Kerala Court April 2011 Judgments

T. Sreekantan, Advocate Vs. State of Kerala and Others

Court: Kerala

Ramachandran Nair, J. All these writ petitions are filed in public interest challenging the decision of the State Government to constitute State Administrative Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter called "the Act") to handle service cases of State Government employees. Challenge made in the writ petitions include constitutional validity of the provisions of the Act, Notifications and other Orders issued constituting the Tribunal and appointing the Chairman and also the establishment of two permanent Benches at Trivandrum while only one Bench, that too without filing facility, at Ernakulam, which is the seat of the High Court of the State. Grave procedural irregularities including lack of prior consultation with the Chief Justice of India and the Governor as required under Section 6(3) and (4) of the Act affecting the validity of appointment of the Chairman of the Tribunal are also raised. 2. Of the five writ petitions, two are filed by individual lawyers, ...

P. Ramachandra Reddyar Vs. M/S. Texo International, Represented by Its ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(2)KLT455; 2011(2)ILR(Ker)592; 2011(2)KLJ654; 2011(2)KHC689

The petitioner is the judgment debtor. Decree for money was passed against him on 10.11.1995. Decree amount was Rs. 14,913/-. For realizing the decree amount and subsequent interest, the decree holder filed E.P.No.100 of 2007. That Execution Petition was closed on 9.10.2009 granting installment facility to the judgment debtor. He did not pay the amount. Later, the decree holder was constrained to file E.P.No.199 of 2010. The judgment debtor raised the plea of limitation. The order passed by the court below is not produced. However, the petitioner produced the order dated 6th January, 2011 by which warrant was issued against him. 2. The contention of the petitioner that the decree is barred by limitation is unsustainable. Article 136 of the Limitation Act provides a period of limitation of 12 years for execution of any decree other than a decree granting a mandatory injunction. As against the column “the time from which period beings to run,” Article 136 provides thus: ̶...

Manager, St. Albert's College, Ernakulam and Another Vs. Mahatma Gandh ...

Court: Kerala

1. Whether the rejection of the application preferred by the petitioner college for affiliation to the Post Graduate Course in M.Sc. Space Science and Technology, on the grounds stated in Ext. P7 (Exhibits are being referred to in the order and chronology as given in W.P.(C) 32003 of 2008) is correct or not, is the basic issue involved in these writ petitions 2. The petitioner college is stated as an institution of repute, started in the year 1946; with affiliation originally secured from the Madras University. Subsequently, after formation of the Kerala University, the affiliation was automatically shifted to the said University and later in 1983, when the respondent University came into existence, the affiliation was in turn transferred automatically to the above University. The petitioner college is stated as having a wide range of subjects/courses with all necessary infrastructure, competent teaching and non-teaching staff and is running nine post-graduate courses, out of which, si...

M/S Vadappally Constructions Vs. the Icici Bank Ltd., Corporate Office ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam in OP.589/04 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam dated:13.03.2005. Appellant is the complainant who prefers this appeal under the order of the Forum below who dismissed the complaint on the basis of non maintainability of the complaint before the Forum below as per the provision of the Consumer Protection Act. The respondents are the opposite parties in the above said OP. The case in brief is that the complainant who is a partnership firm registered under the Partnership Act, who decided to purchase a new brand car exclusively for the use of the Managing partner with financial assistance from the opposite parties. As per the terms of the hire purchase agreement executed between the complainant and the opposite parties, he has to pay a loan amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest due thereon in 48 monthly instalments and for repaying the loan amount the complainant, issued 48 post dated cheques, and 2 c...

Joy John, Managing Partner M/S.Devdhan Lottery Services and Another Vs ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU.PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC.160/10 in the file of CDRF, Waynad. The appellants are under orders to return the deposited amount with interest at 12% and cost of Rs.3,000/-. 2. The case of the complainant is that he had deposited an amounts in his name, in the name of his wife, daughter and son in the project of the opposite parties as per assurance that the amounts shall be refunded in double within a short period. It is his case that nothing has been returned. He has sought for refund a sum of Rs.75,000/- with interest at the rate of 18%. 3. It is the case of the opposite parties that the amounts were received in deposit with undertaking to buy the lottery tickets and magazines. It is denied that there is an offer to return the amount in double within hundred weeks. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A5. 5. We find that the opposite parties have not tendered any evidence. The deposits are evidenced...

K.K. Zacharia and Another Vs. the Station Manager, Royal Jordanian and ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the complainant/husband and wife in O.P. 962/00 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The complaint filed by the appellants stands dismissed. It is the case of the complainants that they had joined a tour package organized by the 3rd opposite party/Travels for visiting holy places in the Middle East including Jarusalem, Jordan, Egypt etc as per the traveling schedule and the complainants boarded Royal Jordhan Flight of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties from Amman to Cairo. On arriving at Cairo Airport, it was found that their baggage has been lost. The baggage contained gold ornaments, dresses, essential medicines etc. worth more than Rs. 1.25 lakhs. The same contained many valuable gift articles also. The loss was immediately reported at the nearest police out post since the ground handling agency M/s. Egypt Air was found closed. The complainants had to buy the dress materials and other articles afresh. Alleging deficiency in service they ...

Sobhanan Vs. the Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

1. It is aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.2009 of CDRF, Kollam in CC.No.153/07, that the present appeal is filed by the complainant. By the impugned order, the forum has dismissed the complaint. 2. The case of the complainant before the forum was that he was the owner of a vehicle bearing Registration No. KL3D-6723 which had a valid Insurance Policy with the opposite party for the period from 11.9.2004 to 10.9.2005 and that on 30.6.2005 at about 11 p. m, the vehicle met with an accident at Pattithanam Kavala. The vehicle skidded and hit on an Iron Electric post causing damage to the post. The accident was timely informed to the opposite party and that on the directions of the opposite party; the complainant filed the claim form. It is averred by the complainant that the opposite party directed him to pay the estimate amount to the KSEB and to produce the estimate, the receipt for the payment and other relevant records for getting the claim. The complainant has stated that he had subm...

Appu and Others Vs. Rajendran and Others

Court: Kerala

Defendants 2, 3 and 7 in O.S.114 of 1987 on the file of Munsiff Court, Vaikom are the appellants. Respondents are the plaintiffs and the other defendants in the suit. Respondents 1 to 8 instituted the suit claiming a decree for declaration of the right of easement over plaint schedule No.5 pathway and for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants by a permanent prohibitory injunction from causing alteration to the said pathway or obstruct the plaintiffs from using that way. They contended that item No.1 of the plaint schedule property originally belonged to deceased Karunakaran, father of respondents 1 to 7 and husband of 8th respondent and on his death, under his will, respondents 1 to 8 are the owners in possession of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property. Before the death of Karunakaran, a house was built in the property and Karunakaran was living there along with the family and subsequent to his death, respondents 1 to 8 are continuing the residence and on t...

M/S. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., Calicut Vs. Baby, E.C. Talipa ...

Court: Kerala

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. These revision petitions are referred to the Division Bench particularly on the question whether T.M.L. Financial Services Ltd. v. VinodKumar [2010 (1) KLT 209], hereinafter referred to as ‘TML’, requires re-consideration. The impact, if any, of Section 9 of the Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter referred to as the ‘A and C Act’, is focused in the reference order as a question that may be germane for consideration. 2. TML was decided in a matter that arose from a suit filed for damages and for a declaration that the plaintiff was not liable to repay any outstanding instalments defaulted on a loan availed from the defendant. Holding out an arbitration agreement, the defendant invoked Section 8 of the A and C Act and applied to the trial court to refer the parties to arbitration. That was refused. That led to the judgment in TML, holding, inter alia, that when the agreement is opposed to public policy or where ...

Thankachan Vs. State of Kerala, Rep. by Public Prosecutor

Court: Kerala

Balakrishnan, J. 1. The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc)-I, Kottayam for offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. This appeal is directed against the said conviction and sentence. 2. Brief facts necessary for the case are stated thus: On 27.9.2002 at about 7.30 P.M the accused and P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and deceased Chandran were travelling in a bus by name 'Punnaram' bound for Pathambuzha. The deceased was standing in the bus in such a way that his body was leaning towards and touching the body of the accused. The accused became irritated and questioned the same. Thereupon altercation took place between the accused and the deceased. P.W.4, the bus conductor, intervened. The dispute was resolved by taking the deceased to the rear seat of the bus. When the bus was stopped at Theyilappura at about 8 P.M., the ac...