Kerala Court November 2011 Judgments
V.K. Jinan Vs. the Asst. Engineer Kseb Electrical Section, Kottayam Ea ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Nov-29-2011
SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER It is aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint in CC No. 57/08 by the CDRF Kottayam that the present appeal is filed by the complainant. 2. The complainant had approached the Forum stating that he was conducting a hotel for earning a livelihood. The electricity connection was taken to premises from the opposite parties and further that an inspection was conducted by the opposite parties and as he refused to give bribe to the officers of the opposite party, his connection was disconnected and later a bill for Rs.72,948/- was issued. The opposite parties informed that there was tampering of meter by the complainant and there was theft of electric energy. The complainant had further stated that he had approached the Electricity Minister raising the grievances and as ordered by the Minister he had to remit the amount in installments and he paid 7 installments amounting to Rs.41,187/-. It was his case that the allegation of the opposite party regarding...
Tag this Judgment!The Kerala Legal Benefit Fund Trustee Committee Vs. Cheeran Structural ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-28-2011
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. These Writ Appeals are filed under leave obtained from this court by the appellant which was not a party in the Writ Petition. We have heard Sri. T.A. Shaji, counsel appearing for the appellant, various counsel appearing for the respondents and also the Government Pleader appearing for the State and the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. 2. The facts leading to the controversy and the nature of dispute raised are the following. Section 76 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (hereinafter called “the Act”) provides for constitution of a Legal Benefit Fund by the Government and funding of the same through collection of an additional court fee. Even though the said provision was in the statute from 1962 onwards, Government framed Kerala Legal Benefit Fund Rules in exercise of powers conferred on it under sub-section (4) of Section 76 only in 1991. It is much thereafter i.e. in the year 2002, the appellant-trust was created by the Gove...
Tag this Judgment!Laila A. Khader and Another Vs. Scaria and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-28-2011
Harilal, J. 1. This revision petition is preferred against the judgment passed in RCA.30/08 on the files of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kottayam, declining the claim for eviction under Section 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (BRC Act). The revision petitioner/landlord filed the petition under Section 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and the learned Rent Controller allowed the petition as prayed for. The order passed by the Rent Controller was challenged in appeal on various grounds by the respondent/tenant. The appellate authority allowed the appeal on the findings that the requirement for additional accommodation for expanding the business is not bonafide and that the decision taken regarding comparative hardship under proviso to Section 11(10) of the BRC Act is not correct. The facts of the case can be summarised as follows:- Facts: The respondent/tenant is occupying the petition schedule shop room for conducting a ...
Tag this Judgment!Muthukoya Thoopiyakal Vs. Union Territory of Lakshadweep and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-28-2011
V. RAMKUMAR, J. 1. In this appeal filed under S.37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act” for short), the appellant who was the petitioner in O.P. (Arbitration) No.1 of 2011 on the file of the District Court, Lakshadweep, challenges the order dated 13.10.2011 passed by the said Court dismissing the interlocutory application (I.A.No.157 of 2011) filed by the appellant n the said O.P. THE BACKGROUND FACTS 2. The first respondent is the Union Territory of Lakshadweep represented by its Administrator at Kavaratti. The 2nd respondent is the Director of Tourism, Union Territory of Lakshadweep, Kavaratti. The 3rd respondent is the Society for Promotion of Recreational Tourism and Sports (SPORTS), Kavaratti, represented by its Managing Director. The facts leading to this appeal are as follows:- 1996:R3 invited global tenders for the running of a twenty bed tourism resort at Agatti Island called Agatti Island Beach Resort (AIBR). The appellant (Muthukoya Thoopiyaka...
Tag this Judgment!K. Padmanabhan and Others Vs. Tharekkad Simhanatha Bhagavathy Devaswom ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-28-2011
CHITAMBARESH, J. 1. The legal heirs of a tenant of a non residential premises are the revision petitioners and the landlord is the respondent. The landlord sought eviction of the tenant under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(7) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the ‘Act’ for short). The tenant contended that he is a ‘kudikidappukaran’ as defined under Section 2(25) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The rent control court thought it fit to refer the question of tenancy to the land tribunal as envisaged under Section 125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The land tribunal rendered a decision holding that the tenant is not a ‘kudikidappukaran’ as recognized by the Kerala Land Reforms Act. That decision was returned to the rent control court as provided under Section 125 (4) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The landlord however did not pursue the rent control petition which was eventually dismissed as ‘not p...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. A.P. Varkey Mission Hospital, Arak ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Nov-28-2011
SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant is the first opposite party and respondents 1 to 4 are the complainant and opposite parties 2 to 4 respectively in CC.No.228/07 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party in repudiating the insurance claim preferred by the complainant/insured with respect to the Standard Fire and Special Peril Policy. The first opposite party/National Insurance Company Ltd; entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. It was contended that the damage to the subject machine (C-Arm machine) was not covered by the policy of insurance issued by the first opposite party in favour of the complainant. Thus, the first opposite party justified their action in repudiating the insurance claim preferred by the complainant/insured. 2. Notice to the opposite parties 2 to 4 was dispensed with by finding that they are un-necessary parti...
Tag this Judgment!C.J. John, Chairman Venad Kuries and Loans (P) Ltd. Vs. P.P. Mukundan
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Nov-28-2011
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The revision petitioner is the first opposite party/respondent in EA.62/09 in OP.1199/2000 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The revision petition is filed over the order of the Forum in issuing bailable warrant to the revision petitioner in the execution proceedings. It is pointed out that the revision petitioner is not the present Chairman of the Company and that as per the order in the OP the claim amount is directed to be realized from the assets of the Company. 2. In the circumstances, the order of the Forum is set aside. The Forum is directed to consider the above contention of the revision petitioner and precede after considering the same. The matter stands posted before the Forum below on 29.12.2011. The office will forward a copy of this order to the Forum below....
Tag this Judgment!Vrl Logistic Ltd. Thalikavu Road, Kannur Vs. K.X. Stify
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Nov-28-2011
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The revision petitioners are the opposite parties in CC166/10 in the file of CDRF, Kasaragod. The order sought to be revised is the one in IA.283/10 wherein the Forum has held that notice under Section 10 of the Carriers Act is not required in view of the specific observation of the Supreme Court in EICM Exports Limited Vs. South Indian Corpn. (Agencies ) Ltd. and another 2009 CTJ 945 (Supreme Court) (CP). The revision petitioner has also contended that they have disputed the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum and the Forum has not taken a decision on the above point. 2. In the circumstances and in view of the observation of the Supreme Court quoted in the order of the Forum, the point as to the requirement of the notice under Section 10 of the Carriers Act, does not call for interference. 3. All the same, Forum is directed to decide as a preliminary issue the contention of the opposite parties that the Forum is not having territorial jurisdic...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Kairali Ford, Kerala Cars Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Sri. M. Vijay Mohan and Ano ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Nov-28-2011
SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER Revision petitioner is the first opposite party and respondents 1 and 2 are the complainant and the second opposite party respectively in CC.No.216/10. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party in effecting repairs to the vehicle owned by the complainant. The vehicle was damaged in a road traffic accident which took place in Alappuzha. The complainant is a resident of Alappuzha. The first opposite party is the repairer/service centre of Ford vehicles. The second opposite party is the manufacturer of Ford vehicles. 2. The first opposite party entered appearance and filed IA.181/10 raising a preliminary issue regarding territorial jurisdiction of the Forum below namely CDRF; Alappuzha. The contention of the first opposite party (petitioner in IA.181/10) is that the vehicle was entrusted with the first opposite party at Ernakulam for effecting repairs to the accident vehicle and that the e...
Tag this Judgment!The General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S Global Education Net, Thama ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Nov-26-2011
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA: MEMBER No representation for the appellant. Appellant called absent. Counsel for the respondent is ready for hearing. Appeal is already in the top in list. The Consumer Protection Act is shown which is passed by the Parliament to ensure speedy and cost free justice to the consumers. But in this case the consumer/complainant is ready. The opposite party/appellant is not present. It is against the object of this enactment for protection of the interest of the consumers. In the result this appeal is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »