Kerala Court July 2011 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
C.R. Seminlal and Others Vs. M/S. Santimadom Builders and Developers a ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jul-18-2011
SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The above appeals are preferred against the order dated 5.8.2010 of CDRF, Ernakulam in C.C. 410/08 wherein and whereby the opposite party is under direction to refund Rs. 2lakhs to the complainant together with interest at 12% per annum from the date of receipt of the above amount till realization with compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- Appeal 616 is filed by the complainant for enhancement of the compensation and appeal 653/10 is filed by the opposite party for setting aside the order of the Forum. The case of the complainant before the Forum was that he entered in to a contract with the opposite party for the sale of an apartment proposed to be constructed by the opposite party for Rs, 10,00,000/- and an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs was received on the date of entering into contract on 21.8.2007 and that it was agreed that the balance amount would be paid on or before 28/2/08. The complainant has alleged that the opposite party agreed to provide 2 acres of ag...
Managing Director, Kuttikkad Farmers Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Simi
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jul-18-2011
SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant is the opposite party and respondent is the complainant in CC.1019/07 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in reducing the rate of interest on the amount which was deposited by way of fixed deposit under a special scheme. 2. The opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. It was contended that the rate of interest was reduced as per the circular issued by the registrar of co-operative societies and based on the proceedings of the Directors Board of the opposite party/bank. Thus, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint in CC1019/07 3. Before the Forum below Exts.P1, P2 and R1 to R3 documents were produced and marked on the side of the parties to the said complaint. 4. On an appreciation of the documentary evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated 3rd Febru...
Managing Director, Kuttikkad Farmers Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. K.A. D ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jul-18-2011
SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant is the opposite party and respondent is the complainant in CC.1067/07 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in reducing the rate of interest on the amount which was deposited by way of fixed deposit under a special scheme. 2. The opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. It was contended that the rate of interest was reduced as per the circular issued by the Registrar of co-operative societies and based on the proceedings of the Director Board of the opposite party/bank. Thus, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint in CC1067/07 3. Before the Forum below Exts.P1 and R1 to R3 documents were produced and marked on the side of the parties to the said complaint. 4. On an appreciation of the documentary evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated 3rd February 2...
M/S. Popular Vehicles and Services Ltd. Vs. Roy Varghese Pulickapparam ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jul-16-2011
SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant is the opposite party and respondent is the complainant in OP.376/04 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party in illegally collecting additional sales tax. The opposite party contended that the additional sales tax was collected on the believe that the Government will be introducing additional sales tax with effect from 1st April 2003 and that the collection of additional sales tax for the period from 1/4/2003 up to 30/6/2003 has been deemed as collection of tax validly done by virtue of the amendment of Kerala General Sales Tax Act, (3rd amendment). Thus, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 2. Before the Forum below Exts.A1 to A3 and B1 to B3 documents were produced and marked on the side of the parties to the said complaint. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the imp...
Dr. N.K. Mohammed Basheer and Others Vs. C.K. Ahmed Kutty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-15-2011
1. Petitioners-defendants in O.S.No.111 of 2006 of the Court of learned Sub Judge, Sulthan Bathery made an attempt to nip the suit against them in the bud by taking recourse to Rule 11(a) and (d) of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”) Learned Sub Judge nipped that attempt in the bud. Hence, this civil revision. 2. The parties are closely related-by blood and/or bond-first petitioner is the husband of the second petitioner. Second petitioner is the daughter of respondent. Third petitioner is said to be private limited company of which petitioners 1 and 2 are the directors. Respondent, who claimed to be a person of Indian origin settled and living in the United States of America, a medical practitioner by profession claimed to have advanced certain amount to the first petitioner from his NRI account for acquisition of the suit property and claimed reliefs against petitioners such as, a declaration that petitioners hold the suit property in trust f...
Mahesh @ Punchiri Mahesh and Others Vs. State of Kerala, Represented b ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-15-2011
Bail Application No.5143 of 2011 is filed by accused No.2 (Mahesh alias Panchiry Mahesh) and accused No.4 Shafeek; Bail Application No.5396 of 2011 is filed by accused No.6 (Santhosh Nair and Bail Application No.5441 of 2011 is filed by accused No.5 (Santhosh alias Container Santhosh) in Crime No.100/CR/KLM/EOW1/2011 of CBCID, Kollam. All these Bail Applications are filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Accused Nos.2 and 4 were arrested on 13-5-2011. Accused No.5 was arrested on 17-5-2011. Accused No.6 was arrested on 21-5-2011. 3. V.B. Unnithan, a reporter of Mathrubhumi daily was brutally attacked on the night of 16th April 2011. V.B. Unnithan returned from the Mathrubhumi office at Ramankulangara and he reached Sasthamcotta by traveling in a bus. At Sasthamcotta, he proceeded to take his motor bike. At that time, accused Nos.1 to 4 attacked him with iron pipes. Unnithan sustained serious injuries, namely, fracture of both the bones of his left leg, fracture o...
N. Natarajan Vs. State of Kerala and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-15-2011
1. Both these writ petitions concern the affairs of a High School, viz. Ganapathy Vilasam High School at Koovappady. WP (C) No. 16843/2010 is filed by one of the owners and Managing Committee members of the school, aggrieved by Ext. P5 order passed by the Government in a review petition filed by respondents 3 and 4 therein. The fifth respondent, viz. the Dharma Paripalana Sabha has obtained as per two sale deeds, the rights of respondents 3 and 4 therein, in regard to the properties and right of management of the school. WP (C) No. 19196/2010 is filed by the Sabha and respondents 3 and 4 in the other writ petition, challenging the order passed by the Director of Public Instruction, which is confirmed by the Government refusing permission for the transfer. 2. The case of the petitioner in WP (C) No. 16843/2010 is that the school was established in the year 1938 by late Shri. A. S. Narayana Iyer, with the intention of promoting education among the Tamil Brahmin community which is a relig...
City Gas Agencies Vs. T.J. Cherian and Others
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jul-15-2011
SHRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA: MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam in C.C.No.439/2008 order dated 18-10-2010. The appellant is the 1st opposite party dealer and the respondent is the complainant therein and respondents 2 and 3 are the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties, respectively in the above case. The appellant is the 1st opposite party who is the dealer prefers this appeal under the order of the forum below that to pay for Rs.5000/- as the compensation to the complainant along with a cost Rs.1000/- by the first opposite party. There is no liability fixed by the forum below against the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties in the order. 2. In short, the complainant had availed an Indiane Gas connection at Thrissur on 29.1.2008. When the complainant was transferred to Cochin, to apply for the transfer of the said connection to the 1st opposite party in Cochin. He approached the 1st opposite party with the transfer voucher on 4-2-2008. This t...
St. Anthonyâs Motors India Ltd., Vs. M.E. Varghese
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jul-15-2011
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Revision petitioner is the opposite party in CC.152/09/ respondent in EA 53/09 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. Forum below has issued a non speaking order directing to issue RR proceedings. 2. It is submitted by the revision petitioner/opposite party that the order of the Forum has been fully complied with and that incident alleged has taken place subsequent the compliance of the order of the Forum. It is the case of the revision petitioner he had produced the relevant documents also before the Forum. In the circumstances order being not a considered one the same is set aside. The forum is directed to consider the matters urged by the respondent/opposite party/revision petitioner and dispose of the matter by a speaking order, The matter stands posted before the Forum on 26.8.2011. The office will forward the LCR alongwith the copy of this order to the Forum urgently....
M.L. Anto Vs. K.M. Antony and Others
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jul-15-2011
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER The appellant is the 3rd opposite party in the O.P. No. 633/00 which filed by the complainant and order passed by the CDRF, Thrissur on 21.3.2001. The respondents are the complainant and other opposite parties respectively. In short the complainant subscribes to the opposite parties a fridge scheme and the scheme included 30 installments which remitted by Rs. 300/- each. The opposite parties after 20th installment on 25.2.1998, stopped the scheme. On 22.8.98, the opposite parties given a Soda Maker worth Rs. 950/- to the complainant. The complainant altogether remitted a total amount of Rs. 6,000/- and Rs. 5050/- is with the opposite parties. The complainant is entitled to get amount with interest, cost and compensation from the opposite parties for deficiency in service on their part according to the provisions of C.P. Act. Hence the complaint. The Forum below issued notice to all the opposite parties , the first opposite party called absent and said e...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »