Kerala Court March 2012 Judgments

Jayaprakash Balakrishnan and Another Vs. Icici Banl Ltd., Bandra Kurla ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in CC.279/10 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The appeal is filed over the order in IA 868/10 with respect to the preliminary issue as to the valuation of the complaint. The Forum has held that the complainant has to be valued for Rs.75 lakhs which is the amount covered by the loan with respect to which the reliefs are sought and that the Forum lacked pecuniary jurisdiction. 2. The reliefs sought in the complaint are No.1 to set aside the demand notice with respect to Rs.3,75,710.89 and No.2 to direct the opposite party not to initiate for recovery proceedings against the complainants until loan amount is disbursed with the consent of the complainants and according to the contentions in the loan agreement and the agreement with the builder which was accepted by the opposite parties etc. The case of the complainant is that he was sanctioned a loan of Rs.85,50,000/- by the opposite party bank and that the entire amount...

Kalapurakal Automobiles, Ulloor, Rep. by Ksk Mohammed Vs. P. Jayantha ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The revision petitioner is the 2nd judgment debtor in EP.7/2000 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The revision petitioner is under orders along with the 1st opposite party manufacturer to pay a sum of Rs.1,32,000/- with interest at 16% from 14.4.98 and also to pay Rs.10000/- as compensation and Rs.3000/- as costs. Vide order in OP 473/98 dated 29..11..99 which was confirmed in appeal by the State Commission in appeal 24/2000 dated 12.1.01. He has sought for a direction to the effect that he being the dealer is not liable with respect to the manufacturing defects for which only 1st opposite party/manufacturer will be liable. The allegation of manufacturing defects was with respect to the 5 seater diesel autorikshaw purchased by the complainant from the revision petitioner/2nd opposite party manufactured by the 1st opposite party. The matter was considered in revision by the National Commission in Revision Petition No.7171/01 and the Revisi...

K. Sasidharan Vs. Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER Appellant is the complainant who came up in this appeal against the order of dismissal in CC No.16/10 of CDRF, Palakkad. 2. When this appeal came up for hearing the counsel for the appellant submitted before us that he is producing certain documents to substantiate his case. The complainant was a consumer of the opposite parties. The appellant was running a working womens hostel for poor women employees working in Kanjikode Industrial Area Palakkad. The water connection was intended for the purpose of the inmates. The appellant paid minimum rate for the water connection during Janu 09 to 30.12.09. They also had a bore well for their water purposes. The opposite parties issued a bill for Rs.74,360/- towards the arrears of surcharge and penal charges. The appellant is in no way consumed that much quantity of water as they had the bore well facility. Further the counsel for appellant contended that the complainant is entitled for exemption for water charges as per t...

Vice Chancellor, Kerala Agrl. University Post Vellayanikkara Vs. Dr. P ...

Court: Kerala

Babu Mathew P. Joseph, J. 1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.7.2011 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.4635 of 2011. The appellant, who is the Vice Chancellor of the Kerala Agricultural University, is the additional 4th respondent in the Writ Petition. The first respondent is the petitioner and the respondents 2 to 4 are the respondents 1 and 2 and the additional 3rd respondent respectively in the Writ Petition. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this Writ Appeal are stated as follows:- The first respondent is an Associate Professor (Animal Breeding and Genetics) in the College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Mannuthy under the second respondent Kerala Agricultural University. He had participated in the selection and screening proceedings conducted by the Selection/Screening Committee from 12.7.2007 to 20.7.2007 under the Career Advancement Promotion Scheme for promotion to the post of Professor. But, he was denied promotion by the Screening...

Kerala State Electricity Board, Rep. by Its Secretary, Vydhuthi Bhavan ...

Court: Kerala

Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. Writ Appeal is filed by KSEB challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge vacating the order of the Deputy Chief Engineer of the KSEB sustaining an electricity bill raised on respondent based on data gathered on inspection conducted by the Anti Power Theft Squad (APTS) of the KSEB. We have heard Senior counsel Sri.P.Santhalingam appearing for KSEB and also counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The respondent is an industrial consumer of electricity with LT-IV-3 phase connection with an authorised connected load of 80 KW. On 19.2.1999 the factory premises of the respondent was inspected by the Special Squad constituted by the KSEB along with their local Engineer. During inspection, the team noticed that the B phase of the CT power meter was reverse connected thereby neutralising even consumption recorded in the other two phases. In order to check whether the meter which was found to be in sealed and intact condition was working properly, the inspectio...

Abraham C. Joseph Vs. Union of India Rep. by Secretary to Govt. of Ind ...

Court: Kerala

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. This writ petition is filed seeking issuance of a writ of habeas corpus in re Alex C. Joseph, detained in terms of an order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, hereinafter, the 'Act'. That order of detention passed on 13.4.2000 was executed on 8.11.2011 after apprehending him on 6.11.2011. The petitioner says that he is the brother of the detenu. 2. The modus operandi attributed to the detenu and the different proceedings under the Customs Act and other provisions, as also the allegation that he had used different passports, are not matters for consideration by us, now. We say this because, hearing the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Solicitor General on behalf of the Union of India and the learned  Advocate appearing for the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, the sponsoring authority, in the light of the materials and affidavits on record, we are of the vie...

Yamuna Vs. Kerala State Financial Enterprises, Represented by Its Mana ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(2)ILR(Ker)781; 2012(2)KLT906; 2012(3)KLJ1

1. The prohibitory order issued by the concerned respondent and the notice issued by way of coercive steps, causing the salary of the petitioner to be attached in respect of the alleged default under a chit run by the first respondent is the subject matter of the dispute in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner is working as a teacher in the fourth respondent school and was a subscriber to the chitty bearing No.4/01-24 run by the respondents 1 and 2, (The Kerala State Financial Enterprises – a State Government concern) in the Chengannur branch, having a prize value of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs). The monthly installment to be effected was at the rate of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand), in tune with the terms of the chit the ‘Variola’, a copy of which has been produced as Ext.R1(b). The petitioner has effected the first installment, which undoubtedly has gone to the ‘foreman’, as in the case of all subscribes to the chit. In the next month, the pet...

K.G. Kailasanathan Vs. Sajish Babu @ Kuttan and Another

Court: Kerala

JUDGMENT 1. The complainant is in appeal. His complaint filed under section 138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act ended in acquittal under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The case of the prosecution is that the accused owed an amount of Rs.60,000/- and to discharge that debt Ext.P2 cheque dated 18.03.2004 was issued. When presented for encashment, it was dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of funds. On receipt of the dishonour memo, statutory notice was sent by registered post on 12.4.2004. The registered postal cover was returned 'unclaimed'. That returned postal cover, Ext.P5, was delivered to the complainant only on 27.04.2004. The complaint was filed on 03.06.2004. The court below found that the period should be reckoned from 15.04.2004 itself which was the date on which the notice was stated to have been refused or unclaimed by the addressee. Accepting that contention, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. 2. The short, but important que...

C. Sadanandan Vs. the Chief Engineer, National High Ways, Thiruvananth ...

Court: Kerala

1. The petitioner is a registered contractor. The third respondent, as per Ext.P1 tender notification dated 20.12.2002, invited tenders for the collection of toll from the vehicles passing through Arappuzha Bridge on NH-17 across Chaliyar River at Kozhikode. The period for the collection was from 1.4.2003 to 31.3.2004 or upto 31.3.2004 from the date of handing over of the right or upto the date of service of notice terminating contract. The last date for submitting tender was 23.1.2003 and 4.30 p.m. on that day was fixed for opening the tenders. Ext.P2 is the forwarding slip to accompany the tender. 2. Pursuant to Ext.P1, the petitioner and 15 others submitted their tenders. The amount offered by the petitioner was the highest. The 2nd, 3rd and the 4th highest offers were that of the respondents 4, 5 and 6 respectively. 3. Form No.83 containing the terms and conditions formed part of the tender. Ext.P3 is some of the relevant portions of Form No. 83. As per Clause 12 of Form No.83 and ...

O.P. Chandran Vs. CochIn Devaswom Board, Thrissur Rep. by Its Secretar ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(2)KLT675

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. The captioned DBAs are different applications filed by Cochin Devaswom Board, for short, the "CDB", seeking approval for the auction/sale conducted in relation to vedivazhipadu in different temples during the year 2011. When these matters came up on 11.1.2012, we were not shown any earlier order of this Court which requires such sanction being obtained from this Court. Approvals need be sought only when there are directions as to obtain approval. It was also then stated by this Court in clear terms that the grant of approval by the Court cannot be utilized to close off the right of any party who may have the right in law, to challenge any particular contract proceedings or even when it becomes necessary to challenge certain actions on other grounds. Orders of approvals granted by the High Court in such matters cannot be utilised to shield the CDB authorities against any allegation as to any wrong committed by it in its administrative proceedings. Afte...