Kerala Court January 2011 Judgments

The Regional Manager, (South), M/S Scooters India Limited and Another ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER No representation for the appellants. Appellants 1 and 2 are called absent. Hence appeal dismissed for non prosecution....

The Kerala State Housing Board, Rep. by Its Secretary Vs. E.K.Ratnakar ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT It is submitted that the order of the Forum has been complied with. Appeal closed....

M/S. K.R.S. Latex (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Federal Bank Limited

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2011(1)Ker395

1. The first petitioner is a company engaged in manufacture of 'Centrifuged Latex' and 'Skim Rubber Crepe'. The second petitioner is the Managing Director of the company. The first petitioner company availed various credit facilities from the 1st respondent Bank, for which the stock in trade, plant and machinery, and book debts of the company were hypothecated, along with collateral security of equitable mortgage created with respect to various items of immovable properties belonging to the petitioners. 2. The issue involved in this writ petition relates to sale of immovable property, conducted pursuant to Ext.P3 proclamation. Pursuant to proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) respondents 1 & 2 had issued a demand under Section 13(2) of the Act, as per Ext.P1, dt.10.10.2009. According to the petitioners, on receipt of Ext.P1, they raised objections through various representa...

C.P. Jayachandra Kaimal Vs. M/S Star Foundations and Structures Pvt. L ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER It is reported that the matter has been settled. Counsel for the appellant is represented. No representation for the respondent. Appellant has been taking time for filing settlement memo. But so far he could not file the same. Hence the appeal is dismissed as settled....

Dr. Jacob Varghese. Ms (Ortho) Mch. (L’pool), Consultant Surgeon ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER No representation for the appellant. There was no representation for the appellant on the previous posting dates also. Hence the appeal dismissed for non-prosecution....

State of Kerala Vs. P.G. Kumari Amma

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2011(1)Ker508

1. Under challenge in this appeal preferred by the Government is a court award in respect of acquisition of land in Pettah village for the development of the International Air Port, Thiruvananthpuram. The relevant Section 4(1) notification was published on 4/2/1999. The Land acquisition Officer included the property in category 8 (dry lands with road frontage) and awarded land value at the rate of Rs.39,800/- per cent. The Reference Court relied on Ext.A2 common judgment and enhanced the land value to 15 Lakhs per Are. 2. In this appeal various grounds have been raised by the Government assailing the award of the Reference Court. Smt.T.T.Josephina, learned senior Government Pleader, submitted that Ext.A2 was a totally irrelevant judgment. She further submitted that Ext.A2 at any rate has been set aside by this court in appeal. 3. Sri.R.Manoj, learned counsel for the claimant would fairly concede that Ext.A2 is not of much relevance to the present case. The learned counsel requested for...

Rossy Yogannan Vs. Badshah Travels, Nattika, Thriprayar, Thrissur and ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in OP.814/02 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The complaint stands dismissed. 2. It is the case of the complainant that she purchased the air ticket for the straight flight from Thiruvananthapuram to Riyadh on 6.8.02. She had to reach Riyadh to attend the delivery of her daughter. Although the amounts were entrusted much earlier the ticket was delivered on 5.8.02. Altogether she paid a sum of Rs.30,450/-. The complainant is from Thrissur. She reached the Airport at Thiruvananthapuram on 6.8.02 in time. It was found that the flight in the above sector was cancelled from 27.7.02 onwards itself. Thereafter, she contacted the third respondent, Air India office and ticket was arranged for next day from Thiruvananthapuram-Bombay, Bombay-Delhi, Delhi-Riyadh. She took the above ticket as she had no other go. She had to travel more; there was necessary to travel by direct flight. Further 6.8.02 was a Harthal day, and hersel...

The Asst.Engineer Kseb Sub Section, Vattiyoorkavu and Another Vs. Cons ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/KSEB in OP.160/03 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The bill issued for a sum of Rs.5,175/- stands quashed. The appellants are under orders to confine the above bill for energy charges for 152 units and to adjust the amounts remitted accordingly and also to pay compensation of Rs.1,000/- and cost of Rs.500/-. 2. It is the case of the complainant that the readings in the impugned bill is excessive on comparison with the previous and subsequent bills. The same was on account of the defective meter. The definite case of the complainant is that he had applied for examining the meter on 31/1/03 and remitted the required fee. Thereafter, the meter was removed for testing on 15.2.03. thereafter The test report was not furnished and the complainant was not intimated the result of the testing. The complainant was compelled to remit the amount mentioned in the impugned bill. Although, it was told that on recei...

Catholic Reformation Literature Society Vs. Kerala State Electricity B ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2011(1)Ker657

1. Ext.P10 order passed by the fourth respondent upholding the provisional assessment made in Ext.P8 is under challenge in this writ petition. Ext.P8 provisional assessment was made following a site inspection of the premises of the petitioner on 28.10.2010 by the Anti Power Theft Squad of the Kerala State Electricity Board. The fourth respondent has in Ext.P10 held that the petitioner has used the power supplied at subsidised rates for commercial purposes. Ext.P10 is an order passed by the fourth respondent in exercise of the power under section 126 of the Kerala Electricity Act. 2. Under section 127 thereof an appeal lies to the Deputy Chief Engineer. The period of limitation for filing an appeal is 30 days from the date of receipt of the order appealed against. In the instant case, Ext.P10 order was passed on 9.12.2010 and a copy thereof was served on the petitioner on 20.12.2010. As on today, the period of limitation prescribed for filing the appeal has not expired. In such circums...

Ramesh Kannan Vs. R.P.Kumar, Managing Director

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT Appellant is the complainant in OP.233/02 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The CDRF has allowed the appeal in part directing to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant in case he could not deliver the vehicle in a repaired condition. 2. The case of the complainant is that the Premier 118 NE car owned by him met with an accident and the same was entrusted to the opposite party for repairs. According to him he also paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards the repair cost. Subsequently the vehicle was not returned. 3. It is the case of the opposite party that a further sum of Rs.45,000/- was required for effecting repairs. The vehicle had sustained extensive damages. It is the case that on payment of the balance amount the repairs can be done. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DW1, Exts.P1 to P11 and D1. 5. It is seen from the proceedings of the Forum that on application of the opposite party the commis...