Kerala Court January 2011 Judgments

Arun Thaman Vs. the Saraswat Co-operative Bank Ltd. and ors.

Court: Kerala

1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be reported No in the Digest?1. The petitioner, a Whole Time Director of the respondent No.3 Company, had furnished his personal guarantee to the respondent No.1 Bank in consideration of the financial assistance granted by the respondent No.1 Bank to the respondent No.3 Company. It is the case of the petitioner that he was a Director in a professional capacity and the respondent No.4 being the promoter Director of the respondent No.3 Company has in consideration of personal guarantee given by the petitioner furnished a counter guarantee to the petitioner. The petitioner on ceasing to be the Whole Time Director of the respondent No.3 Company, in March, 2010 applied to the respondent No.1 Bank to release his personal guarantee. Upon the respondent No.1 Bank not doing so inspite of legal notice, this petition has been filed seeking a directi...

Pran Mohini Vs. Sheela Verma and ors

Court: Kerala

1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?1. This is an appeal by a mortgagor, who, in a suit for sale by the mortgagee, suffered a fraudulent ex-parte decree (since set aside). The appeal is resisted by the auction-purchasers, who are Respondents No.2 & 3 before this Court.2. The final decree for sale was passed ex-parte on 2.05.1980 and the court auction sale is said to have been held on 30.05.1980, i.e., within a period of 28 days. From 30.05.1980, we have, per force, to go back by 15 days because Rule 68 of Order 21 CPC requires a period of at least 15 days after publication. This brings us to 15.05.1980. The auction-purchasers, without any proof of service of notice on the record, want the Court to believe that the whole process of filing the execution; serving the notice for settling the sale proclamation on the judgment-debtor who was admittedly in Madr...

R.N. Rattan Vs. M/S Oriental Bank of Commerce and anr.

Court: Kerala

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? (No)2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? (No)3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? (No) 1. The petitioner has challenged the termination of his services with the Oriental Bank of Commerce, respondent no.1, by way of imposition of penalty of dismissal imposed upon him by his Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 21st December, 1998 after he had been found guilty in a departmental enquiry of some fraudulent/unauthorised acts committed by him while he was posted as Chief Manager at the Mahipalpur branch of the bank in Delhi.2. The relevant facts may briefly be noticed before proceeding further to consider the grounds of challenge taken by the petitioner in this petition. The petitioner had joined the Oriental Bank of Commerce (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Bank') as a clerk in the year 1974 and thereafter he had been getting promotions from time to time. He was promoted as Chief Manage...

Kaipadath Property Development Company Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2011(1)Ker434

1. The writ petition concerns an order passed by the District Collector, viz. Ext.P6. whereby the petitioner was directed to remove the entire earth or any other material used for converting the wet land and to restore the land to its original position and to make it fit for paddy cultivation. Important questions have been raised regarding the interpretation of Kerala Conversation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act and Rules, 2008. 2. The brief facts for the disposal of the writ petition are the following: The petitioner is a private limited company represented by its Managing Director through his power of attorney holder. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner company purchased as per Ext.P1 sale deed No.2938/2007 of SRO, Thrissur, an extent of 22 acres and 77.700 cents of land in Sy Nos.309/p, 311/1 and 312/1 in Koorkancherry Village and certain properties in Aranattukara Village. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner had obtained permission under the Kerala Land Utili...

Sivananda Yoga Vedanta Dhanwantari Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2011(1)Ker555

1. Petitioner is Sivananda Yoga Vedanta Dhanwantari Ashram. In this writ petition, they challenge Ext.P18, an order passed by the first respondent Government. 2. 5 chain belt area of land situated near to the Neyyar Dam was acquired by the Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act on payment of full compensation to the owners and the land so acquired were leased out to the original owners themselves, subject to the condition that they will prevent soil erosion by planting soil binding trees, based on the directions issued by the Soil Conservation Department. In pursuance to the above, 4.5 acres of land belonging to one Ayyappan Pillai was also acquired and the land was given on lease to Ayyappan Pillai himself, subject to the aforesaid conditions. These are evident from Exts.P2 and P3 orders issued in 1961. According to the petitioner, Ayyappan Pillai continued in possession of this land, planted various trees and constructed a small temple and being a devotee of the ...

Hydro-tech,engineers and Contractors Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2011(1)Ker817

1. The question involved in this Arbitration Request is whether the dispute is arbitral in view of the bar contained in the Kerala Revocation of Arbitration Clauses and Reopening of Awards Act, 1998, Act 12 of 1998(hereinafter referred to as the 'Awards Act'). 2. The Government of Kerala, acting through the Special Officer, Theerapatham Urban Development Project, invited tenders for the work of "Water Supply Project (Short-Term) in Identified Water Scarce Areas ofThiruvananthapuram City" as per Tender Notice dated27.10.2003. The applicant submitted tender as a joint venture along with M/s.Kirloskar Brothers Ltd., Pune andM/s.Godavari Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. The tenders were considered and the tender submitted by the petitioner was accepted by the first respondent. On 25.3.2004, contract agreement was entered into between the applicant and the first respondent acting through the second respondent. 3. Disputes and differences arose between the parties in relation to the work. Corr...

The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank Ltd; Vs. G. Harish

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/bank in OP.316/01 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation and cost of Rs.1000/-. 2. The case of the complainant is that the opposite party/bank that provided loan for the purchase of scooter owned by his deceased father did not renew the premium of insurance in time and thereby he has been in capacitated to claim compensation from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal subsequent on the death of his father due to the injuries sustained in the road accident. 3. In the version filed the opposite party it is contended that it is the duty of the owner of the scooter to obtain insurance for the vehicle and to renew the same periodically and that the same has been specified in the loan agreement itself and hence there is no violation of any obligations on the part of the opposite parties. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavits file...

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd; Badagara, Reptd. by Its Manager, R ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/Insurance Company in CC.427/05 in the file of CDRF, Kozhikode. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation apart from an amount of Rs.48,352/- towards the repair charges of the vehicle. 2. It is the case of the complainant that the Toyota Qualis Car owned by the complainant and covered by the policy of the opposite parties met with an accident on 20.7.05. The repair cost amounted to Rs.64,265/-. The claim was repudiated. It is contended that the complainant was having driving license since 1997. The licence expired on 13.5.04 and it has been renewed with effect from 13.9.05. Due to oversight, it was not renewed in time. 3. The opposite parties have contended that as per the survey report, amount calculated is Rs.46,852/-. There was policy violation as the driver was not having an effective driving license on the date of the accident as the driving license had expired on 1...

The Senior Manager, North Malabar GramIn Bank and Another Vs. E.K.Muha ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/North Malabar Gramin Bank in OP.52/01 in the file of CDRF, Kannur. The appellants are under orders to pay re-calculate the interest from the disbursement of the loan amount only and to refund the excess amount realized with interest at 18 % and also to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.2000/-. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he had availed a loan of Rs.4,72,500/- for purchasing a lorry chassis. The loan amount was received on 24.7.97. The opposite parties collected a sum of Rs.6,65,560/- on 31.8.2000 insisting that the interest is to be has been calculated from the date of sanction of the loan amount and not from the date of disbursal of the loan amount. It is stated that the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- earlier towards the loan and hence he has altogether paid a sum of Rs.8,85,560/-. According to him, he is entitled to get a refund of Rs.2 lakh. 3. The opposite p...

Enathu Service Co-operative Bank Vs. the Consumer Disputes Redressal F ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2011(1)Ker423

1. The second respondent is a member of the writ petitioner; a co-operative society registered under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, hereinafter the "KCS Act". He had entered into a transaction with the petitioner society by joining a particular scheme. On the allegation that there was deficiency of service on the part of the society in relation to the said transaction, the second respondent filed a complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, for short, the "CDRF", which is governed by the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter, the "CP Act". The society took the plea that those proceedings are barred in view of section 69 of the KCS Act and having regard to the exclusion of other remedies by the provisions of that Act, the only remedy available to the second respondent was to have recourse to the provisions of that Act, since admittedly, he is a member of the writ petitioner society; and not to make a complaint before th...