Kerala Court October 2011 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Chand Muhammed Vs. Zeenath and Another
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-20-2011
Petitioner challenges Annexure B common order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Palakkad in Crl.R.P.Nos.34 and 46 of 2010. The first respondent herein filed a petition under Sec.3 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘Act’) before J.F.C.M., Alathur claiming maintenance during iddat period, fair and reasonable provision and also for the value of gold ornaments worth 25 sovereigns and another sum of Rs.60,000/- which was stated to have been paid to the petitioner herein earlier. That petition was resisted by the petitioner herein raising various grounds. The learned Magistrate allowed that petition and ordered that Rs.12,000/- shall be paid as maintenance for the iddat period of three months and Rs.70,000/- be paid as reasonable and fair provision. It was also directed that the said amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 15.9.2008 till the date of payment. He was given two months time to pay the said...
Smitha and Others Vs. V. Krishnan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-20-2011
R. BASANT.J 1. Two questions of moment which have substantial significance in the Rent Control law in the State are raised for consideration in this revenue petition. Challenge is raised against concepts that have occupied the field for a fairly long period of time. Ideal law is the perfect and just law. The quest and the endeavour to achieve that must continue. That concepts have occupied the field for a long period of time is not, by itself sufficient reason to refuse to have a re-look at the law when serious doubts exist about the validity of such entrenched concepts. The questions are: i) In a claim for eviction under Section 11(3), 11(4), 11(7) and 11(8) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act (the Act hereafter), is the landlord bound, after establishing such grounds for eviction, to show further that his claim for eviction is bona fide? Is not the Court under Section 11(10) at all bound to consider the bona fides of such claim? Is there serious dichotomy between Aboo...
The Area Service Manager, Tata Motors Ltd., Area Service, Office and A ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Oct-20-2011
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Appellants are opposite parties 1 and 2 the manufacturer and dealer respectively of a tipper lorry involved in the matter and who are under orders to replace the engine with a brand new one and also to refund Rs.45,362/- towards the repair charges collected on various occasions and Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost in CC.345/08 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. 2. The case of the complainant is that she purchased a Tata Tipper Lorry from the dealer on 26.2.2007 for a sum of Rs.7,14,000/- for earning her livelihood by means of self-employment. Three year warranty was provided. The vehicle is purchased on loan provided by the 3rd opposite party/financier. On the next day of purchase the tipper facility failed and the same had to be taken to the workshop of the opposite party after traveling 450 Kms. After 20 days of purchase, the vehicle met with an accident. The vehicle got repaired only by 5.5.2007 on payment of Rs.10,494...
The Proprietor, Ambika Battery Palace, Mavungal and Another Vs. Mundak ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Oct-20-2011
SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellants are the opposite parties and respondent is the complainant in CC.No.177/05 on the file of CDRF, Kasargod. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in complying with the warranty conditions with respect to the automobile battery manufactured by the 2nd opposite party and purchased by the complainant from the 1st opposite party/dealer. 2. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. They contended that the complainant did not purchase any battery from the 1st opposite party/dealer and that the battery covered by the warranty was purchased by one Santhosh Kunnummel through his driver and the said purchase was effected on 15.12.03 and the warranty period of the said battery had expired in October 2005. They also disputed the case of the complainant that he purchased the subject battery on26.11.04 from the 1st opposi...
Sai Engineering and Trading Company Reptd. by C.V.Ganesh and Another V ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Oct-20-2011
SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellants are the complainants and respondents are opposite parties 1 to 3 respectively in CC.No.595/04. The aforesaid complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in ignoring the insurance claim of the complainants with respect to B1 certificate to Insurance issued by the opposite party/National Insurance Company Ltd. 2. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written versions denying the alleged deficiency in service. The first opposite party contended that the claim preferred by the complainants is not covered by the policy of insurance issued by the first opposite party with respect to the Mobile Handset which was purchased by the first complainant from the third opposite party/Nokia Company. It is also contended that the second complainant is not a consumer as far as the first opposite party is concerned. Thus, the first opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The second oppo...
Basheer M.M. and Another Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by Its Secre ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-19-2011
RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, AG. C.J. 1. The three Oil Marketing Companies (hereinafter called “OMCs”) under the control of the Central Government namely, Indian Oil Corporation, Bharath Petroleum Corporation and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation are engaged in retail marketing of petrol and high speed diesel in Kerala through around 2700 retail outlets. Even after the liberalisation which started two decades back allowing private players in oil exploration, production and marketing, Kerala has relatively an insignificant number of around 70 outlets started by the private operators like Reliance Petroleum, Essar Oil etc. many of which remain closed or are non-operational. The boom in the automobile market and the increased demand for petroleum products has led to opening up of large number of new retain outlets by the OMCs, and the process is continuing. Most of the existing dealers operating retail outlets were appointed during the control regime during which dealers were selected by ...
P.J. Georgekutty Vs. State of Kerala and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-19-2011
1. The petitioner, a permanent resident of Athani within the local limits of the territorial jurisdiction of the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Wadakkanchery purchased a brand new motor car from the dealer at Tripunithura on 21/03/2011. He therefore, got the vehicle temporarily registered with the Additional Registering Authority, Tripunithura, within whose jurisdiction the show room is situate and from where the sale was effected, on 21/03/2011. Ext. P2 temporary certificate of registration was thereupon issued and it was valid from 21/03/2011 to 04/04/2011. It is stated that thereafter on 01/04/2011 the petitioner submitted an application for registration of his motor car, remitted the road tax payable and also sought reservation of the fancy registration mark KL - 48C 3756. The petitioner states that the reservation sought for was not granted on the ground that the number was not within the range of numbers allotted to that office for that week. It is stated that though later the...
Southern Railway, Represented by General Manager and Others Vs. Joicy
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Oct-19-2011
S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER It is aggrieved by the directions contained in the order dated 29.12.2006 of the CDRF, Thrissur in O.P. 606/05 that the opposite parties have come up in appeal calling for the interference of this Commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below. The complainant has approached the Forum with a case that while she was walking through the platform of the Thrissur Railway Station from South to North in order to go outside the station after her journey from Ernakulam to Thrissur, her leg happened to be struck in a pit on the Platform and she fell down and her left hand was fractured on two places and injured seriously and that she was taken to the Medical College Hospital, Thrissur where she was treated for the injuries sustained. It is her further case that the opposite parties ought to have kept the platform without any pits and providing proper light in the platform. Alleging deficiency in service the complaint was filed praying fo...
Sasidharan Represented by His-wife Smt. Sudha Vs. the Managing Directo ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Oct-19-2011
SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER It is not satisfied by the directions contained in the order dated: 15.5.10 of CDRF Thiruvananthapuram in CC No. 257/03 that the complainant has come before us by filing this appeal. It is his case that the Forum has not allowed certain prayers which were made by him before the Forum. 2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he was having water connection from the opposite parties and that the same was for domestic purpose. It is his case that the opposite parties issued a bill for Rs. 24,678/- on 15.3.03 and that though he filed a complaint before the opposite parties, nothing was done and that he had to remit the amount subsequently. It is further submitted that on 2.6.03 also another bill forRs. 27,124/- was issued to him and challenging the veracity of the bills, the complaint was filed praying for directions to cancel the bills and to issue bills at the rate of Rs. 157/- per month. 3. In the version filed by the opposite part...
RajIn Lawrence Vs. the Manager, Hdfc Bank
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Oct-19-2011
JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in C.C. 344/05 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The opposite parties/financiers are under orders to revise the statement of accounts pertaining to the complainant by reduction of certain cheque bouncing charges and also to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation which shall be adjusted in the net principal outstanding as on 18.6.2004 and to issue a fresh revised statement of account and revised E.M.Is as per the terms of the Agreement. It is the case of the complainant that she availed a car loan from the opposite party in November, 2001 for a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs to be repaid in 5 years in 60 E.M.Is. She issued 60 post dated cheques. Last E.M.I. collected by the agent was on 10.6.2004. Then the complainant had remitted Rs. 1 lakh with the intention to pre close the loan account. On 18.6.2004 the receipt for the remittal of Rs. 1,00,000/- was given to her by the collection agent. Earlier due to the discrepancies in acc...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »