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.
K.K. Rajesh, Rep. by His Guardian P.K. Kuttykrishnan Vs. Union of Indi ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
1. The petitioner is mentally unsound and is therefore represented by his father, as his next friend and guardian. The petitioner had joined the Assam Rifles in February 2003. At that time he was mentally and medically fit. He was holding the rank of Rifleman/General Duty (RFN/GD). According to the petitioner on account of the extreme adverse service conditions the petitioner developed depression and psychotic disorder and he was medically boarded out with effect from 5-8-2009. The complaint of the petitioner is that though he was boarded out assessing his disability at 100% his claim for disability pension was rejected by the respondents on the ground that the disease Schizophrenia is not covered by the relevant rule. The petitioner has therefore filed this writ petition challenging the action of the respondents and seeking the issue of appropriate directions for the sanction of disability pension to him. 2. The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India has raiseda preliminar...
State of Kerala, Rep. by the Chief Engineer Vs. M/S. Somdatt Builders ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,J. 1. This appeal by the State of Kerala is filed invoking Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter referred to as the `Act'. 2. The only provision in the Act for an appeal to this Court from the order of the court dealing with an application for setting aside an arbitral award under Section 34 is sub-section (1) of Section 37, which enumerates the orders which are appealable under that provision. The legislature, in its wisdom, has categorically expressed that an appeal shall lie from the orders enumerated in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 37 "and from no others". The use of the phrase "and from no others" within brackets in sub-section (1) of section 37 is a legislative device used to keep reminding that no appeal other than that which would fall in clauses (a) and (b) of Section 37 (1) would lie. Learned counsel for the respondent also refers to section 5 which restricts the extent of judici...
Vasantha Bhagaval Singh and Others Vs. Anthony and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
Ramakrishna Pillai, J. 1. This revision is against the direction of the courts below in granting eviction under Section 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act) . 2. One Velunni (hereinafter referred to as the original tenant), of whom the revision petitioners as well as respondents 2 to 4 are the legal heirs, took the tenanted premises on lease from the predecessor-in-interest of the first respondent on a monthly rent of Rs.10/- by a registered lease deed of 1952. After the death of the original landlord, the first respondent applied for an order of eviction against the original tenant alleging that rent from February, 1979, had not been paid. It was further alleged that he had removed the wall between two rooms as well as the wall, door and window of another room of the petition schedule building, as a result of which, the security of the building was lost and its value and utility were reduced materially and permanent...
Jayakrishnan and Another Vs. K.R. Rajesh and Another
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC.130/09 in the file of CDRF, Alapuzha. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.50000/- the amount required for getting the vehicle repaired and compensation of Rs.10000/-. 2. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a pre-owned car from the opposite parties with a Maruti True Value certification for a sum of Rs.2,43,500/-. According to him the vehicle was having serious problems thereafter. 3. The opposite parties have filed version contending that whatever repairs required were done. Subsequently the complainant took the vehicle to M/s Popular Vehicle and Services Ltd. It is alleged that the complainant has used the car in a careless manner. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, RW1; Exts.A1 to A12 and B1 to B5. 5. We find that the Forum has disposed of the matter by a cryptic order without considering the evidence adduced. Moreover there is no expert evidence ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›