Kerala Court July 2011 Judgments

The Managing Partner, Arjun Association Vs. Abdul Fathah and Another

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Appellant is the 1st opposite party/dealer in CC.286/09 in the file of CDRF, Kannur. Opposite parties including appellant/dealer and the manufacturer are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.18000/- to the complainant within one month failing which the complainant is entitled to interest at 12% from the date of the order of the Forum. It is also directed to the 1st opposite party has to pay the entire amount and recover half of the amount from the 2nd opposite party/manufacturer. 2. The matter is with respect to the electric two wheeler by name Ultra Powered velocity purchased by the complainant on 20..2..2008 for a sum of Rs.35,235/-. He purchased the vehicle attracted by advertisements in the media and the assurance made by the 1st opposite party. Soon after the purchase of the vehicle it developed starting trouble due to the fault of the battery. A number of times complainant informed the opposite party about the defect but the problem could not be ...

P.A. Arshana Vs. Circle Inspector of Police, Njarakkal and Others

Court: Kerala

Pius C. Kuriakose, J. 1. The petitioner, a 19 year old girl, accompanied by one Shahabas - the 4th respondent, said to be her boy friend, with whom she claims to be in deep love, is present before us. The petitioner seeks police protection against what is described as harassment and manhandling by the third respondent - her father and other members of the family. 2. Going by the averments in the writ petition and by the submissions which were made at the bar by Mr. Basil A. G. - the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner is even now residing together with her parents. But, according to the petitioner, she and the 4th respondent, who are in love, have taken a vow to get married once she completes her B.A. course. The 3rd respondent and other members of the petitioner’s family manhandled her as they are antagonised by her love towards the 4th respondent. It is submitted at the bar that the 3rd respondent inflicted a stab on the wrist portion of her left inner ...

The Post Master, Head Post Office, Kollam and Others Vs. M. Kunjukrish ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(4)KLJ468; 2011(4)KHC150; 2011(4)KLT101SN

“CR” C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. 1. The Writ Petition is filed by the postal department challenging Ext.P2 order issued by the CAT which is by way of an execution order to give effect to an order issued in favour of the respondent in O.A. No. 277/2004 decided on 7.10.2005. 2. We have heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned senior counsel Sri. O.V. Radhakrishnan appearing for the respondent. 3. The respondent was a casual employee in the postal department. He was eligible to be appointed as a Group ‘D’ employee in the 25% quota available to casual employees, the balance 75% reserved for Grameen Dak Sevaks. Going by the availability of quota for appointment from the two streams of employees referred above, every fourth post should go to a casual employee. However, the postal department treated every year as a unit for employment and ensured that casual employee never gets a job because the maximum post arises in an year was t...

State of Kerala Vs. M/S. Supreme Bakers, Chinnakkada

Court: Kerala

C. N. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. The short question raised in this revision filed by the State is whether the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the revised assessment made under S.19 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act for the reason that it does not refer to the regular assessment and is not made part of the regular assessment. We have heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the revision petitioner State and counsel appearing for the respondent - assessee. 2. On the short question whether an independent assessment is maintainable under S.19 of the KGST Act without affecting and simultaneously retaining the original assessment completed under S.17(3) of the Act, the Tribunal, by following a judgment of this Court in an income tax matter and another Tribunal’s order, took the view that there is no scope for making separate assessment under S.19 and if at all assessment is to be revised, the same has to be done only by revising the original assessment. In other words, a...

Sophy Thomas and Others Vs. Indus Motors Co. Pvt. Ltd. Represented by ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT Appeal No. 454/2010 is filed by the complainants and Appeal No. 524/2010 is filed by the first and second opposite parties dealers in CC No. 144/08 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The Forum has allowed the complaint in part directing the opposite parties to return the vehicle repaired in perfect running condition without collecting costs of the replaced ECM and also to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation for the delay in returning the vehicle after repair and cost of Rs. 2,000/-. The complainants who are the wife/RC owner and her husband respectively have filed the complaint for a direction to the opposite parties to replace the vehicle with a new model car or to refund the price of the vehicle ie, Rs. 7,77,668/- with interest at 18% per annum and also to pay compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-. It is the case of the complainants that the Maruti Suzuki SX4 ZXI car purchased by the first complainant from the first opposite party d...

K.M.Aboobacker Vs. the Manager, Ksfe Ltd.,

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Appellant is the complainant in CC 160/05 on the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The complaint stands dismissed. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he had availed two loans from the opposite parties and subsequently the opposite parties offered one time settlement and on the basis of the same complainant remitted the entire amount. Opposite party have further claimed Rs.3500/- and notice have been issued to the sureties. 3. The opposite parties have filed version contending that there was no one time settlement and that the balance amount is due. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 Exts.A1 to A6, CWs 1 and 2 Exts.X1 to X6 and Ext.B1 and B2. 5. We find that the Forum has only observed that it is clear from the statement of accounts as shown in para 8 of the version and documents produced that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. We find the Forum has not considered the evidence adduced at all ...

Baburaj Vs. District Registrar and Another

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(3)KLT835

1. Petitioner herein and 7 others executed a deed of partition of an immovable property, which originally belonged to late Sri.Ponnan. The document was registered as partition deed NO.5/11 of Parali Sub Registry. The Sub Registrar entertained a doubt about the actual rate of duty payable on the instrument, viz, as to whether it would come under Sl.No.42(i) or 42(ii) of the Schedule to the Kerala Stamp Act. 2. He thereupon impounded the document under Section 33(1) of the Kerala Stamp Act and sent the document to District Registrar. The District Registrar considered the matter in exercise of his powers under Section 39 and issued Ext.P1 order dated 25/5/11. In that order, District Registrar found that the instrument in question comes under Sl.No.42(ii) and not 42(i). As a result of the determination, petitioner and others are now saddled with the liability to pay 6% stamp duty as against 1% payable, had the document been classified under Sl.No.42(i). 3. Based on Ext.P1 order, Sub Regist...

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Thazhepalam, Tirur Vs. M. Madhavan an ...

Court: Kerala

Basant, J. This appeal comes up for admission now. The respondents/claimants are served. The insurer is the appellant. Compensation is claimed by the claimants for the loss suffered by them on account of the death of their son, a young person, aged about 14 years. Father and mother of the deceased are the claimants. The claim was initially staked under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The deceased was a passenger in a taxi jeep. The appellant is the insurer in respect of that vehicle. The claim was staked against the driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling as also the driver and owner of another vehicle which was also involved in the accident. 2. As stated earlier, the claim was initially lodged under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the course of the proceedings - evidently after realising that the other vehicle involved in the accident was not covered by a valid policy of insurance, the claimants prayed that driver and owner of the...

Reghunanthan Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor and ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(3)KLT493; 2011(3)KLJ438; 2011(3)ILR(Ker)807; 2011AIR(NOC)424; 2011(3)KHC354

1. The revision is by the accused, who was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “the Act”). Negativing his plea of not guilty, the learned magistrate convicted him of such offence and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a compensation of Rs.2,05,000/- with default term to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. In the appeal, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence limiting the substantive term of imprisonment to a day, till the rising of the court, retaining the compensation awarded with the default term. Feeling aggrieved he has preferred this revision. 2. Notice given the 2nd respondent/complainant has entered appearance. I heard the counsel on both sides. 3. The learned counsel for the accused raised two fold challenges, firstly, against the sustainability of the conviction on the premise that the defence canvas...

Vamana Prabhu @ N.P. Prabhu Vs. Sree Krishnaswamy Devaswom

Court: Kerala

1. In a suit for eviction of petitioner / tenant, respondent / plaintiff / landlord claimed that it is a Hindu Religious Endowment entitled to get exemption from Act 2 of 1965 as per notification dated 19/11/1993. In answer to that, petitioner / tenant contended that respondent is a private temple which belonged to Babu Pandith Govinda Pandith. An issue regarding maintainability of the suit was raised. Petitioner produced Ext. B1, copy of the plaint filed by the respondent in another case to show that the temple in question is a family temple. Learned Additional Munsiff, Kochi found that (OS No. 251 of 2009) there is nothing in Ext. B1 to show that respondent is a family temple. Instead, Ext. B1 revealed that temple belonged to the Maharashtra Brahmin Community and hence it cannot be said that it is a family temple. Learned Additional Munsiff observed that as per notification dated 19/11/1993 exemption is granted to religious and charitable endowment from the purview of Act 2 of 1965 a...