Kerala Court February 2012 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.
Radha Ramakrishnan Vs. Dr. T.B. Culas and Another
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Feb-08-2012
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABANU,PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in CC.667/06 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The complaint stands dismissed for default. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant/complainant that the complainant was laid up and under treatment on account of the complications of the surgery conducted by the opposite parties and hence she could not be present on the particular date. 2. We find that the matter ought to have been brought to the notice of the Forum on the date on which the matter was posted in the list. All the same, the order of the Forum is set aside. The Forum is directed to permit the complainant to persue the matter and dispose of the case on merits. 3. The case stands posted before the Forum below on 15.3.2012. Office will forward a copy of this order to the Forum below urgently....
District Registrar, Registrar Office and Another Vs. K.K. Velappakutty
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Feb-08-2012
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/The District Registrar and Sub Registrar respectively in OP.638/01 who are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as costs. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he had executed a purchase deed of 4 cents of property before the 2nd opposite party vide registration 1232/01. The original registered document was not handed over to him within the stipulated period. He wanted the document to raise funds for the marriage of his niece by availing loan from the District Co-operative Bank. He could not effect the mutation or remit the land tax. He has sought for a compensation of Rs.25,000/-. 3. The 1st opposite party/District Registrar remained exparte. 4. The 2nd opposite party is filed version mentioning that he was of opinion that the property was under valued and hence the document has been sent to the District Registrar as per order dated:25.5.2001 and that as per section 45(...
Narayanan.K @ Manishilpi Vs. Balakrishnan Nair, President and Others
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Feb-08-2012
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appeal is filed in the opposite party in CC.84/11 in the order of CDRF, Palakkad. The Forum has rejected the contention of the opposite party disputing the maintainability of the complaint. The above order is challenged herein. 2. The contention of the appellant is that the contract involved in the matter is a contract of personal service which is excluded under the statute. 3. The matter of agreement involved in the complaint is that the complainant shall pave the temple premises with Krishnasila etc. According to the appellant, the same involved artistic execution of engravings on the slabs and hence the same is not a service envisaged under the CP Act. As per agreement dated 12.7.08, the opposite party had agreed to pave the temple premises with good quality of Krishnasila for a sum of Rs.9 lakh and received advance of 1.5 lakh. Subsequently, payments were made altogether amounting to Rs.9.4 lakhs. The opposite party has filed version. Th...
Devadathan and Others Vs. State of Kerala and Another
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-07-2012
1. In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioners, who are accused in C.C. 1392 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class II, Cherthala, seek an order to quash Annexure A3 final report alleging offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, with a plea that no offence is made out even by the averments in the final report. 2. Responding to the notice issued, the defacto complainant entered appearance. I have heard Sri. V.L. Shenoy, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Denizen Komath, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. Perused the documents including Annexure 3. 3. In Annexure 3 what is stated is that petitioners entered into an agreement for sale in respect of five cents of property comprised in Resurvey No.242/14/2A of Thanneermukkom Thekku Village and obtained a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as advance consideration. But they failed to execute the sale deed. 4. There is...
The Government of India, Ministry of Steel, New Delhi Rep. by the Secr ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-07-2012
P.S. Gopinathan, J. 1. Petitioner, the Union of India is the respondent in O.A.No.697/2009 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The respondent is the applicant before the Tribunal. The respondent is the wife of Sankaranarayanan, who is the only issue of late KPV Menon. KPV Menon, who was an Under Secretary under the petitioner, retired from service on 31.1.1981 and died on 21.8.2005. Sankaranarayanan being mentally retarded, the respondent was appointed as guardian as per the decree in O.S.No.332 of 2004 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Alathur, and in that capacity she is pursuing the claim. Application for family pension was filed claiming that Sankaranarayanan is physically and mentally disabled and therefore, irrespective of the age, by virtue of Rule 54(6) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, he is entitled to family pension. The petitioner rejected the claim. An application as O.A.No.374/2008 was preferred before the Tribunal. Th...
Popular Vehicles and Services Ltd. and Another Vs. R. Suresh Kumar
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Feb-07-2012
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT Delay condonation petition is dismissed. Hence appeal is also dismissed....
indus Motors Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mariyamma and Others
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Feb-07-2012
SHRI. M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Alappuzha in CC. No. 08/08. The appellants are the opposite parties 2and3, those who prefers this appeal under the directions of the Forum below that directed the 3rd opposite party to pay Rs. 69,000/- to the first complainant and the opposite party is further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 10,000/- The respondents are the complainants and other opposite parties respectively. Brief of the case is that the first respondent/complainant is the registered owner of the Maruthi Car and the second complainant is her husband, who was using the car. The same was insured with the 3rd opposite party. On 22.6.2007, the vehicle was driving by the second complainant, the front portion of the car caught fire and the said accident was duly intimated to the first , second and 4th opposite parties. On 25.6.07, at the instance of the second opposite party and 4th opposite parties, the vehicle was t...
The State of Kerala, Represented by the District Collecter, Kollam. an ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-06-2012
1. The revision is directed against the cancellation of the order of confiscation passed over a motor vehicle, a mini lorry, bearing registration No.KLI-5311, belonging to the 1st respondent under Section 61A of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961, for short, the ‘Act’ by the Divisional Forest Officer, Punalur. The above vehicle allegedly involved in the commission of a forest offence was ordered to be confiscated, after conducting an enquiry issuing a show cause notice, and, hearing the 1st respondent/owner of the vehicle. That confiscation order was reversed and set aside in appeal by the District Judge, Kollam. Questioning the propriety, correctness and legality of the cancellation and setting aside of the order of confiscation by the learned District Judge, the State with the forest officials has filed this revision. 2. Short facts involved in the case can be summed up thus: The forest officials attached to the Range office, Pathanapuram apprehended certain persons while they w...
Sheeba and Others Vs. Sasidharan and Another
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-06-2012
1. Defendants 6 to 8 in O.S. No 437/03 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Irinjalakuda, have filed this revision, challenging the order dated 6.6.2006 in I.A. No. 346/06 passed by the learned Sub Judge. 2. The above suit is one for partition and it was instituted by the 1st respondent and another as plaintiffs. However, later, the co-plaintiff with the 1st respondent was transposed as the additional 8th defendant in the suit. Suit property having an extent of 75 cents, was valued in the plaint at Rs. 7,50,000/-, and claiming to be joint possession with the other sharers, fixed court fee in respect of 2/8 shares of the plaintiffs was paid under Section 37(2) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “the act”). After the transposition of the 2nd plaintiff as additional 8th defendant in the suit, the valuation of the share of the remaining plaintiff - the 1st respondent, even on the valuation made in the plaint, is much less...
C. Prasannakumari Vs. C. Sudhakaran and Another
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-06-2012
K.T. SANKARAN, J. 1. The decree holder in O.S.No.435 of 2005 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Punalur, challenges the order dated 22nd July, 2009 in E.A.No.126 of 2007 in E.P.No.69 of 2007 as well as the order dated 23rd June, 2010 in E.A.No.132 of 2009. 2. The suit was filed for declaration of easement of necessity for access of the plaintiff to the plaint schedule property, fixation of eastern and southern boundaries of the plaint schedule property and to demolish the boundary illegally laid by the first defendant on the southern side of the plaint schedule property without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff. The respondents are the defendants in the suit. The defendants remained ex-parte in the suit. The trial court passed a judgment and decree on 17th February, 2006 as prayed for. 3. E.P.No.69 of 2007 was filed by the petitioner to execute the decree. The prayer in the Execution Petition was to appoint a Survey Commission to fix the eastern and southern boundaries of the...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »