Kerala Court July 2012 Judgments

R. Natarajan Vs. the Village Officer and Others

Court: Kerala

P.N. Ravindran, J. 1. The petitioner's father owned a parcel of land situate in Sy.Nos.476/1 and 478/1 of Ernakulam Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District. He obtained the said property as per a partition deed dated 23.1.1993. On 3.9.2002 the petitioner's father offered to surrender 2.28 ares of land (228 sq.meters) situate in Sy.No.478/1 of Ernakulam Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District for widening the Thammanam – Pulleppady road. Three days later, to be exact on 6.9.2002, he submitted an application for a building permit to put up a building in 774.51 sq.meters of land in Sy.Nos.476/1 and 478/1 of Ernakulam Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District. That application was allowed, a building permit was issued and the petitioner's father constructed a building, which was completed, as revealed by the files produced by the Cochin Corporation, on 15.10.2005. 2. Long after the construction of the building was completed, the petitioner's father executed Ext.P2 set...

The Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd, Alappuzha Vs. M.P. Sreekumar

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

Mrs. A. Radha,Member, J. 1. The opposite parties are the appellants aggrieved by the order passed by the CDRF in C.C. 225/09 came up in this appeal. The order is to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.17,535/- with 9% interest from the date of filing the complaint till realization. Further direction is to pay compensation of Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant. 2. The case pleaded by the complainant is that he was a registered owner of Wagon RLXI bearing No. KL4 L 9578 insured with the opposite parties. On 25.7.2007 he had to undertake some repairs when smoke came out from the vehicle out of the combination switch unit attached to the steering column. Due to the smoke he switched off the ignition key and contacted the workshop and had to carryout repair work and the switch had to be replaced. Again on 3rd January, 2008, the car got fire spontaneously from the combination switch part and caused heavy damage to the car. The same day itself the matter was reported to the Insurance Company ...

Jyothis Project and Others Vs. Sri. Philip Joseph, Triveni House

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER Calling in question the sustainability of the order passed by the CDRF, Alappuzha in OP 328/09, the opposite parties filed this appeal. 2. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant deposited a total amount of Rs. 60,000/- with the opposite parties. After receiving the deposit, the opposite party issued a Beneficiary Certificate in the name of the complainant for an amount of Rs.10,000/- each 6 in number. The project offered and agreed that the amount entrusted by the beneficiary will fetch a minimum of twice the entrusted amount as Lottery Prices and the beneficiary will receive the entrusted amount within a maximum period of 100 weeks. It is the assertion of the complainant that the complainant is entitled to get double the amount ie, 1,20,000/- with other statutory benefits. It is also the case that the opposite party promised that the deposit amount with other benefits will be returned as and when it was demanded by the complainant. As per the com...

The Assistant Engineer Section Office, Electrical Section, Kuthiathodu ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER Challenging the sustainability of the order passed by the CDRF, Alappuzha in CC No.37/2008 the opposite parties filed this appeal. 2. The case of the complainant is that the complainant was having consumer No.935 and he was issued with a demand notice of Rs.26,553/- alleging unauthorized load fixed charge on 7.03.07. The opposite parties on the alleged inspection report issued a notice demanding Rs.1,350/- which was paid by the complainant. The complainant was constrained to remit the amount on 16.03.2007 on protest in order to avoid disconnection of the electric connection. The allegation of the opposite party was that the complainant was using unauthorized extension from the service connection through underground cable to the prawn peeling shed. The complainant had two connections one is domestic and other one is commercial. The bill was issued to the domestic connection as he was using the electric connection illegally. The complainant was issued a notice date...

P.K. Rajagopalan Vs. the Managing Director, M/S Blue Nile Chits and In ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : HON.ACTING PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in IA.937/04 in MP.56/98 in OP.719/97 which was disposed by the CDRF, Thrissur. 2. The appellant was the complainant before the CDRF, Thrissur in OP.719/97. The complaint was fled as the respondent willfully and intentionally failed to pay price amount of Rs.55000/- after deduction of Rs.45000/- as fixed discount from the chit value of Rs.1,00,000/- This amount became due for payment in the month of May 1997. So, the amount was claimed with 3% interest per month or even at a higher rate that the opposite parties normally charged when they give loans to the customers. The prayer of the petition to release the fixed deposit amount to him as per order in IA.720A/05 in MP.56/98 in OP.719/97. This order passed by the forum below for execution petition as per the direction of the Honble High Court in RP.No.311/05 (W) in WPC 35900/04. The Forum below in their order alleged to disburse Rs.15000/- with interest at 12...

B.S. Ibrahim Vs. Devaki Amma and Others

Court: Kerala

K. Vinod Chandran, J 1. The petitioner in possession of 20 cents of property in Survey No. 269/2 of Kasaragod village challenges Ext.P7 order of the Land Tribunal, the sixth respondent. The petitioner's father was the tenant of the father of respondents 2 to 5 namely Aithu Ballal. The petitioner's father and landlord Aithu Ballal together filed an application before the Land Tribunal for assignment of 20 cents of property held by the petitioner's father as tenancy; in the name of the tenant. The application showed the survey number as Resurvey No. 274/5. The purchase certificate Ext.P1 was issued in the name of the petitioner's father showing the survey number as R.S.No.274/5. After the death of the petitioner's father the property devolved upon the petitioner and his brother. The petitioner purchased half share of the brother by Ext.P2 document. The original landlord is also no more. 2. Subsequently it was realised that the survey number shown in the purchase certificate was wrong and...

Dr. B. Ashok, Ias Vs. Chancellor Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences ...

Court: Kerala

Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. The appellant, an IAS Officer in the Kerala Cadre, was sent on deputation to the Central Government in July, 2006 for a period of five years. However, before completion of his deputation-tenure with the Central Government, he was considered for appointment as the Vice Chancellor of the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, which is a new University set up in 2010 under the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short). Among the three candidates considered for selection, the appellant came out successfully probably because besides the IAS, he holds a bachelor degree in Veterinary Sciences and Animal Husbandry and has also experience as Director of Animal Husbandry in Government of India. On being selected for appointment as the Vice Chancellor of the University, the appellant's deputation was prematurally cancelled by the Central Government at his request and he was repatriated to the State...

K.V. Viswanathan Vs. Mano Mohan

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(4)KLT12(SN)(C.No.13)

Pius C.Kuriakose, J. 1. Under challenge in this appeal is the order passed by the Family Court, Thrissur in E.A. No.93/2009 in E.P. No.50/2008 in O.P.No.866/2005 on the files of that Family Court. E.A. No.93/2009 was filed by the appellant who was the younger son of one Kousaliya , who was the decree holder(petitioner) in E.P. No.50/2008. The E.P. was for recovery of amounts awarded by the Family Court by way of maintenance. It was the appellant, the younger son, who was prosecuting the E.P. on behalf of his mother Kousaliya in his capacity as the power of attorney holder. The Family Court dismissed the impleadment application taking the view that the appellant who is the power of attorney holder cannot be allowed to step into the shoes of the deceased mother as the right to get maintenance was purely a personal right of the deceased mother. According to the learned Family Court , the right of Kousaliya to recover maintenance came to an end once she breathed her last. 2. The submission...

Karunakara Bhandary Vs. Kasaragod Bar Association, Court Complex, Civi ...

Court: Kerala

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J. 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers : i. Declare that the decision taken/resolution passed by the first respondent to the effect that none of the lawyers who are members of Kasargod Bar Association should defend or prosecute any case on behalf of Karunakara Bhandary ( petitioner ) as unconstitutional, null and void; ii. Direct the fourth respondent to ensure that the members of 1st respondent are not preventing any other members of 1st respondent or any other advocate from appearing on behalf of petitioner in any courts in Kasargod District ; iii. issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction commanding the fourth respondent to take appropriate action upon Ext.P5 within a time-limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. iv. Issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction that may be deemed just and equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The writ petition was admitted, issui...

Dr. K.M. Mehaboob Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2 (1), ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(4)KLT20(SN)(C.No.21)

Ramachandran Nair, J. The appellant, a Doctor, who is an assessee before the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kozhikkode, was assessed under Section 153C read with Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) based on evidence gathered in the course of search of another assessee at Mangalore. When the searched assessee's assessment was taken up under Section 153A, based on the information and materials gathered during search that Assessing Officer noticed that the part of the evidence collected and materials received during search of that assessee belong to the appellant, and therefore the evidence and materials so collected during search of the assessee at Mangalore were transferred to the Assessing Officer before whom the appellant/assessee is regularly assessed at Kozhikkode. Based on materials received from the Assessing Officer from Mangalore, the appellant/assessee's assessments were taken up under Section 153C read with Section 153A a...