Kerala Court October 2011 Judgments
Proprietor, Best Ind Computer Shoppe, Fair Mount Tower Vs. Leslie Anto ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Oct-28-2011
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHNU: PRESIDENT Appellants are the opposite parties in CC.281/11 in the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta. The appellant is under orders to replace the computer with a defect free computer of another brand or refund Rs.23,100/- and also cost of Rs.500/-. 2. It is the case of the appellant that the notice received was misplaced as the shop room was under repairs. 3. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A10. 4. We find that the reasons mentioned for non appearing before the Forum appears totally unconvincing. All the same in view of the fact that the order is not a contested one the same is set aside on condition that the appellant/opposite party pay a sum of Rs.8000/- towards cost to the complainant or deposit the same before the Forum which can be withdrawn by the complainant. On payment of cost, the Forum shall permit the opposite party to contest the matter and dispose of the case on merits. The case stands posted before the Forum o...
Tag this Judgment!Tiny Vs. Jacky
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-27-2011
Can a plaint be quashed under Art.226 or Art.227 of the Constitution? This important question arises for consideration in this petition. 2. This petition is filed, mainly, on the following averments: In 1962, petitioner’s father had taken a shop room on lease from 2nd respondent’s father. The original landlord and tenant, both expired. Petitioner, his brothers and mother continued as tenants and they are running business in the shop room in photostat, telephone booth, fax, lamination etc., under the style, “City photostat”. Formerly, textile business was conducted in the shop till 1986. Petitioner is paying profession tax and electricity bills for the room. His employees are also registered with labour department. 3. After death of original landlord, his children (one of them is 2nd respondent) tried to trespass into the shop room and on 16.10.208, a suit was filed by petitioner and his mother as O.S. No.2881/2006 to restrain forceful eviction from the shop room...
Tag this Judgment!K.N. Purushothaman Vs. Inspector, Thodupuzha and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-27-2011
1. The petitioner is challenging the Revenue Recovery Proceedings against the properties owned by the petitioner seeking to realise a sum of ` 34,666/- allegedly due from the petitioner under the Kerala Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund Act, in respect of the engagement of the employees during the year 1992-93. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was never a licensee of any toddy shops in question, but was only a 'daily wage earner' working under the 5th respondent, who was the licensee of four toddy shops in Muvattupuzha Range. In spite of the actual facts and figures, the petitioner was quite shockingly served with Ext. P3 demand notice by the respondents demanding a sum of ` 34,666/- stated as due to be satisfied for the period from 07/07/1992 to 31/03/1993. It is stated that the petitioner, though rushed to the concerned respondent, it did not turn to be fruitful and hence approached this Court by filing the Original Petition; wherein an interim order was passed intercepting the coe...
Tag this Judgment!K. Shivarama Bhat and Others Vs. Darmpal Rao Jadav and Others
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Oct-27-2011
COMMON ORDERSHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeals are preferred from the order dated 12th December, 2003 passed by CDRF, Kasargod in O.P. No. 140/03. The appellants in appeal 241/04 are the opposite parties 2 to 5 in the said complaint in O.P. 140/03. The respondents 1 to 4 herein are the complainants and additional respondents 5 to 8 are the opposite parties 1 and 6 to 8 in the said O.P. 140/03. The appellant in the appeal 229/04 is the 8th opposite party and the respondents are the complainants 1 to 4 and opposite parties 1 to 7 in the said O.P. 140/03. The said complaint was preferred against the opposite parties 1 to 8 alleging deficiency in service. In their failure to refund the amounts deposited by the complainants with the first opposite party, Shri. M.M. Infotech Ltd and the opposite parties 2 to 8 as its directors. 2. The opposite parties 2 to 5 entered appearance before the forum below and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. ...
Tag this Judgment!P.V. Madhavan Vs. Banichery Yesodha
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Oct-27-2011
JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The revision petitioner is the opposite party in CC.33/07 in the file of CDRF, Kannur. The order sought to be revised in the one issued in IA 326/11 filed by the revision petitioner/opposite party for getting the disputed documents sent for expert opinion . The Forum has dismissed the above IA on the ground that when the complainant sought for sending the above documents for expert opinion the same was vehemently opposed by the revision petitioner. 2. It is further stated in the revision petition that the Forum has refused to mark the above documents in evidence on the ground that the genuineness is disputed. 3. We find that with respect to order in IA.326/11 it cannot be said to be that the Forum has erred in dismissing the application to send the document for expert opinion in view of the fact that the revision petitioner had opposed the application filed by the complainant before the Forum for sending the document for expert opinion. All the ...
Tag this Judgment!K.K. Shankaran Nair Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board Rep.by Secretar ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Oct-27-2011
JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The revision petitioner is the complainant in CC.317/10 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The order sought to be revised is the one issued in IA.108/2011. The revision petitioner is under orders to remit of the assessed amount so as to restrain the opposite party from disconnecting electric supply. 2. We find that revision petitioner has been served with a penal bill for a sum of Rs.51423/- for unauthorized connected load of 2KW for the period from 25.4.08 to 23.11.10. Previously he was served with a penal bill for the period upto 25.4.08 amounting to Rs.22559/-. He has remitted the same. It is seen that the revision petitioner has not got the excess connected load regularized in spite of the fact he had remitted the earlier penal bill Rs.22559/-. It was in the above circumstances that the Forum has directed the revision petitioner to remit the 50% of the amount and directed the opposite party/KSEB not to disconnect the supply. 3. As per section 1...
Tag this Judgment!The Branch Manager, M/S Hdfc Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. and ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Oct-27-2011
JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC.342/2010 in the file of CDRF. Alappuzha. The appellants are under orders to refund Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 18% from the date of payment and pay compensation of Rs.25000/- and also to pay a punitive cost of Rs.10000/- and cost of Rs.2000/-. 2. The matter is with respect to the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties with respect to the insurance policy having a single premium of 1,00,000/-. It is the allegation that subsequently the opposite parties have split up the amount of 1,00,000/-to Rs.50000/- each and issued two policies and demanded for payment of a further amount of 50000/- each for the 2 policies. 3. Opposite parties remained ex parte before the Forum. 4. It is the case of the appellants/opposite parties that in fact they had appeared before the Forum and filed version which was rejected as not filed in time. 5. In view of the fact that the order is not a co...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnashri B, Nettoor P.O. Vs. Kerala Public Service Commission, Repr ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-25-2011
The refusal on the part of the second respondent, the Chief Superintendent, Test Centre, Vocational Higher Secondary School, Chottanikkara, who was supervising the test for selection to the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher, in the centre at Higher Secondary School, Chottanikkara to accept the identity card issued by the Employees State Insurance Corporation in favour of the petitioner, has resulted in the petitioner approaching this Court. The plea raised by the petitioner is that such identity cards are well accepted for various purposes, and hence the petitioner should have been allowed to participate in the test. 2. As per Ext.P1 hall ticket, the petitioner was admitted for the written examination for appointment to the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher (Computer Science/Computer Application) Senior and Junior, to be held on 1.9.2011. Ext.P2 is the copy of the identity card issued by the Employees State Insurance Corporation. 3. The petitioner contends that the identity...
Tag this Judgment!University of Kerala, Represented by Its Registrar, Thiruvananthapuram ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-25-2011
P.S. Gopinathan, J. The appellant is the respondent in W.P.(C) No.32446/2010 instituted by the respondent. By Ext.P1 notification dated 22.4.2003, the appellant invited application for appointment to the post of Professor (Ezhava turn) in the Music Department of the appellant. Responding to Ext.P1, the respondent submitted Ext.P2 application. Respondent, as per Ext.P2 is the 1st rank holder both in B.A. and M.A Music. She is also a holder of Doctorate in Music from the appellant University. Though Ext.P1 is dated 22.4.2003 and Ext.P2 is dated 22.5.2003, the appellant didn’t take any action to complete the selection process despite the fact that the respondent was the only applicant in the community quota. Aggrieved by the inertia on the side of the appellant, the respondent moved this Court vide W.P.(C) No.13396/2006, judgment of which was produced as Ext.P3 dated 16.6.2006. On the basis of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant would proc...
Tag this Judgment!P.V. Raneesh Vs. the Branch Manager, Popular Automobiles, Near Ashoka ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Oct-25-2011
SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred against the order dated:23rd January 2003 of CDRF, Kannur in EP.2/02 in OP.163/99. 2. The facts of this case can be summarized as follows:- Appellant is the complainant in OP.163/99 on the file of CDRF, Kannur. The said complaint was filed alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, Popular Automobiles, Kannur branch in collecting excess amount from the complainant with respect to the repair effected to the complainants vehicle bearing registration No.KL-13-C-9749. It was alleged that the opposite party, collected an excess amount of Rs.65,000/- from the complainant and thereby the complainant claimed refund of the said sum of Rs.65,000/- with compensation of Rs.50,000/-. 3. Notice in the said complaint in OP.163/99 was issued to the opposite party and the same was returned unserved with the endorsement closed. A fresh notice was issued to the opposite party and the sa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »