Kerala Court June 2011 Judgments

K.P. Varghese Vs. Baby Samyuktha and Another

Court: Kerala

1. Notice to the first respondent is dispensed with in view of the order I propose to pass in this proceeding. 2. Petitioner is accused in C.C.No.185 of 2007 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kayamkulam facing trial for offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, "the Act"). Originally, he was released on bail and later, it happened that on 23.10.2010 he could not appear before learned Magistrate. Thereon, an advocate represented "no instruction". Learned Magistrate cancelled the bail and issued non bailable warrant to the petitioner. At that stage petitioner approached this Court with O.P(Crl).No.36 of 2011 and this Court directed learned Magistrate to consider the application for bail if presented by the petitioner and pass orders as early as possible. Petitioner says that since he was not able to arrange sureties he could not appear before learned Magistrate. Petitioner says that he is prepared to execute self bond and deposi...

Mohammed Mamdouh Matwally Ghali Vs. Kerala Automobiles Ltd, Represente ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(3)KLT159; 2011(3)ILR(Ker)283; 2011(3)KLJ391

Basant, J. (i) Are the findings of the Arbitrator (a) that the claimant is not bound by the stipulation No.7 in Ext.C10 and (b) that the claimant can take advantage of the other stipulations in Ext.C10 correct and justified? (ii) Can those findings be held to be illegal perverse, unjust or immoral? (iii) Can the award passed by the Arbitrator be consequently held to be opposed to the public policy of India? (iv) Are those vices sufficient to justify the interference by the District Court with the award of the Arbitrator under Section 34 (2) (b) (ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’)? These questions are thrown up for consideration in this appeal. 2. A brief resume of the events that have led to this appeal appears to be necessary. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the claimant’) and the respondent Kerala Automobiles Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the company’) had entered into an agreemen...

Nabeesa Umma and Others Vs. Mohanakrishnan and Others

Court: Kerala

Pius C. Kuriakose, J. 1. The tenants are the revision petitioners and they challenge the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority ordering eviction against them on the ground under Section 11(8) of the K.B.R.C.Act reversing the order of the Rent Control Court declining eviction on that ground. The landlord invoked grounds of arrears of rent u/s 11(2), bonafide need for own occupation u/s 11 (3), cessation of occupation u/s 11(4)(v) and need for additional accommodation u/s 11(8) of the Act 2 of 1965. The Rent Control Court ordered eviction on the ground of arrears of rent and we are told that the order of eviction u/s 11(2) was subsequently got vacated by making requisite deposits. The Rent Control Court declined eviction on the grounds u/Ss. 11(3), 11(4) and 11 (8) and the Appellate Authority under the impugned judgment has ordered eviction only u/s 11(8). The Appellate Authority has taken the view that on the pleadings raised by the landlord it is the ground u/s 11(8) which a...

L. Sujatha Vs. the Secretary, Karamana Co-operative Urban Bank

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in CC.285/08 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The complaint stands dismissed. 2. The case of the complainant is that she had availed a loan of Rs.1.lakh from the opposite parties/Co-operative Bank and that as a pre condition she was made to purchase a share of the bank for a sum of Rs.5000/-. The entire loan was settled on 4/2/2006 immediately thereafter requested for return of the share amount. She applied on 22/1/2007 and subsequently registered letter was sent on 4/1/2008. Thereafter the present complaint has been filed in November 2008. Complainant has sought for return of the amount with interest at 14% and compensation of Rs.20,000/- and cost. 3. The opposite parties have disputed the jurisdiction containing that the complainant cannot be treated as a consumer. It is also stated that the share amount cannot be released on oral request. The complainant was directed to file an application in the presc...