Kerala Court June 2011 Judgments

E. Jinson, the Assistant Engineer,electrical Section, Kanjiramkulam an ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The order dated 15.5.10 of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in C.C. 15/04 is being assailed in this appeal by the opposite parties who are under directions to cancel the notice dated 16.12.03 issued by them and to change the tariff from LT VII A to LT VII B from 11.12.99 on receipt of application from the complainant and to return/adjust the excess amount if any paid after 11.12.99 in the future bills. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he is a consumer of the opposite parties and that due to non payment of an additional bill his service was disconnected on 11.12.99 and he filed an O.P. before the Forum below which was dismissed and that he could pay the amount only on 23.7.03 and subsequently he was issued 3 bills and the last bill was for Rs. 44,460/- and further that his service was disconnected for non payment of the said bill. It is also his case that he has paid the disputed bill of Rs. 11,762/- on 23.7.2003 and that he was not liab...

M/S Ideal Systems Pazhoor and Another Vs. T. Jacob Rasalam

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellants are the opposite parties and respondent is the complainant in OP No. 177/2002 on the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in effecting the warranty replacement of the defective parts of the computer which was purchased by the complainant from the opposite parties. Hence the complainant claimed for replacement of the defective parts with brand new parts or to pay Rs. 60,500/- paid by the complainant for purchase of the computer from the opposite parties. The complainant has also claimed compensation for deficiency in service and the mental agony suffered by the complainant. 2. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. It was contended that they were ready to rectify the defects in the defective components of the computer; But the complainant did not permit the opposite pa...

M/S. Maruthi Udyog Limited and Another Vs. E.A. Priya and Others

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

M.K. ABDULLA SONA: MEMBER 1. This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Thrissur in OP No. 551/2002 dated 25-08-2003. The appellants are the opposite parties 2 and 3 and respondents are the complainant and first and 4th opposite parties respectively. This appeal prefers from the direction of the Forum below that to replace the defective vehicle by the opposite parties with a new one of the desired colour, to refund Rs. 18,800/- towards one time road tax remitted and Rs. 7,785/- paid towards insurance premium. If this is not practical and this distance of time, the opposite parties are directed to refund Rs. 3,58,617/- as stated with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 29-04-2002 till realization to Rs. 4,000/- as compensation and Rs. 700/- as costs. 2. In brief, this is a dispute arised between the complainant and the opposite parties in connection with the purchase of a Maruti Zen Car on 29-04-2002. The colour of the car is revera red. Immediately on purchase, the c...

K. Ramachandran Pillai and Another Vs. Nazeer, Rahmath Buildings and O ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(3)KLT377; 2011(3)ILR(Ker)446; 2011(3)KLJ573; 2011(3)KHC225

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the orders passed by the learned Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions which are produced as Exts.P4 and P6. 2. The complaint before the learned Ombudsman was filed by respondent Nos.1 to 5 alleging deficiencies in the work executed by a beneficiary committee of which the first petitioner is the Chairman, and the second petitioner is the Convenor. The construction was in respect of the Thalakulam (big pond) and leading thodu as part of the plan for 1998-99. The project cost was estimated at a total cost of Rs.4,40,914/- by the seventh respondent-Assistant Engineer herein and an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- was sanctioned by the D.L.E.C. The Block Panchayat, even though initially decided to entrust the work with the Padasekhara Samithy, but finally, a Beneficiary Committee was formed and agreements were executed by the said Committee with the Block Panchayat. It is not necessary to go into the details of the same. The disp...

Philipose Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

1. Petitioner, claiming that the cheques issued by the accused in his favour for discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability were dishonoured for insufficiency of funds filed complaints before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta and those complains were taken on file as C.C.Nos.125 of 2004 and 126 of 2004 for offence punishable under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”). Since all steps taken to procure presence of accused failed, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate resorted to the procedure under Ss.82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”) and issued non-bailable warrants repeatedly to the accused. But, the same could not be executed in spite of efforts. Thereon the cases were included in the Long Pending Register as L.P.Nos.25 of 2005 and 34 of 2005. At that stage, petitioner filed Annexures-2 and 3, petitions – C.M.P.No.6484 of 2005 (in L.P.No.25 of 2005) and C.M.P.No.6483 of 2005 (i...

Choovatta Vadakkekara Kunhi Veettil Vs. Mottukkande Karunakaran

Court: Kerala

1. Defendant in a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale is the appellant. Plaintiff is the respondent. Respondent instituted O.S.176 of 1995 before Sub Court, Payyannur for specific performance of Ext.A1 agreement for sale dated 29.11.1994 contending that appellant agreed to sell the plaint schedule property for a consideration @ Rs.2700/- per cent and received Rs.10,000/- as advance towards the sale consideration and agreed to execute a sale deed within eight months after measuring and satisfying the extent to the respondent, on the respondent paying the balance consideration. It was alleged that in spite of the oral demand to execute the sale deed, appellant did not execute it. Therefore Ext.A2 notice was sent demanding execution of the sale deed. Appellant failed to execute the sale deed. A decree for specific performance of Ext.A1 agreement was sought. Appellant resisted the suit denying the agreement for sale or execution of Ext.A1 agreement. According to the appe...

T. Appu Vs. the Dvl.Mgr.National Insurance Co.Ltd.

Court: Kerala

COMMON JUDGMENT: Basheer, J. The common appellant in these two appeals was the successful bidder in an auction held by the Divisional Forest Officer (Special), Palakad for the right to collect and remove bamboos from Arippara Coupe No.1. A fire broke out in the forest allegedly causing heavy damage not only to the bamboos cut and stored by the appellant/ plaintiff, but also to the forest properties. The forest authorities initiated revenue recovery proceedings against the appellant/plaintiff to realise the balance amount due from him in connection with the auction sale. Therefore, he filed O.S.No.19/1989 before the Munsiff Court, Palakkad praying for a declaration that he is not liable to pay any amount to the Forest Department and also for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the Forest Department and the Revenue Recovery Authorities from proceeding against him. 2. Yet another suit, viz., O.S.No.378/1989, was instituted by the appellant/ plaintiff before the Subord...

M. Nujumudeen Vs. the City Police Commissioner of Police and Others

Court: Kerala

BASANT, J. 1. In an area to which the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983 (hereinafter referred to the 1983 Scheme), is not made functional, is a headload worker without registration under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, entitled to work? Is an employer entitled to employ them? What if any, is the consequence of non registration in such an area where the scheme is not in functional operation? These questions arise for consideration in this case. 2. The facts are simple. The petitioner is an employer. There is headload work in his establishment. His workmen have not taken any registration under Rule 26A. Respondent Nos.5 to 11 represent headload workers in the area. We have no specific input as to whether such workmen represented by respondent Nos.5 to 11 have registration under Rule 26A or not. The petitioner has come to this Court with a grievance that his permanent workmen, who admittedly do not have registration under Rule 26A a...

Shyamala Satyapalan Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by the Secretary ...

Court: Kerala

RamachandranNair, J. The review petitioner is the widow of a contractor, who after undertaking to execute work for the Irrigation Department died without doing any serious work towards execution of the project. After the death of her husband, the review petitioner requested the Government to allot the work to her with undertaking to complete the work in time. The Government obliged by reawarding the contract to the review petitioner merely because she happened to be the widow of the contractor. The project as originally conceived should have been completed by 2001 itself. However, on account of the death of the contractor and reawarding of the contract to the widow, who is the review petitioner herein, time for completion of the work got extended till 2002. The review petitioner instead of completing the work kept on applying for extension of time and the respondents liberally granted it up to 2008. However, it was noticed that inspite of several extension of time availed by the review...

Mudavangadan Abbas Vs. Kurrippurathodi Mayinkutty and Others

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT540; 2012(3)KLJ560

1. The question involved in this Original Petition is whether the plaintiff who paid the full court fee is entitled to get refund of the entire amount of court fee on settlement of the disputes between the parties and on filing a compromise petition under Rule 3 of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure and whether the plaintiff can invoke the benefit of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870. 2. The petitioner and others filed a suit against the respondents for specific performance of an agreement for sale. The suit was valued at Rs.27,46,600/- and a court fee of Rs.2,38,128/- was paid. The parties to the suit settled the disputes and they filed a compromise petition under Rule 3 of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the compromise petition, it was stated that the plaintiffs do not want the relief for specific performance of the contract and that the defendants had repaid the advance sale consideration paid by the plaintiffs to them. It is also stated that the parties ...