Kerala Court October 2011 Judgments

C.V. Chandrasekhara Menon and Another Vs. Post Master, Chunangad and O ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

COMMON JUDGMENT SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR: MEMBER The above appeals are preferred from the orders dated : 1.1.11 of CDRF, Palakkad in CC Nos. 1/11 and 2/11 respectively. By the impugned orders, the Forum below has dismissed the complaints filed by the appellants/complainants. Since the issues involved are same and also that the complainants are the husband and wife, we depose of these appeals by this common order. 2. The complainants case is that they had RD accounts with the 1st opposite party in the respective complaints and that while closing the RDs, the RD pass books were obtained by the post masters and only slips were given instead of giving back the RD pass books with calculation sheets. The complainants alleged that the post masters had no authority to keep the RD pass books with them and though complaints to the Head Post Office were given, the replies were not satisfactory and hence the complaints were filed before the CDRF Palakkad, praying for directions to the opposite p...

A.V. Vijayan Vs. A.K. Krishnankutty

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR: MEMBER The opposite party in CC.159/09 before the CDRF, Pathanamthitta is the appellant herein. By the impugned order dated:28.7.2010, the appellant is under direction to give 16.470.Gms of 916 gold chain instead of the old adulterated gold or to pay the price of 16.470 Gms of 916 purity gold with labour charges to the complainant with compensation of Rs.5000/- and cost of Rs.1500/-. The appellant is also directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which 9% interest per annum is also liable to be paid. 2. The case put forth by the complainant before the Forum is that he has purchased 16.470 Gms of gold from the opposite partys jewellery on 9.5.2007 for a sum of Rs.16,788/-. It is his case that the gold purchased by him was not pure and on checking it was found that the same was adulterated and made of low quality gold. Alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, the complaint was filed prayin...

S. Murugar Selvi, Coimbatore and Others Vs. M/S. Aramana Bar and Resta ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(1)KLT37(C.No.41)(SN)

COMMON JUDGMENT P.S. Gopinathan, J. The writ appeal is preferred by respondents 5 and 6 in the writ petition against an order extending the interim order granted in favour of the first respondents, who is the petitioner in the writ petition, after declining the request of the appellants to hear the writ petition and to vacate the interim order. (Hereinafter, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the writ petition. The documents are also referred to as in the writ petition). 2. The brief facts leading to the writ petition is as follows: Ext.P1 FL-3 licence was granted in favour of one P.J. Paul on 21.2.1984 for the following financial year. It was renewed from year to year. For the year 1994-95 it was transferred in favour of one P.J. Ajay Ghosh, managing partner of a hotel. Thereafter, it was transferred to the petitioner firm in the name of V.K. Ashokan, the then managing partner. While so, Sri. E. Satheeshkumar, the husband of the 5th respondent and father of the 6th respondent w...

S. Shajahan Vs. the Kerala Public Service Commission, Rep. by Its Secr ...

Court: Kerala

P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. 1. The appellant is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.38723/2010. The 1st respondent Kerala Public Service Commission by Ext.P1 notification invited application for appointment to the post of Peon/Watchman in various District Co-operative Banks. 50% of the post of Peon in the District Co-operative Banks is reserved for the employees in any of the Primary Co-operative Societies under the District Co-operative Bank. Remaining 50% is to be filled up by open recruitment. The appellant is working as a Peon in the Adichanalloor Farmers Service Co-operative Bank, a Primary Co-operative Society affiliated to the Kollam District Co-operative Bank. The appellant, responding to Ext.P1, submitted an application, copy of which was produced by the 1st respondent as Ext.R1(a), for appointment in the service quota. In Ext.P1, the category number is shown as 177/2007. In Ext.R1(a), though the appellant mentioned that the application was for appointment from among employees of affiliated ...

Suneer Vs. Union of India

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(4)KLT1011; 2011(4)KHC730

1. Under the provisions of the Emigration Act, 1983, (in short ‘the Act), petitioner was given a certificate or registration under S.11 of the Act. While furnishing the said certificate in terms of the provisions contained under S.11(3), petitioner had furnished a bank guarantee for Rs.5 Lakhs which is kept valid even now. In the meanwhile, on the allegation that irregularities were committed, the registration was suspended. Thereafter, notices were issued and reply was filed by the petitioner and finally Ext.P10 order was issued by the second respondent cancelling Ext.P1 certificate of registration. 2. Ext.P10 order concludes thus: “Whereas, by falsifying and tampering with the original documents the R.A. has violated Rule 10(1)(ix)(g) and Rule 10(1)(xii) of Emigration Rules, 1963: And, therefore, the undersigned, in exercised of the powers of the Registering Authority under S.14(1) of the Emigration Act. 1983 hereby orders cancellation of the Registration Certificate from...

M/S Aramana Bar and Restaurant, Vs. State of Kerala Rep. by Secretary, ...

Court: Kerala

COMMON JUDGMENT P.S. Gopinathan, J. The writ appeal is preferred by respondents 5 and 6 in the writ petition against an order extending the interim order granted in favour of the first respondent, who is the petitioner in the writ petition, after declining the request of the appellants to hear the writ petition and to vacate the interim order. (Hereinafter, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the writ petition. The documents are also referred to as produced in the writ petition). 2. The brief facts leading to the writ petition is as follows: Ext.P1 FL-3 licence was granted in favour of one P.J. Paul on 21.2.1984 for the following financial year. It was renewed from year to year. For the year 1994-95 it was transferred in favour of one P.J. Ajay Ghosh, managing partner of a hotel. Thereafter, it was transferred to the petitioner firm in the name of V.K. Ashokan, the then managing partner. While so, Sri. E. Satheeshkumar, the husband of the 5th respondent and father of the 6th resp...

E.A. Thankappa Vs. State of Kerala and Another

Court: Kerala

C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, AG.C.J. 1. This is a public interest litigation filed by an Advocate of this Court challenging the appointment of the 2nd respondent as Director General of Prosecution vide Ext.P1 and later as Public Prosecutor vide Ext.P2 produced in the W.P.(C). 2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Advocate General for the State and the learned senior counsel, Sri. Santhalingam, appearing for the 2nd respondent. 3. The challenge against the appointment of the 2nd respondent as Director General of Prosecution is on the ground that the appointment is not under or in accordance with Section 25A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires concurrence of the appointment by the Chief Justice of the High Court. The Advocate General appearing for the State raised a contention that Section 25A of the Cr.P.C. was introduced by Act 25 of 2005 with effect from 23.6.2006 and the provision only enables the Government to constitute a Directorate of...

Sheeba Pulikkal Vs. Shoukath Ali

Court: Kerala

BASANT, J. 1. Is the jurisdiction of the civil court (and consequently the Family Court) ousted by the enactment of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the M.W.Act’)? This is the question that arises for consideration before us in this appeal. 2. We shall briefly refer to the factual matrix before we advert to the question of law. The claimant is the divorced wife of the respondent. After divorce, she preferred O.P.No.815 of 2007 claiming return of 80 sovereigns of gold ornaments worth Rs.5.6 lakhs and an amount of Rs.8.7 lakhs which according to her were allegedly being retained by her divorced husband illegally. In these circumstances, she claimed return of the gold ornaments/cash by her husband and preferred the claim before the Family Court. 3. The claim was resisted. Inter alia, it was contended that the Family Court has no jurisdictional competence to entertain the petition. It was contended that such a claim by the divorced...

Employees Provident Fund Organization Vs. Employees Provident Fund App ...

Court: Kerala

1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramachandran Nair, Ag. C.J.- This Writ Appeal is filed by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge declining to interfere with the order of the EPF Appellate Tribunal holding that the respondent Nursing Home has no liability to remit contribution for the consultant doctors engaged by them. The appellant’s case is that the consultant doctors on facts were found to be “employees” within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and so much so, both the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge went wrong in declaring exemption to the respondent Nursing Home from the requirement of paying contribution. 2. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and have gone through the judgment of the learned Single Judge and the order of the Tribunal, namely Ext.P-8, and also the adjudication order that was chall...

The Secretary, Peerumedu Talluk Co-operative Agricultural and Rural De ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in C.C. 123/10 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The appellants are under orders to write off Rs. 4,822/- due from the complainant, vide Agricultural Debt Relief Scheme and also to pay Rs. 500/- as costs. The case of the complainant is that she had availed 3 Agricultural loans on 2.11.2004 for a total amount of Rs. 74,000/- and that she remitted only Rs. 28,282/- on account of natural calamities and resultant cultivation loss. She is entitled for the benefits under the Agricultural Debt Waver and Debt Relief Scheme declared by the Government on 18.12.06. The opposite party issued a demand notice with respect to arrears of Rs. 13,847/- She remitted Rs. 9,025/- on 8.5.2007. The balance of Rs. 4,822/- was not paid. She applied to have the above amount waived under the scheme which was negatived. Subsequently on 10.5.10, the opposite parties had claimed an arrears of Rs. 61,639/- She has sought for getting the enti...