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.
Dr.Kuttikrishnan, Ent Specialist Vs. C.P. Sathi and Another
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Oct-19-2011
SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellant is the 1st opposite party and respondents 1 and 2 are the complainant and the 2nd opposite party respectively in OP.263/02 on the file of CDRF, Kannur. The complaint therein was filed alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in treating and administering medicines to the complainant while the complainant was treated in 2nd opposite partys AKG memorial Co-operativeHospital, Kannur. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged medical negligence and deficiency in service. The1st opposite party contended that the complainant was treated initially as an outpatient and treated as inpatient from 27.5.02 with utmost care and caution; that the complainant developed allergic reactions and she was treated with appropriate medications; that the complainant was referred to KMC hospital, Manipal on 31.5.02 at request. Thus, the 1st opposite party prayed for ...
M/S Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Dominic Varghese
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Oct-19-2011
SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellant is the opposite party and respondent is the complainant in CC.No.108/08 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party/Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd in repudiating the insurance claim preferred by the complainant with respect to medi claim insurance policy. The opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. It was contended that the insurance claim preferred by the complainant is not covered by the medi claim insurance policy issued by the opposite party for the period from 24.8.07 to 23.8.08. It was also contended that the said policy for the year 2007-08 was issued as a fresh policy based on the proposal submitted by the complainant. Thus, the opposite party/Insurance Co. prayed for dismissal of the complaint in CC.108/08. 2. Before the Forum below the complainant was examined as PW1; Exts.A1 to A5 d...
C.P. Rekha Vs. Kerala Advocateand#8217;s Welfare Fund Trustee Committe ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-18-2011
1. Petitioners claim to be the legal heirs of late Sri.M. Venugopal, who was an Advocate of the Thrissur Bar. Sri. Venugopal was a member of the Kerala Advocates’ Welfare Fund administered by the first respondent. When Sri. Venugopal joined the Advocates’ Welfare Fund, he had nominated his wife Smt. Kanakam Vanugopal as his nominee. However, Smt. Kanakam Vanugopal expired on 11.8.2002 and a fresh nomination was not made. Subsequently, Sri. Venugopal also expired on 6.11.2009. Exts.P1 and P2 are the death certificates of Smt. Kanakam Venugopal and Sri. M.Venugopal. 2. On the basis that they are the sole legal heirs of late Sri. Venugopal, petitioners submitted Ext.P4 application to the first respondent, claiming disbursement of an amount of Rs.3,14,285/-, being the Welfare Fund due to the deceased. To that application, Ext.P5 communication was received, stating, inter alia, that the petitioners’ claim should be supported by a Succession Certificate issued by a competen...
Synergy Homes Ltd. Vs. Joshy John
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-18-2011
1. This civil revision arises from the judgment of learned First Additional District Judge, Ernakulam in CMA No. 55 of 2010 setting aside the order passed by the learned II Additional Munsiff, Ernakulam on IA No. 1937 of 2010 in OS No. 577 of 2009. That is a suit filed by the respondent for injunction to restrain petitioner from constructing building, as the learned counsel submits exceeding three floors alleging that since width of the road in front of the building site is less than five metres and that construction of the building beyond three floors is in violation of the relevant Building Rules. Petitioner filed written statement contending that there is no violation. During the pendency of the suit petitioner, invoking R.1 of O.11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "the Code") filed IA No. 7740 of 2009 for leave to serve interrogatories on respondent / plaintiff. In short, the questions sought to be answered by the respondent was concerning construction respondent is said ...
The Thiruvalla East Co-operative Bank, Eraviperoor, Rep. by Its Secret ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-18-2011
RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, AG. C.J. 1. This is the third round of litigation in this Court after tow rounds in the Supreme Court pertaining to the same matter, i.e., election to the Board of Directors of the Thiruvalla East Co-operative Bank. 2. The election was first notified to be held on 24.10.2009. Even though the election so notified was postponed by the State Co-operative Election Commission and the same was published in newspapers, this Court as per an interim order directed holding of the election on the date initially fixed. However, this was done without public notice or newspaper publication. Therefore, only very few members participated in the election. 3. A Division Bench of this Court cancelled the election so held holding that the election held with participation of limited number of members does not serve the purpose of electing a proper representative body of the members. Special Leave Petition filed against the judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court. In a Review Petition...
Jince Mary Johns, Kochi Vs. K.P. Johny, Ernakulam Dist. and Another
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-18-2011
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Mathukutty had 38 cents of land. On his death, that devolved on his two children, including Eldho Suresh Mathew, who died on 1.6.1996 leaving behind his widow and an infant. The widow cared for and brought up that son, Tharun. In 2005, M/s. Carmelites of Mary Immaculate Congregation, a charitable religious institution, purchased a large extent of property, including the aforesaid property which originally belonged to Mathukutty. By succession, minor Tharun had 2/3rd of the share of his late father in that property. Tharun’s mother represented him in that sale and invested the child’s share in Life Insurance Corporation of India and Shriram Investment Ltd. She also purchased 6.5 cents of land with a residential building in Thrikkakara Panchayat utilizing the sale consideration. It appears that thereafter, the vendees wanted her to clear any cloud on the transaction on account of the minority of Tharun. The mother, therefore, filed original ...
Ciji P. Jose Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by the Secretariat to Go ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-18-2011
1. The petitioner is a claimant under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV-A K.E.R. Her initial appointment was for the period from 20.10.2003 to 2.3.2004 which was approved by Ext.P1 order. In a later vacancy which arose from 3.3.2004 to 30.3.2004 also, the petitioner was continued and the same has also been approved as per Ext.P2. One Smt. V.V. Sukumari, L.P.S.A. retired from service on 31.3.2007 and the Manager appointed the petitioner against that vacancy with effect from 1.6.2007 recognising her claim under Rule 51A, as per Ext.P4 order. The petitioner is accordingly continuing in service. 2. The approval of the same was declined by Ext.P5 order on the reason that the vacancy in an uneconomic school should be filled up only by a protected teacher. The appeal submitted by the Manager was rejected by the District Educational officer as per Ext.P7 order. Again, in the next year also, the petitioner’s proposal for approval was rejected by the Assistant Educational Officer as per Ext.P8 order...
Kerala State Electricity Board, Represented by Its Secretary and Other ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Oct-18-2011
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA: MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF Malappuram in CC No. 123/08 order dated: 19.11.2010. The appellants are the opposite parties and the respondent is the complainant in the above said consumer complaint. 2. The complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties for an industrial unit named Pongalloor Flour and oil mill. The appellants issued by the opposite parties dated:24.4.08 for Rs.30,953/- was time barred and issued against the provisions of law. It is alleged a deficiency in service against the opposite parties, the complainant prayed for the relief. According to the complainant, the opposite parties issued regular monthly bills and it was paid promptly. As the meter was faulty on request of the complainant, the meter was replaced on 9.3.04 but after 4 years on 24.4.08, the opposite parties issued a short assessment bill for Rs.30,953/-. No details were shown in the bills, the complainant requested for the details. He was inform...
Thomas Devasia, Mannusseril House, Athiranpuzha Village Vs. Adv. K. Sa ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Oct-18-2011
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in CC.306/09 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The complaint stands dismissed as barred by limitation. 2. The complainant had alleged deficiency in service by the opposite party Advocate who was engaged in a civil case. Objection has filed by the opposite party contending that the complaint is barred by limitation. 3. It is the case of the appellant that he had filed the complaint before the Bar Council against the concerned Advocate and the Bar council dismissed the complaint and there after the complaint before the CDRF was filed and hence the delay occurred. 4. The appellant appeared in person. Services of an amicus curiae was provided. But the appellant/complainant wanted the services of the Advocate appointed as amicus curiae be dispensed with as he has no confidence in the lawyer community. 5. We find that the complainant took back the case bundle of the civil case from the opposite party Advocate on 19.9.06 whic...
K.R. Sudha, Ernakulam Dist Vs. P.R. Sasikumar, Ernakulam Dist
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-17-2011
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. This appeal is against an order dismissing an application under Section 29 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. 2. Appellant is the mother and respondent is the father of two children aged 15 and 14 respectively in 2010, while the original petition from which this appeal arises was instituted. Their paternal grandmother, T.S. Indira, bequeathed an item of property to those minors. Later, after she and her husband died, the miners’ mother moved an application under Section 29, in the wake of the need to generate more funds for the continued education of the children. She had found out a purchaser for the property, who offered Rs.3,50,000/- per Are and had also paid an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as advance. 3. The fact that the respondent is the father and the natural guardian, in terms of Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardians Act, 1956, is of no consequence because, in the absence of the father, the mother is the natural guardian even in te...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »