Kerala Court May 2012 Judgments

V. Gopalan, S/O. Velayudhan and Others Vs. Government of Kerala, Repre ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(2)ILR(Ker)695; 2012(3)KLT17

These writ petitions come up before me for deciding the question as to whether these writ petitions should be entertained by this Court or should the petitioners be relegated to the jurisdiction of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. In the first writ petition, the petitioners are HR/CLR workers under the Department of Irrigation of the Government of Kerala. In the other writ petition, the petitioners are part time sweepers in the Department of Sports and Youth affairs and the Directorate of Sports and Youth Affairs. The Registry noted a defect that the petitioners being employees of the Government of Kerala working under departments of the State Government, the jurisdiction lies with the Kerala Administrative Tribunal under Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. The learned counsel for the petitioners contend that they are not regular employees in the State or Subordinate service of the Government of Kerala and, therefore, the jurisdiction vests with this Court. According to ...

M/S Bhavana Home Appliances, Rep. by Proprietor and Another Vs. Davis ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER Aggrieved by the order passed by the CDRF, Thrissur in CC No. 431/06 to return Rs.2,071/- and the cost of pump set along with Ext. P10 series amount and cost of Rs.750/- to the complainant, the opposite parties came up in this appeal. 2. The case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased one Usha Centrifugal Pump mounted on a Honda Engine for a sum of Rs.12,739/- from the 1st opposite party who was the dealer of the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. The pump set was installed on 15/07/05. The work started on 7.09.05 and the pump did not function properly nor water lifted. The opposite parties did not turn to repair the pump set. As the construction work was going on the complainant had to engage another pump set on rent @ Rs.200/- per day. The opposite parties did not attend the repair work until 31.01.06. It is the very case of the complainant that on 4.2.06 some technicians attended and left the place informing that the pump was damaged and could not rep...

Betrons Builders (P) Ltd. Vs. Remani Rajendran

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER Heard the revision petitioners counsel. Considering the facts and circumstances to meet the ends of justice and do justice to both parties. I feel that the direction of the CDRF, Ernakulam is to be modified in the following way. If the opposite party deposits of Rs.55,581/- submitted to be in arrears within two weeks, her water supply and electricity supply shall be resumed. It is made clear that if her contention is that she had already paid the amount, she is bound to produce receipts. No costs. The factual contention raised by parties shall be decided by the Forum on merits....

The Principal, Good Shepherd Modern-english School, Palunda, Chungatha ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER This appeal is preferred against the order dated 14.9.2011 in CC No.161/11 of the CDRF, Malappuram directing the 1st opposite party to issue fresh TC of the student showing his Character as good, to rectify the mistake in the date of birth and to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as damages and Rs.2,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant. 2. The complainants son Muhammed Ismayil after successful completion of 10th standard requested the 1st opposite party to issue transfer certificate with related documents for admission for Plus 1 in another school. It was the further submission that the complainant at the time of admission sought for a correction in the date of birth in the certificate which was mistakenly noted in the school records. The 1st opposite party demanded Rs.39,000/- towards fees for plus 1 and plus 2 in order to issue transfer certificate which was not amenable to the complainant. The demand for fees was under the guise of an undertaking procured from the c...

The New Indian Assurance Co. Ltd. Alappuzha Branch Vs. P. Jagal Prasad ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Alappuzha in CC No. 09/10 dated : 13.01.10. The appellant is the 3rd opposite party and the respondent is the complainant. 2. In brief, the complainant purchased a Tata Indigo CSLS 1405 car bearing No. KL-04Y-700 from the 2nd opposite party. The complainant purchased the vehicle consequent upon the allurement and assurance from both field executives of the 2nd opposite party and the 2nd opposite party itself as to the vehicles perfect performance and efficient service. On 12th July 2009, the vehicle turned over to a wayside pond and sustained serious damage to the same. The complainant promptly informed the factum of accident to the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. The 2nd opposite party took the vehicle from the accident spot to its garage for revamp. The 2nd opposite party intimated the complainant that the estimated repairing charge was beyond Rs.5,00,000/- The complainant duly impressed upon the 2n...

Mohammed Kannu Abdul Rasheed Vs. Nazarudeen S/O. Muhammed Yousuf and O ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT225; 2012(3)KLJ40

Ramakrishna Pillai, J In this petition the landlord challenges the order passed by the District Court in an R.C.R.P filed by the tenants against the order passed by the execution court in a rent control matter rejecting the tenant's prayer for re-induction to the reconstructed building. 2. The facts: - Claiming eviction of the tenanted premises, the petitioner moved the Rent Control Court, Thiruvananthapuram, under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against respondents 1 and 3, who are the legal heirs of the deceased tenant. The Rent Control Court granted eviction under Section 11(2)(b) only. Appeals by the petitioner as well as respondents 1 and 3 were considered by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The petitioner was successful in the RCA. The verdict ultimately came up for consideration before this Court in CRP No.1927/1992. This Court ordered eviction under both grounds and granted on...

K.P. Abdul Kareem Thangal, Palakkad Vs. Ummer Haji, Perinthalmanna Tal ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)ILR(Ker)100; 2012(3)KLT113; 2012(3)KLJ10

Ramakrishna Pillai, J. 1. During the pendency of an appeal filed by the tenant against the order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, the ‘Act’) before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the landlord sold the tenanted premises to a third party and later re-purchased the same. Is he entitled to move the court under Section 12 seeking direction to pay arrears of rent? This question has been raised in this revision filed by the tenant challenging the orders passed by the authorities under this Act. 2. The facts can be briefly stated: The respondent moved the Rent Control Court for evicting the revision petitioner/tenant from the tenanted premises under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3)of the Act. Though the claim of bonafide need was negatived, the learned Rent Controller directed the revision petitioner to vacate the premises within two months from the date of the order, as it was found that rent was in arrears...

Davis, Thrissur Taluk Vs. Thomas, Thrissur Taluk

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT11; 2012(2)KHC817

Ramakrishna Pillai, J. 1. The landlord is the revision petitioner. 2. Alleging failure on the part of the revision petitioner to occupy the tenanted premises which was taken delivery pursuant to an order Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for short) in RCP No.89 of 1997 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Thrissur, the respondent (tenant) approached the said court under Section 11(12) of the Act praying that he be restored to possession of the building. 3. The revision petitioner resisted the petition. He contended that his wife for whose need, eviction was sought for, had occupied the premises and had begun the proposed garment business pursuant to the need projected in the Rent Control Petition. However, as the business did not flourish, she started business of hardware in the tenanted premises. His further case was that he also helped his wife in the business. It was further contended that the...

V.T. Ousephkutty Vs. Regional Transport Officer and Another

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT29; 2012(2)KHC893; 2012(3)ILR(Ker)192; 2012(3)KLJ6

The complaint of the petitioner is that though he had submitted Ext.P2 application for the grant of a Badge for the purpose of driving a transport vehicle, the first respondent has declined to even accept his application. According to the petitioner, he is the holder of a licence to drive two wheelers and three wheelers. However, he has studied only up to the 4th standard. According to him, he should have been granted a Badge and permitted to drive a transport vehicle. 2. The counsel for the petitioner contends that as per Rule 6 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, a person who has studied up to the 4th standard can be authorized to drive a transport vehicle. 3. The learned Govt. Pleader who represents the respondents disputes the above proposition by pointing out that as per Rule 8 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989, the minimum educational qualification required for obtaining a licence to drive a transport vehicle shall be a pass in the 8th standard. In view of the above, it is ...

B. Abdulla S/O Sulaiman Vs. Jose, S/O Ouseph and Others

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(2)ILR(Ker)790; 2012(3)KLT22; 2012(3)KLJ36

The following questions arise for consideration in this original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India: i) Can an election petition be amended wherein the election has been called in question on the ground of 'double voting' and not on the ground of 'corrupt practice' ? ii) Is an amendment of the election petition permissible after the date fixed for the respondents to appear when the trial is deemed to have commenced in law ? iii) Whether 'material facts' or 'particulars' could be introduced by such amendment after the time limit prescribed to question the election and is not the plea then barred by limitation ? Divergent answers come from Mr.D.Krishna Prasad, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.Jose J Matheikel, Advocate on behalf of the first respondent for these questions. 2. The petitioner is the returned candidate from Ward No.XIII of Kallar Grama Panchayat whose election has been called in question by the first respondent. The first respondent los...