Kerala Court May 2011 Judgments

K. Balan Vs. S.B.i. Palakkad

Court: Kerala

1. The court auction purchaser filed an application under Order XXI Rule 93 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The executing court dismissed the same, which is under challenge in this Revision. The State Bank of India, Thrikkidiri branch filed O.S.No.457 of 1996, Sub Court, Ottapalam for realisation of money. The suit was decreed. The decree holder put the decree in execution, in E.P.No.32 of 1997. The property belonging to the judgment debtor was sold in court auction and it was purchased by the revision petitioner for a sum of Rs.31,500/-. He deposited the sale amount. On 24.07.1998, the sale was confirmed and the sale certificate was issued. 2. Before the sale was confirmed, one Parameswaran Namboodiri filed O.S.No.269 of 1998 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Ottappalam for a declaration that the attachment and sale in E.P.No.32 of 1997 does not bind the plaint schedule property (the property which was sold in court auction in E.P.No.32 of 1997) and that the property belongs absolut...

Nedupuzha Service Co-operative Bank Vs. K. Rugmani and Others

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(3)ILR(Ker)75; 2011(3)KLT134; 2011(3)LLN274; 2011(2)KHC880

Ramachandran Nair, J. In these Writ Appeals the appellant Co-operative Banks are challenging judgments of the learned Single Judges directing the appellants to pay gratuity to the respondent employees over and above the gratuity amount receivable by them under the LIC's Group Gratuity cum Life Assurance Policy taken by the appellant Banks covering all the employees. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant Banks and learned counsel appearing for the respondents including the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Life Insurance Corporation of India. 3. At our request, concerned executives from the LIC appeared in Court and personally explained the nature of the Group Gratuity cum Life Assurance Policy, which the appellant Banks have with them for payment of gratuity to their employees. Before proceeding with the matter, we have to refer to the statutory provisions under which the appellants as employers are liable to pay gratuity to their employees on their reti...

N.P. Abdul Salam Vs. Executive Engineer, Electricity Department and Ot ...

Court: Kerala

COMMON JUDGMENT Basheer, J. 1. Since the issues involved in these writ petitions are common and closely inter related and also since they arise from the common order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in a batch of Original Applications, they are being heard and disposed of through this common judgment. 2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts which are essential for disposal of these cases may be briefly noticed. 3. Department of Electricity under the Administration of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep issued Annexure-A1 notification on April 22, 2008, inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Oilman/Mazdoor. In fact, ten vacancies were notified in the said notification. Later, a corrigendum notification was issued on July 24, 2008 indicating that only seven vacancies were available. (We will deal with this issue a little later). 4. The educational qualifications prescribed for the post in the notification are extract...

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. C.V.James and Another

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the 1st opposite party/insurance company in CC.29/10 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.1,62,625/- with interest at 9% from 27/4/2006 till realization. 2. The matter is with respect to the sum insured with respect to the car which was stolen. The vehicle was stolen on 5/3/2005 and the matter was intimated to the insurer on 6/3/2005. The insurer paid 75% of the value on 27/4/2006. The appellant insisted for transferring the RC of the vehicle in favour of the appellant for paying the balance amount. The 2nd opposite party who is the Regional Transport Officer has contended that the RC cannot be transferred unless either the RC owner or the insurance company producing the necessary documents along with the prescribed fee etc. etc. Forum has noted that the appellant could have settled the claim by obtaining the police report in this regard. 3. It has to be noted that more than 5 year...

K.V. George, Time Palace Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in OP No. 110/99 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad. The complaint stands dismissed. 2. It is the case of the complainant that the watch shop by name Time Palace run by him was subjected to burglary on 04-12-1997 in the night and watches worth a sum of Rs. 3,33,315/- were stolen. The goods of the shop were covered by the policy of the opposite parties for a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/-. On the next day morning on detecting theft the matter was immediately intimated to the police. The complainant was not permitted to enter the shop by the police till the finger print experts inspect the shop. A rough estimate of loss was given as 200 watches having the average value of Rs. 850/- each and the total loss as Rs. 85,000/-. The matter was intimated to the opposite parties/insurers and on the same day a spot survey was done and the original stock register was taken by the opposite parties. After the inspection of the finger print ex...

Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. Rep.by Managing Director ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants in A.489/10 are the opposite parties 1 to 3 the Financiers and the appellants in A.588/2010 is the insurer in CC.64/08 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad. The appellants are under orders to cancel the loan amount of Rs.4,32,601/- taken by the complainants deceased husband. The appellants/opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to return back the amount of Rs.54450/- remitted by the complainant towards monthly instalments with 12% interest from 15.12.07 to date of order and also cost of Rs.2000/-. 2. The matter is with respect to the repudiation of the policy availed by the deceased husband of the complainant from the 4th opposite party/Insurance Company for purchasing a tractor for which finance was provided by the opposite parties 1 to 3. The policy coverage is from 28.2.2007 onwards and the assured died on 14.4.07 ie within two months of availing the policy. As per the terms of the policy in case of death the remaining instalments of the ...

The Alleppey Company Ltd Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Ramachandran Nair, J. The question raised in the connected revision cases filed by the very same Company is whether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the petitioner is liable to pay purchase tax under Section 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) on the purchases of tags and labels from exempted dealers which were attached to coir products exported outside India. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondent. 3. The petitioner is engaged in manufacture and export of coir products. As per the requirement of foreign buyers and in terms of the export orders, the petitioner has to attach tags and labels to each and every coir product exported giving product description in terms of the Buyers' norms. The petitioner outsourced these tags and labels from printing presses, which have sales tax exemption under the notification issued by Governme...

V. Shysimol Vs. the Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala, Thivandrum ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(3)KLJ301; 2011(2)KHC900

Ramachandran Nair, J. The connected writ petitions are filed by one and the same person for direction to the fourth respondent to issue original National Trade Certificate for the I.T.I. (Electronic Mechanic) course passed by her from the Industrial Training Institute for Women, Kozhikode run by the Kerala Government. Petitioner’s case is that, based on Ext.P1 prospectus, she applied for and obtained admission for the I.T.I. (Electronic Mechanic) course in the Industrial Training Institute for Women run by the Kerala Government at Kozhikode. She underwent the course study from August, 1996 to July, 1998 and after passing the National Trade Certificate Examination, obtained Ext.P3 provisional certificate issued by the Government of Kerala wherein it is seen that she has passed the examination with well over 70% marks. Petitioner’s case is that in Ext.P1 prospectus and Ext.P3 certificate, the Government of Kerala has stated that the course study undergone by her, namely I.T.I...

N.Sivaramakurup Vs. the Joint Registrar of Co-operative and Others

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(3)KLT42; 2011(3)ILR(Ker)1; 2011(3)KLJ116

Ramachandran Nair, J. The Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge upholding the decision of respondents 2 to 4 to limit the entitlement of waiver of loan to the appellant under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008, up to Rs.1.25 lakhs. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and separate standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and the 4th respondent. 3. The appellant availed an agricultural loan from the 4th respondent Bank in the year 2005. The loan granted is a running credit facility by issuing Kissan Credit Card to the appellant. The credit facility granted was, admittedly, Rs.2 lakhs. When Ext.P2 Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008, was introduced, the appellant claimed the debt waiver facility entitled to him under the Scheme. Even though the appellant claimed that the entire debt is liable to be written off under the Scheme, the 4th respondent based on an advice of the 2nd respond...

P.M. Parameswaran Namboothri and Another Vs. the Commissioner, Malabar ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(2)KLT988; 2011(2)ILR(Ker)865; 2011(2)KHC719

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. The 1st petitioner is the hereditary trustee of the Sree Nenminipurath Ayyappa Temple, Alanellur in Palakkad District, for which, the 2nd petitioner is appointed as fit person. 2. Purportedly acting on a complaint dated 10.05.2010, by one Vasudevan Unni Moosath and 50 others and a report dated 14.06.2010 of the Inspector, Perinthalmanna, Ext.P1 notice was issued to the 1st petitioner stating that it is found desirable to have a trustee board appointed for the temple. The 1st petitioner replied as per Ext.P2 stating that the copies of the materials relied on in Ext.P1 have not been served on him and that he is not aware of the contents of the report of the Inspector. We may also note that even Ext.P1 does not explicitly state any specific reason for the proposed action, but only says that it is to ensure transparency and effectiveness in the administration. Even on such basis, he made certain statements in Ex.P2 denying the allegations leveled against him...