Kerala Court September 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.
Secretary, Paippad Grama Panchayat Vs. Tessy P. Das
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-05-2011
Antony Dominic Respondent in W.P.(C) No.13194/2007 is the appellant. The Writ Petition was filed by the respondent herein to direct the appellant to register the death of her husband Sri.Jose Das T.V. and to issue a death certificate. The Writ Petition was allowed by judgment dated 28th of November, 2007 and it is aggrieved by the said judgment, this appeal is filed. 2. The facts which led to the filing of the Writ Petition are that the husband of the respondent, a resident of Paippadu Grama Panchayat in Kottayam District died at Madurai in Tamil Nadu. His dead body was brought to Paippadu and was buried at the cemetery of St.Thomas Church, Paippadu, his parish church. Ext.P3 is the certificate issued by the Vicar of the Church. Enclosing Ext.P3, the respondent made an application for registration of death and to issue a death certificate. But the application was rejected by Ext.P4 order of the appellant on the ground that the death occurred outside the territorial jurisdiction of the ...
V. Subramanyan Vs. P. Ambunhi and Others
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Sep-05-2011
SHRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR: MEMBER In this appeal, the order dated:14.10.2010 of CDRF, Kasaragod in CC.31/10 is assailed by the 4th opposite party who is aggrieved by the directions contained in the order whereby the opposite parties including the appellant are under directions to refund Rs.62,000/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of complaint till payment with cost of Rs.3000/-. 2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that she had subscribed to a chitty conducted by the opposite parties believing that they had a valid license to run the chitty and that she had paid 31 instalments at the rate of Rs.2,000/- and it is her case that before completing the chitty, the opposite parties absconded, closing the chitty offices and appropriating the chitty amounts. Praying for an order directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.62,000/- with Rs.20,000/- as compensation and cost of Rs.2000/- the complaint was filed. 3. Though notices were issued, except the 4th opposite party,...
The Manager, Muthoot Leasing and Finance Limited and Another Vs. Prave ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Sep-05-2011
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT Revision petitioners are the opposite parties in CC.81/10 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The order sought to be revised is the one issued in I.A.107/1 rejecting the contention that the complaint is not maintainable. 2. The case of the revision petitioner is that there is a clause in the agreement that the disputes have to be resolved by arbitration. It is a settled position that such clauses will not inhibit the CDRF from entertaining the matter especially in view of Sec.3 of the Consumer Protection Act. We find that there is no illegality in the order of the Forum. There is no scope for admitting the revision petition. The revision petition is dismissed in-limine. Office will forward a copy of this order to the Forum....
T.P. Shaju Vs. E.K. Aleyamma
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Sep-03-2011
SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER Being aggrieved by the directions contained in the order dated 30.10.2010 of CDRF, Wayanad in CC 82/2010, the opposite party has come up in this appeal calling for the interference of this Commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below. By the impugned order the opposite party is under directions to refund Rs.5000/- with compensation of Rs.10000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order. 2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he had entrusted the opposite party to record the betrothel and marriage function of her daughter in video CD and that an advance of Rs.2000/- was given towards the total agreed amount Rs.5000/-. The case of the complainant is that though the complainant asked for the CD recorded, the opposite party did not give it by raising one or other reasons. It is also her case that on filing a complaint before the police, the CD was shown to her which lacked the...
Kalpaka Motors and Another Vs. Abdul Nazir
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Sep-03-2011
SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR, MEMBER The order dated 19.2.10 of CDRF, Kasaragod in CC.171/08 directing the opposite parties to return the vehicle bearing registration No.KL 14 D 7408 to the complainant in its original condition as on 1.1.08 along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of Rs.3000/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order failing which interest is payable at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of complaint is being assailed in this appeal by the opposite parties. 2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he had entrusted his Mahindra Champion Carrier goods vehicle with the first opposite party for minor repairs and that after inspecting the vehicle the opposite party agreed to do the repairs for a sum of Rs.2500/- and to return the vehicle on 3.1.08. It is the case of the complainant that on 3.1.08 when he approached the opposite party for taking the vehicle, he was demanded a sum of Rs.11,000/- towards repair charges. It is also ...
Branch Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd. and Another Vs. Santha Push ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Sep-03-2011
JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/Insurance Company in OP.928/2001 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 12% from 19.7.01 and cost of Rs.900/-. 2. The matter relates to the alleged accidental death of the husband of the complainant that took place in Kuwait on 23.4.01. It is stated that the deceased fell from the top of the building at his place of employment. The deceased was having policy coverage with respect to accidental death. 3. Opposite parties/appellants have contended that the death was suicide and not due to any accident. It is also pointed out that no records produced by the complainant in this regard. The investigator has reported that the deceased committed suicide as he was jobless and was also depressed as he did not save anything so far. The opposite parties have stressed that the complainant is not entitled for the benefits of the policy as death was ...
V.K. Sreenivasan Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-02-2011
C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. 1. These income tax appeals are filed against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal declining to entertain the appeals filed on account of inordinate delay in filing the same. Admittedly, two of the appeals were filed with a delay of 1830 days and the third appeal was filed with a delay of 735 days. The appellants’ case is that the Tribunal, without giving a hearing on the delay condonation petitions, proceeded to consider the delay condonation petition, proceeded to consider the delay condonation petition on merit and decided the same against the appellants. Consequently, the Income Tax Appeals got dismissed on account of the delay in filing the same. it is against the orders declining to condone the delay, the appellant has filed these appeals. At the admission stage, the standing counsel for Revenue took notice and we have heard him also. 2. Before proceeding to consider the appellant’s challenge on merits against the orders issued by...
The Commissioner of Income Tax, CochIn Vs. Abad Fisheries
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-02-2011
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. These are appeals filed by the Revenue challenging the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal declaring the re-assessments completed on the respondent-assessee under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter called “the Act”) for the assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 as invalid. We have heard Senior Counsel Sri. P.K.R. Menon appearing for the Revenue and Senior counsel Sri. G. Sarangan along with Adv. Sri. P. Balakrishnan appearing for the respondent-assessee. 2. The facts leading to the controversy are the following. The assessee filed income tax return for all the above assessment years in time and the returns were processed and intimations were also sent by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(1) of the Act. However, when the Assessing Officer noticed escapement of income, he issued notice under Section 148 proposing to make income escaping assessment under Section 147 of the Act. Even though the ass...
T.P. Abdul Jaleel Vs. T.C. Chandran Gurikkal Kairali Kalari Sangham
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Sep-02-2011
SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER This appeal is filed by the complainant in CC 455/2010 before the CDRF Kozhikode who is aggrieved by the order dated 18-2-2011, in theI.A. No. 45/11, passed by the Forum below allowing the petition. 2. The complainant had approached the Forum stating he had undergone treatment under the opposite party on 18-6-2011 consequent to an accident and that the treatment given to him was not proper and hence alleging deficiency in service, the complaint was filed for directions to the opposite party to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and costs. 3. The opposite party filed a petition contesting the maintainability of the complaint by filing I.A. 45/11 wherein it was argued that the complaint was barred by limitation. It is stated that the complainant had availed the service on 18-6-2001 and it was after 9 years that the present complaint was filed in 2010. The opposite party submitted before the Forum that the complaint was to be dismissed as time barred. 4....
Thomas Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-01-2011
Thomas P. Joseph, J. 1. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.518 of 2009 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Irinjalakuda. That was a suit for money filed against the respondent. The case was referred to the Lok Adalath where the dispute was settled and Ext.P1, award was passed on 12.3.2010 for ’15 lakhs without interest and costs. The Lok Adalath in Ext.P1, award directed that 1/10th of the court fee paid by the petitioner be refunded. Based on that award, petitioner filed Ext.P2, application before the learned Sub Judge to issue certificate for refund of 1/10th of the court fee paid on the plaint. That application was dismissed as per Ext.P3, order placing reliance on the decision of this Court in John Arthur Henshaw v. Sulochana, 2010 (1) KLT 10.Ext.P3, order is under challenged 2. It is contended that the decision relied on by the learned Sub Judge has no application to the facts of the case since in the reported case there was no order by the Lok Adalath to refund 1/10th of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »