Kerala Court September 2011 Judgments

K.S. Rajan Vs. Food Inspector, Chalakkudy Circle, Chalakkudy and Anoth ...

Court: Kerala

Ramkumar, J. This revision comes up for consideration before us on a reference made by a learned Judge, Justice M. Sasidharan Nambiar. According to the learned Judge, decisions of this Court in Food Inspector V. Sivarama Menon (1990 (1) KLT 393) and Beena V. State of Kerala (2010(2) KLT SN 17 (Case No.21) were rendered without adverting to an earlier decision of this Court in Krishnankutty Nair V. George (1986 KLT 871) and the ratio in those two decisions (Food Inspector V. Sivarama Menon (Supra) and Beena V. State of Kerala) (Supra) as well as the ratio in an unreported decision in Crl.R.P.No.140/1977 holding the view that the presence of talc (Magnesium silicate), which is neither a colouring matter nor a pigment in the very same food grain namely, black gram dhal, does not attract the prohibition under Rule 27 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (the Rules for short) is ignoring the fact that even if talc is not a colouring matter or a pigment, talc is not a permitted...

Dr. Sunil Kumar, Indira Dandhi Co-operative Hospital Vs. P. Mohanan an ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant is the 1st opposite party and respondents 1 to 3 are the complainant and opposite parties 2 and 3 respectively in OP.468/2000 on the file of CDRF, Kannur. The complaint in the aforesaid consumer complaint was filed alleging medical negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in treating and subjecting the complainants son Deepak for Lymphnode Biopsy at the 2nd opposite party, IndiraGandhi Co-operative Hospital, Thalassery. It was alleged that the appellant/1st opposite party, Dr.Sunil Kumar.K was negligent in diagnosing the disease of the complainants son and due to his negligent and careless diagnosis, the complainant and his wife suffered mental agony and financial loss. It was also alleged that the 3rd opposite party, M/s Sudharma Laboratory, Thrissur was negligent in submitting Lymphnode biopsy report. Thus, the complainant claimed a sum of Rs.1.57,380/- as compensation under various heads. 2. The 1st op...

Secretary, Kseb, Vaidhyuthi Bhavan Vs. Sri. G. Murali Thamarasseril, A ...

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, Alleppey in CC No. 166/03 dated 26.12.08. 2. The appellant is the opposite party and the respondent is the complainant. 3. The appellant prefers to this appeal from the order passed by the CDRF in the above case, the Forum below directed the 1st opposite party to pay the compensation of Rs.4,000/- and cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. 4. On this day, this appeal came before this commission for final hearing the appellant is represented through the counsel and respondent is absent and there is no representation for the respondent. 5. The respondent is a consumer of the opposite parties, who submitted an application for getting electric connection. For this application he remitted a fee of the opposite party. An employee of the appellant visited the house, taken the estimate etc. The grievance of the complainant is that even though the no electric post is necessary, one electric post was installed...

Mariyamma Vs. the Assistant Executive Engineer Kerala State Electricit ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT Revision petitioner is the complainant in OP.59/06 and the petitioner in EA.66/10 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad. The complainant was directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- and the opposite parties were directed to give reconnection as per order in the I.A dated: 13.2.04. The OP itself was disposed of on 6.2.08 as per which the order directing to remit Rs.5000/- was sustained and the bill issued by the opposite parties for Rs.22,000/- for the balance amount was cancelled. Evidently, the order of the Forum was very much beneficial to the complainant. The Forum dismissed the EA as the complainant did not comply the order dated 13.2.04. 2. It is the case of the revision petitioner/complainant that she was laid up and hence could not remit the amount ie; Rs.5000/-. Nothing has been produced to substantiate the case that she was laid up. Further the complainant has not petitioned to the KSEB seeking extension of time to deposit the amount. 3. In the circumsta...

M. Thampan Nair and Another Vs. Kalyani and Others

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT Revision petitioners are the opposite parties in OP.216/04 and the respondent in EA.101/10 in the file of CDRF, Kasaragod. As per the order in OP.216/04 dated 27.1.05 the revision petitioner is under orders to pay Rs.50,000/- with interest as ordered and cost of Rs.1000/-. 2. The case of the revision petitioner is that the EP has been filed after 7 years and that he had agreed to settle the matter and paid Rs.7,000/- at the adalath. He has sought for an order to withhold the arrest warrant issued by the Forum. 3. We find that there is no illegality in filing the EA after 7 years. Evidently, revision petitioner is attempting to evade payment. In the circumstances, we find that there is no scope for admitting the revision petition. The revision petition is dismissed in limine. Office is directed to forward the copy of this order to CDRF Kasaragod....

Sheeja Asokan Vs. Branch Manager, Kerala State Financial Enterprises K ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABANU,PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in CC.192/07 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The complaint stands dismissed. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he had joined in 2 numbers of chitty No.29/08 as chital Nos.59 and 60 with a sala of Rs.5 lakh each. As per the brochure published by the opposite parties the subscribers are entitled for loan of 10% of the sala on after remittal of the first instalments and after remittal of 10% of the sala amount, the subscribers are entitled for 50% of the sala amount as loan. The chitty is to terminate after 100 instalments ie; in May 2006. After remitting the 12th instalment he applied for 50% of the sala as loan as promised. He had already availed the loan of Rs.47000/- after remitting the first installment. The opposite party allowed only one loan of Rs.2.25 lakhs in chitty No.59 on the ground that the security furnished is not sufficient. Subsequently the opposite party also initiated RR proceedings for recovery...

M/S Lourdes Hospital, Rep.by the Director and Another Vs. P.C.Haridasa ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/hospital and the consultant urologist who are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.12000/- towards treatment expenses and compensation of Rs.12000/- and cost of Rs.1500/- in OP 862/02 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he underwent laser treatment for kidney stone at the opposite party hospital. On 6.6.2002 the procedure was done by the 2nd opposite party urologist. He paid a sum of Rs.8500/-. He was discharged on the next day. As per the scan report a stone of the size of 30 x 6mm was located in the right kidney. He underwent the above procedure as referred to the above hospital by Dr.S.G.Rajan, Civil Surgeon attached to General hospital, Ernakulam. From 28.7.02 the complainant again experienced severe pain and he was again admitted at the opposite party hospital. On X-ray it was found that the stone was not removed completely. The 2nd opposite party conducted another laser ...

Sajitha B., Thiruvananthapuram Vs. State of Kerala, Rep. by Principal ...

Court: Kerala

RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. 1. Whether the amendment to Rules 14 and 15 of Part II KS and SSR, substantially changing the concept of ‘selection year’ and the manner in which the rules of reservation/rotation are to be applied (as per Ext.P5 notification dated 08.03.2006, to effective from 02.02.2006) has any adverse effect on the rank lists already published or whether the scope of amendment has to be restricted only to the rank lists which are published on or after 02.02.2006, forms the basic issue for consideration in this appeal. 2. The appellant is the unsuccessful writ petitioner. The third respondent, Kerala Public Service Commission, invited application for the post of Lecturer in Islamic History in the Collegiate Education Department, as per the Gazette notification dated 18.12.2011. The appellant, having the requisite qualification, applied for the post and on finalization of the selection process, she was included at rank No.5 in Ext.P4 rank list published on 28.11.2003...

Sithara D/O. Thulaseedharan Pillai Vs. Harikrishnan Nair S/O. Unnikris ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(4)KLT492; 2011(4)KLJ570; 2011(4)ILR(Ker)528; 2011(4)KHC375

1. Appeal is admitted. Service complete, Respondent appears through counsel. Heard. 2. Appellant sought an order declaring that the marriage solemnized between her and the respondent on 8.5.2008 is null and void since he then had a spouse living. If her allegations are established, she is entitled to the relief in view of Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Family Court dismissed her application. Hence this appeal. 3. Respondent remained ex-parte in the Family Court. Appellant deposed as PW1. She stated that She came to know that the respondent had been married before. She produced Ext.A2, the photocopy of the certificate of marriage solemnized on 19.10.2002 between the respondent and Suji Raj. The Family Court held that the particulars of the prior marriage of the respondent are not specifically pleaded and Ext.A2, Being only a Photostat copy, cannot be acted upon. 4. Appellant, as PW1, spoke about her information as to the previous marriage of the respondent. Her testim...

Velayudhan Vs. Deepa and Another

Court: Kerala

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. This appeal is filed against a consent decree passed by the Family Court, with application seeking condonation of delay of 785 days in filing it. 2. There is no dispute that what is impugned is a consent decree. The appellant pleads that he signed the consent under fear of being subjected to criminal cases if he were to refuse endorsing the compromise. Though that may be a matter for consideration by the court considering the compromise, on appropriate objection in that regard, that is not a ground for an appeal. Law dictates so, as is fairly well-settled in terms of the Code of Civil Procedure. There can be no distinction on this question when it comes to a Family Court. Section 19(2) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is similar to Section 96(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, on the face of Section 19(2) of the Family Courts Act, this appeal does not lie. The appeal is liable to be rejected, as one that is not provided for by law. 3. In the ...