Kerala Court March 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.
Unnikrishnan Vs. the Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Lt ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Mar-05-2012
SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER Dissatisfied by the order of dismissal of the complaint in CC No.164/08 by the CDRF, Kozhikode, the appellant/complainant came up in this appeal. 2. The complainant was the registered owner of Motor Cycle K11-W-6206 and on 2.8.2006 he met with an accident. The vehicle was having valid Insurance Policy. The complainant sustained injuries and was hospitalized. The vehicle was locked and kept near the accident spot. When the complainant got discharged from the hospital, it came to the knowledge that vehicle was stolen and lost beyond recovery. The accident case was registered with City Traffic Station and later on 16.8.06, the complainant registered crime No. 247/06 before the Medical College Police Station. The vehicle could not be recovered and received the final report from the Medical College Police Station as undetected. The claim form was filed before the opposite parties for the insurance amount which was repudiated. The reason stated by the opposite parties...
K.N. Marzook and Others Vs. A.J. Simon
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-04-2012
Chitambaresh, J. 1. Is 'functional integrity' a relevant factor apart from 'structural oneness' to decide whether the premises is a part of the building in the context of section 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 ('the Act' for short) We have heard Mr.Tom K Thomas, Advocate on behalf of the landlords and Mr.S.P.Chaly, Advocate on behalf of the tenant in extenso on this interesting question. An attempt to settle the dispute amongst the parties harmoniously by reference to the Mediation Centre has proved to be of no avail. 2. The landlord sought eviction of the tenant on the ground of arrears of rent, subsequent acquisition of building and additional accommodation. The arrears of rent were paid during the pendency of the proceedings and therefore the claim under section 11(2) of the Act does not survive. The claim for eviction on the ground of subsequent acquisition under section 11(4)(iii) of the Act has been concurrently turned down by the courts below an...
The Manager New Bharat Tyres India (P) Ltd. Vs. Sunny K. Uthup and Ano ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Mar-03-2012
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are the second opposite party in CC.166/11 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The appellants are under orders to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as costs. 2. The matter is with respect to the alleged fixing of the alloy wheels to the Fiat LINEA car. 3. The appellant was ex-parte before the Forum. 4. The appellant has sought for an opportunity to contest the matter. In the circumstances, the order of the Forum is set aside on condition that the appellant/second opposite party pay a sum of Rs.500/- towards costs to the complainant or deposit the same before the Forum which can be withdrawn by the complainant. On payment of cost, the Forum will permit the opposite party to contest the matter and dispose of the case after hearing version of the second opposite party as well. The case stands posted before the Forum below on 26/4/12. Office will forward a copy of this order to the Forum below....
Jose Valiyaveedan Vs. Giri K.George
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
1. The petitioner filed O.S.No.240 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Kottayam, against the respondent for realisation of money on the foot of a promissory note. The respondent/defendant denied the execution of the promissory note. He contended that he had joined a chitty run by the plaintiff and while receiving the prize amount, he was forced to handover a blank signed cheque, two signed blank papers and two unfilled printed forms. Though the amount covered by the chitty was repaid, the signed papers were not handed over. The defendant further contended that the plaintiff has filled the blank portions in the printed form and fabricated the suit promissory note. 2. The plaintiff was examined as PW1 and the defendant was examined as DW1. 3. After closing the evidence, the petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No.1976 of 2010 to recall the plaintiff and to mark certified copies of certain documents. That application was allowed by Ext.P7 order dated 20.8....
P.V. Mohan Kumar Vs. State of Kerala and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
1. The question posed before this Court is as to whether, for the purpose of Rule 45 of Chapter XIV-A K.E.R. and for appointment of Headmaster in a U.P. School, degree with T.T.C. can be treated as equivalent to degree with B.Ed. The essential facts for the disposal of the case are the following: 2. The petitioner is working as Assistant Teacher under the fifth respondent Manager and he was appointed as such on 1.6.1981. He had the qualification of P.D.C. with T.T.C. and later he graduated in B.A. in the year 2002. He has also passed Account Test Lower and Kerala Education Act and Rules in 1992. 3. The sixth respondent is the Teacher who has been promoted as Headmistress. She is having B.A. (Sanskrit) and B.Ed. The sixth respondent was appointed from 1.5.2003 as per Ext.P1 order. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Shri B.Raghunathan, Shri Jacob Sebastian, learned Counsel appearing for the sixth respondent and Shri Biju Meenattoor, learned Government Pleader. 5. Learned counsel...
P.C. Appukuttan, (Terminated), Alappuzha District., (Masdoor K.S.E.B.) ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P12 order of the 4th respondent by which, he has been removed from service. The petitioner was appointed as a Mazdoor/Electricity Worker under the 2nd respondent pursuant to an advise of the 3rd respondent dated 24.6.2003. Thereafter, Ext.P3 memo of appointment dated 13.8.2003 was issued to the petitioner. On the basis of Ext.P3, the petitioner joined the service of the 2nd respondent. 2. However, later on, certain complaints were raised against the appointment of the petitioner. Thereupon, as per Ext.P4 order dated 4.2.2004 the petitioner was suspended from service and disciplinary action was also initiated against him. The allegation against the petitioner was that the petitioner had suppressed from the 3rd respondent the fact that he has passed his SSLC examination, with the object of securing a job as Electricity Worker. 3. It was as per Ext.P1 notification that the 3rd respondent had invited applications for appointmen...
Lifetime Realty (P) Ltd., Rep by Its Authorised Signatory and Director ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
1. This Arbitration Request has been filed under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for short), seeking the appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the applicant and the respondents, arising out of Annexure A agreement. When the matter was heard, counsel for the first respondent contended that the agreement was not duly stamped as required under the Kerala Stamp Act. This contention is therefore considered as a preliminary issue. 2. Annexure A is the notarised copy of the agreement for sale dated 18th March 2008 between the applicant and he 1st respondent and its original is engrossed on stamp paper of Rs.100 only. Clauses 1 and 2 of the agreement, being relevant, are extracted below for reference; 1) The Vendor shall sell to the Purchaser and/or its nominee/nominees appointed in writing and the Purchaser agrees to purchase from the Vendor the entire shareholding of Goldview Vyaapar Pvt. Ltd., ...
Sivan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J. 1. The above Criminal Appeal arises from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc) - I, Pathanamthitta in S.C.No.443 of 2006. The appellant/accused is alleged to have torched his wife resulting in her death by reason of the 36% burns suffered by her. The death of the injured, according to the prosecution, was an inevitable conclusion of a sad life plagued with financial depravity and marital discord. 2. The prosecution case is initiated on the statement of the deceased recorded by P.W.20, on the strength of which F.I.R. (Exhibit P14) was initially registered under Sections 307 and 498A IPC on 17.10.2005. The deceased was under treatment in the Medical College Hospital while the First Information Statement Exhibit P12 was recorded by P.W.20. Subsequently, on her death at about 8.30 p.m. on the very same day, Exhibit P18 report was made deleting Section 307 and including Section 302 IPC. The case of the prosecution is built on the above statement record...
The Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Thiruvananthapuram Vs. Associated Indu ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. The short question arising for consideration in these connected appeals is whether the funds borrowed by the respondent Company from the directors for releasing mortgage which the bank had over the assessee's property is allowable deduction in the determination of net wealth under 2(m) of the Wealth Tax Act. We have heard Senior Counsel Sri.P.K.R.Menon appearing for the revenue and M/s. Menon and Pai, represented by Adv. Mr.A.K. Jayasanker Nambiar, for respondent assessee. 2. The respondent company owned 540 cents of land with buildings wherein they were running a tile and bricks factory. However, on account of financial difficulties, the factory remained defunct for several years. Major portion of the said land belonging to the assessee was urban land and 160 cents was within the Panchayat area. In the course of time, the company had borrowed funds for the purpose of working capital from the Bank against a mortgage executed in respect of its ...
M/S. Cherian Varkey Construction Co.(P)ltd. Vs. Union of India and Oth ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
1. The Southern Railway ('the Railway' for short) invited bids for the award of contract in connection with the doubling of track between Haripad and Ambalapuzha. Only four bidders qualified in the credential bid and the fourth respondent was declared successful in the financial bid. The petitioner who qualified in the credential bid challenges the acceptance of the bid tendered by the fourth respondent. The core of the contentions of the petitioner is that the Railway should punctiliously and rigidly enforce the conditions in the bid document. The petitioner asserts that the bid tendered by the fourth respondent was incomplete and defective. The writ petition is filed for such a declaration and for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Railway to award the contract in favour of the petitioner who is the next lowest bidder. 2. The bid document essentially contains four parts, viz., preamble, price bid submission sheet, offer sheet (summary sheet) and annexures (A, B, C, D and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »