Kerala Court July 2011 Judgments

A.P. James Vs. the Assistant Engineer, Kseb Electrical Section, Kalliy ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant is the complainant and respondents are the opposite parties 1 to 3 respectively in CC.159/10 on the file of CDRF, Idukki. The complaint was alleged deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties in issuing Ext.P3 bill dated:13/7/2010 for Rs.18,200/- by way of electricity charges for consumption of energy for running a grocery shop. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency of service. They contended that the impugned electricity bill was issued based on the inspection conducted by Anti Power Theft Squad and based on Ext.P1 site mahazar prepared by the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Vannapuram. Thus, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 2. Before the Forum below, the complainant was examined as PW1, Exts.P1 to P8 documents were also marked on his side. From the side of the opposite party, DW1, the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Vannapu...

B.S. Ajith Kumar and Others Vs. State of Kerala and Others

Court: Kerala

1. A long pending dispute as to the recruitment rules applicable for appointment to the post of inspector in the Legal Metrology Department comes up again in these writ petitions. The main question regarding as to which rules are applicable for the purpose is canvassed in WP (C). No. 16215/2007. In the other writ petitions, persons claiming to be in the feeder category for promotion to the post of inspector seek directions to promote them in the 50% quota stated to be set apart for appointment by promotion as per the rules applicable. Therefore, these writ petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. As per the statute in force at that time, the Government of Kerala framed the Kerala Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Rules, 1964, in which graduation was prescribed as a requisite qualification for appointment to the post of inspector. While those rules were in force, in 1978, the State of Kerala framed the Kerala Weights and Measures Subordinate Service Rule...

Regional Manager Lic of India Ltd, Unit-ii, Kollam and Another Vs. Uth ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellants are the opposite parties and respondent is the complainant in OP.No.360/03 on the file of CDRF, Kollam. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties (LIC of India) in repudiating the insurance claim preferred by the complainant under Ashadeep policy bearing No.781547082 issued by the LIC of India and also due to the act of the LIC of India in changing the Ashadeep policy endowment type plan with effect from 28.7.03. It was also alleged that the complainant suffered mental agony and hardship due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complainant filed the complaint in OP.360/03 claiming the benefit under benefit (B) of the policy with compensation and costs. 2. The opposite parties entered appearance and on behalf of the opposite parties the version was filed by the Manager (legal and HPF) office of the General Manager of LIC of India, Divisional Off...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Kitex Garments

Court: Kerala

1. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The question raised is whether the CESTAT is justified in holding that the respondent is entitled to duty exemption on import of parts of buttons used for making garments for export. Admittedly the claim is under Notification 21/02 (Customs) dated 1.3.2002 granting exemption from import duty on tags, labels, stickers, belts, buttons or hangers imported by bona fide exporters. The Department’s case is that the respondent has not imported the buttons in full but imported only parts of buttons, which are not entitled to exemption. Learned counsel for the respondent produced before the Tribunal the parts of button used in the making of garments. The Tribunal on being convinced that the parts of button make up full button when fixed on the garment upheld the respondent’s eligibility for exemption. During hearing of this appeal, the respondent’s counsel produced before us the part...

Ramachandran Vs. K. Radhakrishnan and Others

Court: Kerala

Appellant is the second defendant in O.S.No.527/2000 on the file of Principal Munsiff Court, Kozhikode, a suit for partition instituted by the Choyikutty, the deceased plaintiff. The plaint schedule properties admittedly originally belonged to Cherukuttikomath Kelu and his brother Kunhikoru @ Appukuttan under registered partition deed 1601/1930. Kelu admittedly died prior to 1956. Kunhikoru died in 1978. Defendants 1, 2 Rugmini and Karthiayani are the children of Kelu. His wife also died. Third defendant is the only son and legal heir of Rugmini who died in 1985. Plaintiff is the husband of Karthiayani. Karthiayani died on 18.3.2000. On the death of first defendant, fourth defendant his wife was impleaded. It is also the admitted case that on the death of Kelu, his one half right in the plaint schedule properties devolved only on his sons, defendants 1 and 2 as they are Thiyyas of Kozhikode and are governed by Makathayam Law of inheritance. The wife of Kunhikoru admittedly predeceased ...

Kerala Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd., Rep by Its Manag ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(3)KLJ657; 2011(3)KLT893; 2011(3)ILR(Ker)897; 2011(3)KHC660

Fourth defendant in O.S.268/1998 on the file of III Additional Sub Court, Kozhikode is the appellant. First respondent was the plaintiff and other respondents other defendants in the suit. First respondent admittedly obtained the right to run the canteen from the appellant agreeing to pay a monthly rent of Rs.1555/- on 25.9.1987. An advance of three months rent was paid. The period of the rental arrangement was one year. Subsequently it was admittedly extended for two years. When first respondent did not surrender the building on the expiry of the period, appellant demanded rent at the rate of Rs.2500/- and initiated steps to evict him by recourse to the provisions of Kerala Public Buildings (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1968. Though first respondent instituted O.S.453/1990 seeking a decree for injunction from eviction and an ex parte order of injunction was granted, it was vacated on 5.2.1992 when the suit was dismissed. Though first respondent filed A.S.35/1992 he could n...

M/S Poomkudy Force and Another Vs. S. Chandrasekharan and Another

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU PRESIDENT Appeal withdrawn. Memo filed mentioning that the decree holder, decree debt deposited before the District Forum, Idukki. Hence the appeal is closed....

M/S Infra Elevators India (P) Limited Vs. Abdulrahiman

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are M/s Infra Elevators India (P) Limited. The opposite party/appellant is the manufacturer of the lifts involved in the matter in CC.6/11 in the file of CDRF, Kasaragod. 2. The opposite party has been set ex-parte. 3. It is pointed out for the counsel for the appellant that the opposite party is mentioned as one Manoj Kumar V.A. Manager (Field Operations). According to the appellant, the above person has left the employment of the opposite party and that the appellant was not served with the notice. We find that the appellant has not been properly arrayed in the case. In the circumstances, the order of the Forum is set side. The matter is remitted back to the Forum. The Forum is directed to see that the cause title is properly amended and dispose of the matter on merits. The case stands posted before the Forum below on 6.9.11. Office will forward the copy of this order to the Forum....

icici Bank Ltd. Edappally Branch, B.M. Complex, Opposite St. George Ch ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant is the opposite party and respondent is the complainant in CC.496/08 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in deducting Rs.25,400/- towards the penal charges out of the interest due on the fixed deposits effected by the complainant and also for the failure of the opposite party in not paying the interest agreed on the fixed deposits for the period from 5/9/2008 to 18/10/2008. Thus, the complaint was filed claiming a sum of Rs.59,710/- with compensation and costs. 2. The opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency of service. It was contended that the complainant prematurely closed the 5 fixed deposits of Rs.10.lakhs each and so the opposite party bank was only liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum by deducting interest at the rate of 1% for premature closure of the fixed deposits. The af...

Sathiyamma Vs. Medical Superinteendent, N.S.S. Medical Mission Hospita ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The complainant in OP.47/03 before the CDRF, Pathanamthitta is the appellant herein who is aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint vide order dated 7.10.10 by the Forum below. 2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that she had undergone treatment in the first opposite party hospital and that the first opposite party treated her for ulcer on her left leg and that varicose operation was done on 25.5.1999 and that inspite of treatment and continuation of the treatment in other hospitals her condition became worse and alleging deficiency in service, the complaint was filed in 2003 claiming compensation and costs. 3. The opposite parties filed version denying the allegations of the complainant and also contending that the complaint was barred by limitation. It was their case that the complainant had undergone treatment and operation on 25.5.99 and the complaint was filed only in 2003 and that the said complaint was liable to be dismissed...