Drawer's signature incomplete, (2) payment  stopped by the drawer and (3) funds insufficient. On receipt  of the dishonour memo,...

R. Asokan Vs. the Managing Director, Kerala State Financial Enterprise ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant /subscriber in the 39 chitty of the opposite party. The complainant has sought for realization of Rs.21,750/- towards compensation and costs. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant had given a proxy to the opposite party. But, after auctioning the chitty in the name of the complainant, the same was not intimated. Hence, he had to borrow from the money lenders for the business run by him. The opposite parties had denied the allegations and it was pointed out that with respect another chitty involving the same procedures the complainant had approached the opposite parties and withdrawn the amount and yet the facts as to the impugned chitty was not conveyed to the complainant. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DW1, Exts. P1 to P9, D1 and D2. The Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that the opposite parties are not bound to intimate the pricing of the chitty to the subscrib...

Gopidasan Vs. Ramakrishnan

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party who is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as costs. 2. The case of the complainant is that the opposite party had agreed to erect concrete rings in the well. After inspection of the well, it was informed that 14 rings are to be erected. The amount was fixed at Rs.15,400/-. The complainant paid Rs.10,000/- and subsequently, Rs.1,500/- by cheques. During the work, opposite party demanded higher amount. The complainant paid Rs.1,800/- . The opposite party inserted 8 rings. He did not do the work properly. The rings inserted slipped towards one side and fell into the well. The same was occasioned on account of the defect in the works executed. The request of the complainant to rectify the defects went unheeded. The complainant in order to complete the work would require an amount of Rs.9000/-. He has claimed also a sum of Rs. 5000/- as compensation. 3. The case of the opposite part...

The Manager, North Malabar GramIn Bank, Periya Bazar Branch, Kasaragod ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/Malabar Gramin Bank. The direction in the order to the appellants is to prepare the loan agreement in the Malayalam language and also issue a copy of the agreement after execution of the agreement to all lonees with repayment schedule in future. The appellants are also under orders to furnish a copy of the agreement executed by the complainant to him and also the complainant is directed to pay all the loan dues at the rate of interest provided in the agreement and repayment schedule after deducting the amount already remitted by him. The appellant are under orders to pay cost of Rs.3500/- and in case of failure to comply with the directions to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation. We find that the direction issued by the Forum below is in the best interest of both sides. The appellant cannot insist that the language of the agreement should be only in English. The case of the complainant is that he is not conversant...

The Managing Trustee, Deepastambham Project, Lis (Regd) Administrative ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC.174/09 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- with 12% interest and Rs.1000/- as costs. 2. The opposite parties have not filed any version or adduced any evidence. The complainant has filed proof affidavit and marked Exts. A1 and A2. 3. It is the contention of the appellants/opposite parties that the matter was settled and the complainant was given Rs.70,000/- as he wanted back the amount prematurely and that he was satisfied with the above payment. 4. There is no representation for the respondent/complainant. 5. In the circumstances, and in view of the fact that the order is not a considered one. The same is set aside on condition that the appellant/opposite parties pay a sum of Rs.3500/- to the complainant towards costs or deposit the same before the Forum which can be withdrawn by the complainant. 6. The Forum will issue notice to the complainant...

Leena Manoj and Another Vs. Sooranadu Rajasekharan and Others

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in OP.54/2005 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The appeal has been filed seeking enhanced compensation and for fixing the liability as jointly and severally on all opposite parties. The Forum has directed the 3rd opposite party to pay sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as costs. 2. The case of the complainant is that Maruti Zen car owned by her and parked at the ear marked parking area of the All India Exhibition conducted by the Co-operative Centenary Celebration Committee was stolen on 26.12.04. The 1st opposite party was the Chairman of the Co-operative Centenary Celebration Committee and the 2nd opposite party was the General Convenor and the 3rd opposite party the contractor of the parking space. It is stated that the sum of Rs.10/- was collected as parking fee at the instance of the 3rd opposite party and ticket bearing Sl.No.1198 was issued. When she returned at 9pm after seeing the exhibition the ...

Dr.i.S.VipIn Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker292

1. This writ petition comes to the Division Bench on a reference made by the learned single Judge. 2. The petitioner is the first rank holder in the open merit quota in the Entrance Examination for Admission to Super Speciality Post Graduate Courses namely, M.Ch. in Gastroenterology Surgery. There is only one seat available for that super speciality this year. That seat is earmarked for being allotted to an in-service candidate. The petitioner challenges it as one amounting to the reservation of the lone seat, which according to him would result in 100% reservation. He pleads that the said seat should be allotted only on the basis of open merit, by competition and an in-service candidate cannot by reason of such earmarking, be given any preference. In that premise, he seeks an order quashing the earmarking of the single seat for M.Ch. in Gastroenterology Surgery for the in service candidates as contained in the prospectus and for a declaration that Section 5(1) of the Kerala Medical Of...

The Manager, Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd; KattappanA. ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT Appellant is the opposite party in CC.137/2010 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The appellant is under orders to return the relevant documents with respect to the vehicle and also to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- and cost of Rs.2000/-. The appellant was ex-parte before the Forum below. It is the case of the appellant that he could not contest the matter as the Forum disposed of the complaint in the same month of filing the complaint. In view of the fact that the order has been pronounced without the appellant contesting the matter the same is set aside on condition that the appellant pay a sum of Rs.3500/- towards costs to the complainant or deposit the same before the Forum, which can be withdrawn by the complainant. The Forum will issue notice to the complainant and dispose of the matter on merits after according opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence. The case stands posted before the Forum on 29.11.10. Office will forward the copy of this or...