Kerala Court May 2011 Judgments

Mary Ulahannan, Proprietor Vs. Union of India, Rep by the Secretary an ...

Court: Kerala

1. The scope of the 'NOC' to be issued by the District Authority under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 is the subject matter involved in all these writ petitions. 2. The crux of the contentions raised, except W.P.(C) No. 4863 of 2011, is that the petitioners are the existing retail dealers of petroleum products marketed/distributed by the three Oil Companies in the public sector, viz. The Indian Oil Corporation Limited, The Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. The said petitioners are stated as aggrieved of the steps being taken by the Petroleum Companies (Company in short) to appoint new retail outlet dealers in the respective areas, inviting applications in this regard through advertisements, without any regard to the feasibility or the potential of the area and in turn, affecting the returns of the petitioners quite adversely. It is contended that, because of the unhealthy competition among the Companies in setting up more and m...

Everest.C.J Vs. Greater CochIn Development and Another

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(2)KHC895

Ramachandran Nair, J. This Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge declining to direct the 1st respondent to give road access to the petitioner to the road constructed by the 1st respondent around the Jawaharlal Nehru International Stadium, Cochin, constructed by the 1st respondent. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and have also perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge and the sketches and photographs produced by both parties. 3. The Jawaharlal Nehru International Stadium was constructed by the GCDA by acquiring land in 1994 from various persons. Around the Stadium, the GCDA has constructed ring roads, which are now public roads, connecting the main road with residential colonies located South of the stadium. Around the ring roads the GCDA has constructed boundary walls, beyond which are the properties of private land owners. The appellant is one of the persons w...

Dr. V. Viswanath, Dental Clinic, Chemmad Vs. the Kerala Dental Council ...

Court: Kerala

1. Whether a candidate has to be an 'elector' finding a place in the final voters' list to contest the election to the Dental Council of India under section 3(a) of the Dentists Act, 1948, is the issue involved herein. 2. The petitioner who acquired a degree in BDS (Bachelor of Dental Surgery) from the Government Dental College, Bangalore in the year 1981 set up his practice as a Dental Surgeon in Calicut till 1984 and thereafter shifted his practice to a suburban area called Chemmad in Malappuram district, where he is continuing as such. As per the relevant provisions of law, a qualified Dentist has to be got registered under the Act and the Registration has to be renewed every year as prescribed. The registration of the petitioner was earlier with the Dental Council, Karnataka and was later registered in the Dental Council, Kerala w.e.f. 12.08.1993 as per Ext. P1 certificate of registration. 3. In fact two types of registration are contemplated under the Statute-Part A and Part B as ...

K. Sivarajan Vs. Thangal Kunju and Another

Court: Kerala

1. Heard counsel for petitioner, first respondent and learned Public Prosecution who took notice for the second respondent. 2. Petitioner suffered conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the court and payment of compensation of `50,000/- to the first respondent. Criminal Appeal No.718 of 2007 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kollam. Thereon petitioner filed Crl. R.P. No.3081 of 2009 in this Court. This Court did not interfere with the conviction and sentence but granted petitioner six months' time to deposit the compensation in the trial court on condition of petitioner executing bond for `10,000/-. Petitioner says that he has paid compensation to the first respondent directly within the time granted by this Court. Petitioner filed C.M.P. No.7 of 2011 (in S.T. No.78 of 2007) to drop coercive steps against him in view of the said payment. That petition ...

The Administrator, Gems Hospital and Another Vs. Sivaraman

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellants are the opposite parties and the respondent is the complainant in OP.A-184/02 on the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the 2nd opposite party/Dr.P.K.Ravi in treating the complainant for dislocation of his right shoulder. It is alleged that the complainants right shoulder had restricted movements and he sustained physical disability at 14% and that the disability occurred only due to the medical negligence on the part of the 2nd opposite party who was attached to 1st opposite party GEMS Hospital, Mavelikkara. The complainant claimed a total of Rs.4,34,000/- as compensation. 2. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency of service. They contended that the complainant was treated with utmost care and caution and there was no sort of negligence on the part of the 2nd opposite party in treating the complainant at 1st ...

George Varghese Vs. T.L.Jose and Others

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 17th January 2011 passed by CDRF, Thrissur in CC.69/06. The complaint therein was filed by the 1st respondent as complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in their failure to refund the amount which was deposited with the 1st opposite party Integrated Finance Co. Ltd. The opposite parties 2 to 9 are the Branch Manager and Directors of the 1st opposite party Company. The appellant herein is the 7th opposite party. He contended that he was only a part time Director of the 1st opposite party Company and he had no involvement in the transaction between the complainant and the 1st opposite party Integrated Finance Co. Ltd. The materials on record would show that the 1st respondent/ complainant deposited Rs.48000/- with the 1st opposite party/Finance Company. Ext.P1 is copy of the FD receipt issued by the 1st opposite party Integrated finance Co. Ltd. 2. The further ...

The Cotton Hill Heights Owners Association (Chhoa), Cotton Hill Height ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR: MEMBER The complainants in OP.21/02 before the CDRF, Tiruvananthapuram are the Revision Petitioners herein. The petition is filed calling for the interference of this Commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below in I.A.117/2010 filed by the complainants. By the impugned order, the Forum below has dismissed the petition. 2. The petitioners who were the complainants before the Forum had filed a petition for appointing a commission to inspect and report the status of the flats ear-marked as 1-J and 1-K and also the alterations made if any. It is the case of the complainants that for a fair disposal of the complaint before the Forum, a commission report is very essential and that it was without proper appreciation of the facts of the case and the prayers in the petition that the Forum below dismissed the petition. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners invited our attention to the fact that the appointment of a commission a...

The Secretary, K.S.E.B, Vydyuthi Bhavan and Another Vs. the Secretary, ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The order dated 27-08-2003 of CDRF, Pathanamthitta in OP No. 15/2002 is being assailed in this appeal by the opposite parties who are under directions to cancel Ext.P2 bill and pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as costs. 2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he is the Secretary of a Samskarika Nilayam with consumer No. 7908 and that he was regularly paying the current charges for the period from 1998 till January 2001 at the rate of Rs. 124/- per month and that a bill dated 02-04-2001 was served on him for paying an additional amount of Rs. 26,907/-. It is his case that there was no extra consumption as alleged by the opposite parties and that the consumption noted as 6170 units till 07-03-2001 was totally incorrect and the meter might have been faulty. It is his further case that the Samskarika Nilayam was not liable to pay the said amount and the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite parties to ...

Manager, Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. M.K.Noufal

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.S CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The order dated:25/06/2008 in the file of CDRF, Kasaragod in CC.11/06 is being assailed in this appeal by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties who are aggrieved by the directions of the Forum below to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.20,000/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order with cost of Rs.2000/-. 2. The complainant approached the Forum stating that he is the owner of the vehicle KL-14 E 1707 and that the opposite parties 1 and 2 had illegally seized the vehicle on the ground of default in monthly payment against the loan taken by the complainant from the said opposite parties. It is his case that he had to take back the vehicle and for that a heavy amount of Rs.40,000/- had to be paid. Alleging deficiency of service in the illegal seizure and collecting undue amounts, the complaint was filed praying for directions to pay Rs.15.lakhs as compensation. 3. 1st and 2nd opposite parties filed version and contended that the veh...

The Chief Manager, Canara Bank Vs. Dr.Sayed Mohammed

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR: MEMBER This appeal is preferred by the opposite party in CC.101/09 of CDRF, Kasaragod. By the impugned order dated:22/07/2010, the appellant is under directions to pay to the complainants a sum of Rs.6,15,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of complaint till payment with cost of Rs.5000/- failing which the appellant is liable to pay interest at 12% per annum for the amount of Rs.6,15,000/-. 2. The complainants have approached the Forum stating that they are account holders of the opposite party and that they have deposited US dollars in the FCNR account and that against the deposits they have availed a loan to the tune of Rs.29.lakhs and that the opposite party has closed all their dollar deposits against the loan unilaterally and that they have suffered huge loss due to the closure effected by the opposite party. It is also their case that the opposite parties had closed the loan prematurely and that if they have waited some more time, the op...