Kerala Court July 2012 Judgments

District Co-operative Bank, Rep. by the General Manager in Charge Dist ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLJ636

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. The short but interesting question that arises for consideration is whether a school teacher by virtue of his past experience as sales supervisor in a Liquor Company for three years is eligible to be appointed as General Manager of a large District Co-operative Bank which has 42 Branches, 350 employees, Rs.1,400 crores and more of public deposits and Rs.1,800/- crores in advances and investments. Since the Single Judge declared eligibility, the Bank is in appeal with the support of the Public Service Commission. 2. Appellant, a District Co-operative Bank, requested the Kerala State Public Service Commission (PSC) to make selection of General manager for the Bank through direct recruitment. The PSC, on scrutiny of the application of the first respondent, a school teacher, found him ineligible for selection to the cadre of General Manager, because the qualifying experience claimed by him from 2001 to 2004 was in a supervisory cadre in the sales wing of a liquor...

Shynymol Vs. State of Kerala Represented by Its Secretary Department o ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT646

AntonyDominic, J. 1. Heard the counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and the counsel appearing for the fifth respondent. 2. Petitioner claims to be the owner of a property having an extent of 18.23 ares comprised in survey No.30/6 and 30/1 of Chirakkadavu Village. According to the petitioner by Ext.P4 order the Revenue Divisional Officer permitted her to remove red earth from the property in the manner as provided therein. It appears from Ext.P4 that red earth should have been removed between the period from 15.6.2012 to 26.6.2012. However, by Ext.P5, the Secretary of the Panchayat informed her that the Panchayat has passed resolution No.1/2012 dated 14.6.2012, prohibiting transportation of red soil from within the areas of the Panchayat to outside. On that basis the petitioner was prohibited from removing red soil as permitted in Ext.P4. It was thereupon this writ petition was filed. 3. The petitioner contents that she having obtained Ext....

The Divisional Manager Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the CDRF, Palakkad in CC No. 126/2010 by the opposite parties. The Forum below ordered to pay Rs.1,68,750/- as claim amount with 12% interest from the date of stolen the vehicle to date of order and Rs.1,000/- as cost of the proceedings. Further the Forum also ordered that on failure on compliance of the order the complainant is entitled for 9% interest p.a for the whole amount from the date of the order till realization. 2. The complainants case is that he was the registered owner of TATA Indica car having a valid insurance policy from 06.12.2007 to 5.12.2008. As per the terms and conditions of the policy the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- in the event of any loss or damage to the car. It is the case of the complainant that while the car was parked on 23.08.08, the car was stolen and that a case was registered u/s 379 of IPC under crime No. 430/2008 before the Palakkad North Police Station....

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Geetha Sivadas

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER The order passed by the CDRF, Alappuzha in CC No. 96/2009 is being challenged in this appeal by the opposite parties. The impugned order directed the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.2,78,000/- with 9% interest along with compensation of RS.10,000/- and the order is to be compiled within 30days on receipt of the order. 2. The case of the complainant is that being the owner of a textile shop Charulatha Textiles the complainant availed a policy from the opposite parties for the fabric materials for an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- during the period from 25.02.2003 to 24.02.2004. On 12.05.2003 at 1 am the break in theft had occurred in the complainants shop and took away Rs.38,000/- in cash and textile articles worth Rs.5,78,878/-, A case was registered with the police and charge sheet was filed wherein it is stated that the complainant sustained loss of Rs.2,00,000/- and cash loss of Rs.38,000/-. The opposite parties were informed of the burglary immediately and a...

P.V. Anitha Vs. Naduvile Veettil Ashok Kumar and Others

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT880; 2012(4)KLJ13; 2012(4)ILR(Ker)215

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. This unnumbered matter is sent up noticing it as defective. It is filed as an appeal invoking Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against an order passed on an original petition filed before the Munsiff’s Court under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1921. An appeal is provided for against such an order, under that Act. No appeal lies against such an order under section 96 CPC. 2. The application from which this appeal arises could have been filed before the Munsiff’s court only by recourse to Section 388 of the Indian Succession Act, in terms of which, the State Government has invested other courts with power to exercise the functions of a District Judge. Appeal against an order on such an application would lie only under the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 388 of that Act. An appeal under that proviso, against an order passed by a court inferior to the court of a District Judge but invested with the power by the Stat...

N.P. Vijayakumar Vs. Narayanikutty Amma

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)ILR(Ker)572; 2012(3)KLJ495; 2012(3)KLT128(SN)(C.No.133)

K. Vinod Chandran, J. The appeal arises from a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts. The defendant, a relative of the plaintiff, is in appeal. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant having returned jobless from abroad, approached her to commence a share broking business in partnership. Necessary agreements having been entered into and also a room on rent having been taken out at Aluva, the defendant took out a membership in the name of "Gee Vee Associates", with the Cochin Stock Exchange. Accounts were opened at the Indian Bank at Aluva and also Syndicate Bank, Ernakulam. The verification of accounts on 31.12.1988 revealed a profit of Rs.1= lakhs disclosed, which was again invested in the business. The defendant was all-through operating the accounts and managing the affairs of the partnership and on difference of opinion having arisen in 1989, the plaintiff demanded settlement of accounts and the due share in the profits. The plaintiff also contended that du...

Barry Sebastian Vs. Bank of India Puthenchanthai Branch Represented by ...

Court: Kerala

The correctness and sustainability of the R.R. proceedings pursued by the respondent Bank, when, the civil suit instituted by the Bank is pending consideration before the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram for the purpose of quantification, is the subject matter of dispute involved in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner is a business man engaged in fish trading, who purchases fish and such other items by way of auction from the sea shore of Vizhinjam/ Thiruvananthapuram. In connection with the requirement of business, the petitioner sought for and obtained a loan of Rs.8,00,000/-(Rupees eight lakhs only) from the respondent Bank, on the strength of the hypothecation given over the equipments and the fish and such other items procured in the course of business. Ext.P1 is the application for the loan, after considering which, it was sanctioned as per Ext.P2. Admittedly, there occurred some default in repayment; under which circumstances, the Bank filed O.S. No.856/2011 before the Sub Court,...

Janu and Others Vs. Thanka and Others

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT575; 2012(3)ILR(Ker)822; 2012(3)KLJ736

Does the mere fact that the beneficiaries had also appended their signature amongst the several attesting witnesses to the Will invalidate the disposition made thereunder Decisions on this point are far and few and none by this Court hitherto. 2. The plaint schedule property comprising of three items originally belonged to one Vannery Raman who died on 9.12.1970. The three children of Vannery Raman by name Kochunni, Unni @ Raman and Kurumba had earlier filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.47/1980. The suit was decreed and affirmed in appeal in A.S.No.175/1983 whereby a preliminary decree for partition was passed. A final decree for partition followed and the sharers also took delivery of the various items of property pursuant thereto. 3. One of the sons of Vannery Raman by name Vasu was the first defendant in O.S.No.47/1980 whose children have filed the suit in O.S.No.1958/2001. The present suit has also been filed for partition of the very same property after setting aside the decree ...

Rajammal and Others Vs. Hajira and Others

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)ILR(Ker)563; 2012(3)KLT420; 2012(3)KLJ411

Can a Land Tribunal issue certificates of purchase in respect of the same land to two different persons under the scheme of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' only)? This question has been succinctly answered in Patinhare Purayil Nabeesumma Vs. Miniyatan Zacharias [(2008) 5 SCC 25] as follows: "A certificate issued under Section 72 K of the Act is conclusive. Once the same is found to be conclusive, the same cannot be refused to be taken into consideration for any purpose whatsoever. The only issue which, therefore, should have been raised by the High Court was as to who was entitled thereto, keeping in view the fact that the land tribunal had granted certificates of assignment to both the parties. In view of the statutory scheme, both the parties could not have been given the certificates of assignment. The certificate in favour of the appellant, even otherwise, having been granted earlier and the same having not been set aside on the ground of fra...

The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office Vs. Sob ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER This appeal is preferred by the opposite parties against the order passed by CDRF, Thrissur in CC No.999/06 wherein the Forum below allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to pay Ext.P1 series amount to the complainant and compensation of Rs.5,000/- with cost of Rs.3,00/- within 2 months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. 2. The case of the complainant is that the complainant insured her car, Wagon R vehicle, with the opposite parties for a period from 7.7.06 to 6.7.07. The vehicle met with an accident on 29.7.06. It is the very case of the complainant that the respondent repudiated the claim of Rs.34,198/- which amounts to deficiency in service and hence filed the complaint. 3. The opposite parties filed version contending that the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy. On intimation of the accident the opposite parties deputed a surveyor to inspect the vehicle. The survey report stated that the alleged vehicle was...