Kerala Court December 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.
The Aerens Gold Souk International Ltd. and Others Vs. M/S. Parthas Te ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-09-2011
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. 1. The point urged for a decision in these cases is whether when several causes of action arising from different subject matters which does and does not provide for arbitration are joined in one suit, it is within the power of the court to refer the parties in respect of the disputes arising from subject matters which are subject to an arbitration agreement, to arbitration? 2. Short facts necessary for a decision of the question are: Annexure-A (Anchor-I) agreement to lease was executed between first petitioner and the respondent on 03.09.2005. As per that agreement, first petitioner agreed to grant lease of 6000 sq.ft area on the ground floor of the building to the respondent at the rate of Rs.60/- per sq.foot per month. Respondent paid refundable amount equivalent to six months' rent aggregating to Rs.21,60,000/- to the first petitioner subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement. Clause 12 of the agreement provided that a lease deed would be executed and...
Nasser Zackeria, M/S Abad Fisheries, Kochi Vs. the Commissioner of Wea ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-09-2011
1. The main issue involved in all these cases preferred by the partners of a firm is rather the same, i.e. whether the rejection of their claim for interest on refund of the tax paid under the Wealth Tax Act, stating that the tax paid was not in response to any ‘demand’ raised, but by way of self-assessment, is justified or not. 2. Since the sequence of events in all the three cases is almost similar, but for the name of the parties and difference in respect of the assessment year concerned, it will be enough, if reference is made to the facts, figures, exhibits and parties as arrayed in W.P. (C) No.1732 of 2008, more so, when the issue involved is purely a ‘question of law’. 3. The petitioner is a partner of the firm by name M/s Abad Fisheries and also a partner of another establishment by name M/s Abad Enterprises. In respect of the assessment year 1991-’92, return was filed under the Wealth Tax Act on 30.10.1991, declaring the net wealth of Rs.1,46,43,3...
The President, Cable Tv Consumers, Welfare Association and Others Vs. ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Dec-09-2011
COMMON JUDGMENT: SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER These appeals are filed by the opposite parties and the complainant respectively against the order dated 15.11.2010 in CC No. 421/08 of CDRF, Ernakulam. By the impugned order the opposite parties are under directions to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.60,000/- within 1 month from the date of receipt of the order failing which they are liable to pay interest also at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of default till payment. 2. Appeal 246/11 is filed by the opposite parties calling for the interference of this commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below and the complainant who is the appellant in appeal 246/11 has approached for enhancement of the compensation that is already ordered by the Forum. 3. The case of the complainant before the Forum was that he was a consumer of the cable TV Consumers Welfare Association run by the opposite parties and that on 8.7.07 while he was trying to unplug the cable ...
The Secretary, Snvrc Service Co-operative Bank, Paravoor, Kollam Vs. K ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Dec-09-2011
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the 1st opposite party/Secretary, SNVRC Service Co-operative Bank in CC.75/2010 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The appellant is under orders to refund Rs.1,24,099/- with interest at 12% and to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.1000/-. The appellant was exparte before the Forum. In the circumstances and in view of the fact the order is not a contested one, the same is set aside on condition that the appellant/1st 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 will permit the appellant/1st opposite party to contest the matter. The case stands posted before the Forum on 20.01.2012. The Forum will issue notice to the complainant. Office will forward a copy of this order to the Forum....
Hdfc Standard Insurance Co.Ltd. and Another Vs. Baby George, Pulimoott ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Dec-09-2011
JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/Insurance Company in CC96/09 in the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta. The appellants are under orders to pay the deposited amount of Rs.1,50,000/- with its accrued growth amount and Rs.1,50,000/- insured sum with respect to the life of the assured with interest at 9% per annum from the date of complaint and also compensation of Rs.10000/- and cost of Rs.1000/-. 2. The complainant is the mother of the deceased Thomas George who had availed a life insurance policy along with HDFC unit linked medical endowment plan with effect form 26.5.06. He paid 3 premiums of 50000/- each. The assured died on 24.7.08 ie after 2 years. The opposite parties have repudiated the claim. 3. It is the contention of the opposite parties that the assured had suppressed material facts in the proposal form as the medical certificate issued from Thiruvalla Medical Mission hospital the deceased was suffering from sever portal gastropathy a...
Rajan Vs. John
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-08-2011
K.M. Joseph, J. The above cases being connected and being between the same parties, we dispose of the two cases by the following common Judgment. 2. The appellant is also the petitioner. The parties are brothers. A suit for partition resulted in a preliminary decree. The parties were declared to be entitled to 1/3rd share in the property. The property which is the subject matter of dispute, is an extent of 11.850 cents with a shop room and residential building situated at Thrippunithura. 3. Originally, the first respondent filed I.A.No.4560 of 2009 seeking to pass final decree. The said Application was later on withdrawn. According to the first respondent, it was on the basis that there was some compromise. Still later, Ext.P2 Application which was numbered as I.A.No.1642/2011 was filed by the respondents. It was purported to be filed u/O.20 R.18 and O.26 R.13 and Ss.54 and 151 of the C.P.C. The prayer was as follows: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, this Ho...
Dr. B. Ashok Ias, Vive Chancellor Wayanad Dist. Vs. Chancellor, Kerala ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-08-2011
1. The controversy herein is whether the notification issued by the Chancellor, by which, the term of the first Vice-Chancellor of the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University was curtailed by invoking Section 12(7) of the Act, is justifiable. The plea raised by the petitioner mainly is that he is entitled to continue for a period of five years. It is submitted that the pleasure doctrine under Section 12(7) of the Act is subject to restrictions contained in sub-section (8) of the Act, and not absolute. 2. The necessary facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are the following: The petitioner is an officer of the Indian Administrative Service. The Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University Act, 2010 (for short 'the Act') came into force on 14.06.2010. The petitioner who was on deputation to the Government of India, was considered for appointment as the first Vice-Chancellor of the University. The order leading to his repatriation and the notification concerning hi...
P.S. Parameswaran Namboothiri and Another Vs. the Travancore Devaswom ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-08-2011
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P3, a circular issued by the Travancore Devaswom Board to put up notice boards in temples as follows: “Malayalam” 2. The objection taken is that the said circular gives the impression that Santhikars are insisting on payment of dakshina. It also, allegedly, contains an innuendo to the effect that dakshina which the devotee intends to offer to the priest ought to be put in the Hundies since the circular provides for a statement in the board to be put up that all amounts which a devotee wants to offer shall be deposited in the Hundies (Malayalam). 3. Ext.P2 judgment and the order in DBA No.104 of 2007 relied on therein, categorically hold that Santhikars are eligible to receive dakshina. When it is said that the devotees coming to a temple need not pay anything specially and that the amounts sought to be offered can be put in the hundi, it only means that the offerings in the form of cash to the de...
Vinu and Others Vs. State of Kerala Represented by Public Prosecutor a ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-08-2011
The question involved in these Bail Applications is whether the period of 90 days or 60 days will apply for default bail under the proviso (a) to sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of an offence under Section 457 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The Bail Applications are filed by accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 in Crime No.638 of 2011 of Panthalam Police Station. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 457, 461, 380, 201 and 465 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is the following: The accused, after making all preparations for breaking open Mazhuveli Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. for the purpose of committing theft, broke open the bank at about 11 P.M. on 20.8.2011. They broke open the storing room of the bank and committed theft of Rs.3,79,204/-. They could not break open during that night the chest drawer where gold was kept, since time ran out. They left the place at about 5 A.M. At about 11 P.M. on...
V.P. Hudaif Sathar and Others Vs. P.K. Raveendran and Others
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Dec-08-2011
COMMON JUDGMENT SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER Above both appeals prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Kannur in CC No.153/08 dated 5.10.2010. The Forum below passed an order; the opposite party 1 and 4 are liable to pay Rs.16,288/- as price of the tiles and a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation together with a cost of Rs.1,000/- within one month from the date of receiving order failing which the complainant is entitled for 12% interest per annum from the date of order till the realization of amount. 2. The appellants in appeal no. 488/11 preferred this appeal from the above impugned order to set aside the order passed by the Forum below. The appellants in 608/10 are the complainant who prefers this appeal from the above order for the enhancement of the compensation and cost etc. in both cases. The appellant in appeal 608/10 is the complainant and appeal 488/11 are the 1st and 4th opposite parties in the Forum below. 3. This both appeals heard together and disposed. 4. The compl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »