Kerala Court September 2011 Judgments

Hdfc Bank Ltd., Hdfc Bank House, Senapathi Bapat Marg Vs. Anuraj

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The Revision Petitioner is the opposite party/HDFC Bank in I.A.151/11 in CC.203/11 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The Forum has directed the revision petitioner to issue cancellation of the hypothecation endorsement in the RC book of the vehicle for which a loan had been availed by the respondent/complainant. According to the complainant, the entire loan amount was paid consequent to the proceedings under the Securitization Act. It is in the above circumstances that the Forum has directed the opposite party/revision petitioner to release the endorsement with respect to hypothecation. 2. It is contended by the counsel for the revision petitioner, that the order has been issued exparte. It is the contention of the counsel for the revision petitioner that the respondent/complainant having other loans also the bank is having lien over the vehicle as per the agreement of the hypothecation. We find that no such contention is mentioned or the...

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Another Vs. G. Sivaraman ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR: MEMBER The opposite parties in CC.314/09 before the CDRF, Kollam are the appellants herein who are aggrieved by the order dated:30th November 2010 wherein and whereby the Forum below allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to sanction the pension to the complainant adopting combined rounding of past service and actual service. 2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he has joined service on 24.6.1995 and started contributing to the Employees Pension Fund Scheme from 24.6.1995 and that he left the service on 23.6.2005. It is his case that though he has applied for pension as per the EPS 1995, the opposite parties rejected the claim stating that the complainant did not have 10 years qualifying service and disputing the said contention of the opposite parties the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite parties to sanction the pension treating the service of the complainant as 10 years as he had 9 years and 10 m...

The Manager and Another, Dewan Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs. M. Ravidas

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Kasargod in C.C. No. 164/09 in the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum dated 24.1.2011. The appellant is the opposite party and the respondent is the complainant. The complainant alleged in his complaint that he availed a loan from the opposite party and sanctioned a loan amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- on 23.3.2007. This amount was availed by the complainant on 31.3.2007. He was regularly paying the installment with interest. Later he enquired about the transfer of the said loan from the appellant to S.B.I, Kasargod branch. The State Bank of India was ready to take over the loan with the appellant, by closing the loan with the appellant. Accordingly as required by the S.B.I., the first opposite party issued a letter to the manager, SBI, Kasargod branch informing the amount to be remitted by the respondent for closing the loan accordingly. S.B.I. arranged a sum of Rs. 4,68,905/- for the purpose of cl...

Union of India, Represented by Secretary and Others Vs. Rajesh Kachhap ...

Court: Kerala

The respondents in O.A.No.301/2007 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench are the petitioners. The respondent herein is the applicant before the Tribunal. The respondent was functioning as Deputy General Manager Finance and Accounts. On surprise inspection, certain irregularities regarding the payment of bills passed by the respondent were noticed. Thereupon vigilance enquiry was conducted. On the basis of the materials collected during the preliminary enquiry, a case as Crime No.R.C.A. No.MA1/2003 for offence under Section 120B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered against the respondent and two others. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), after further investigation filed Annexure-A1 report before the Principal Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai on 7.1.2005, reporting that the procedures laid down were not being implemented by the witnesses and other o...

Shastha Enterprises and Another Vs. Olam International Ltd.

Court: Kerala

K.M. Joseph, J. 1. ARBA No.40/2010 is directed against the order OP (Arb) No.21/2009 passed by the District Court, Kollam. The OP was filed under Sec.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the appellants to set aside the arbitral award dated 14.1.2009. ARBA No.41/2010 is filed against the order passed in OP (Arb) 231/2008 filed by the respondent under Sec.9 of the Act to secure the award amount that was likely to be passed in his favour. 2. The respondent company which is incorporated at Singapore is doing business in species, edible oil, nut etc. The appellant is a cashew exporter. Purchase confirmation note dated 2.5.2007 containing admitted signature of the appellant was issued agreeing to export cashew kernel to the respondent. Likewise, confirmation note dated 25.5.2007 was admittedly issued by the appellant. So also, confirmation note dated 6.7.2007 also containing the admitted signature of the appellant was issued agreeing to exp...

Apl (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chairman, CochIn Port Trust and Others

Court: Kerala

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.- Whether the liability to pay ‘Ground Rent’ in respect of the containers unloaded in the Cochin Port, lying uncleared by the Consignees/Importers and refused to be destuffed by the Port, for inadequate storage space, can be mulcted on the owners of the Vessel/Steamer Agents beyond 75 days, in view of the Scheme of the Statute (Major Port Trusts Act, 1963-in short ‘MPT Act’) and the contents of the TAMP (Tariff Authority for Major Ports) Orders dated 10-11-1999, 19-7-2000 and 13-9-2005, is the point. 2. Altogether nine Writ Appeals have been preferred against the common judgment dated 16-9-2002 in O.P. 9730 of 2000 and five other original petitions (total six original petitions). The above original petitions were filed by concerned Shipping Agents mainly for destuffing the cargo and to release the containers; to stop appropriation of any amount towards ‘Ground Rent’ from the ‘pre-deposits’ effected by them and al...

M/S Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. P.V. Alexander

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR,MEMBER The order dated 14.9.09 of CDRF, Alappuzha in CC.101/01 is challenged in this appeal by the opposite party who is under directions to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.3,40,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment with cost of Rs.1,000/-. 2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he had insured his oil mill and its goods with the opposite party for the period from 13.6.98 to 12.6.99 and that due to the strike of the employees, the copra kept in the oil mill got damaged and though he had filed claim for damages amounting to Rs.3,50,000/-, the opposite party repudiated the claim stating that the damage occurred in the insured premises would not fall within the purview of the policy. It was also submitted that the claim was a belated one and the complainant had not moved any police case regarding the strike of the workers and hence the opposite parties submitted that there was no defi...

R.K. Suraj Vs. P. Anil and Others

Court: Kerala

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. Admission to the super specialty medical course namely D.M. Gastroenterology is the subject matter of controversy in these three writ appeals, two filed by the State and the other filed by a doctor in the Government Service seeking admission based on condition in the prospectus. Out of the total 10 seats available for admission to the course for 2011-12, the prospectus provides that 7 seats will go to General Merit Quota, 2 for Medical Education Service (MES) Quota and the remaining one was reserved for Health Service Quota. There is no dispute with regard to the admissions given to the 7 seats in the General Merit Quota and one to the Health Service Quota. However, from the results of entrance examination it turned out to be that there is no claimant for admission in the quota reserved for MES. Consequently, in terms of clause X(c) of the prospectus the two seats available from MES quota were allotted to the candidates from Health Service which was questi...

A1 Shifa Super Speciality Hospital for Piles Vs. A1 Shifa Hospitals (P ...

Court: Kerala

1. The defendant in O.S.15 of 2005, who suffered decree in a passing of action is the appellant. 2. The plaintiff hospital established in 1989 is well equipped and offers specialised treatments for various ailments. It also runs several sister institutions. They have adopted the mark of ‘A1-Shifa Hospital’. By virtue of long, continuous and extensive user of the said mark, it has become a house hold name. Patients from abroad knowing about the quality of the service offered by the hospital come for treatment. The plaintiffs claimed that they moved an application for registration of the above mark. According to the plaintiff, they have spent huge amounts for advertisement of the mark ‘A1-Shifa Hospital’ and the name has acquired a distinctive character. The hospital has earned goodwill and high reputation in the process. The complaint was that the plaintiff happened to come across a few advertisements made mention of in the plaint in leading newspapers in respect...

The Commissioner of Central Excise and Another Vs. the Chief Commissio ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(4)KLT124(C.No.136)(SN); 2011(4)KHC362

COMMON JUDGMENT O.P. (CAT) 204 of 2010 was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Whereas W.P.(C) 14028 of 2010 was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Both the petitions are preferred against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in O.A. 226 of 2009 dated 13.11.2009. Petitioners in O.P. (CAT) 204 of 2010 are the applicants before the Tribunal. Petitioner in W.P.(C) is the second respondent before the Tribunal. (Hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the application before the Tribunal). The brief facts leading to the petitions are as follows: 2. The second respondent joined the service of applicants 1 and 2 on 20.3.1989 as an Upper Division Clerk. He, who is one arm disabled, was promoted as Tax Assistant on 11.5.1994. Tax Assistant has got two channels of promotion. One channel is as Deputy Office Superintendent (DOS) which is a ministerial cadre. The other is Inspector of Customs, which is an e...