Kerala Court August 2012 Judgments

The Sales Manager, Kerala Cars Pvt. Ltd., M G F Building and Others Vs ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER Appeal Nos. 316/2012 and 325/2012 are preferred by the manufacturer and the dealer respectively. Both these appeals arised out of the order passed by CDRF, Kottayam in C.C. No. 34/11 wherein the Forum below allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties 1 to 3 to replace the defective car with a brand new one or to refund Rs`. 4,00,344/- Further as cost of the proceedings Rs. 2,000/- is ordered to be paid by the opposite parties. 2. When this appeal came up for hearing the appellant in these appeals vehemently opposed against the order passed by the Forum below in allowing the complaint. Section 13 1 (c) of Consumer Protection Act. provides that the defects alleged in the goods cannot be determined without proper analysis of the goods or referred for proper analysis or test to assertain the defects. In this case the appellants denied the allegation of defects in the car. 3. The complainants case is that the complainant purchased a Ford Figo car from the ...

Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company, L.M.S. Junction, T ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER Aggrieved by the order passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam inCC No.543/09 the opposite parties came up in appeal. Allowing the complaint the opposite party is directed to pay the insurance claim of Rs.3,60,000/- to the complainants, being the legal heirs of deceased. The order is to be complied within 1 month from the date of receipt of the order; failing which the amount will carry 12% interest. 2. The complainants are the wife and children of deceased Punnan. While availing a loan from the District Co-operative Bank, a personal accident policy was issued having a coverage of Rs.3,60,000/-. The bank had obtained the master policy for a period from 08.03.06 to 07.03.2021 from the appellant/opposite party for its beneficiaries. The husband of the 1st respondent died in a rail accident on 3.06.09 while he was walking through the railway track near Velloor. The deceased was a real estate broker by profession and he used to travel various places in connection with his job....

Union of India Vs. T. Deena

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(4)KLT5; 2012(4)ILR(Ker)116; 2012(4)KLJ206

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. The plea of the Railways in this appeal against the award of the Railway Claims Tribunal is that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger inasmuch as the ticket he possessed was one issued on 7.7.2010 from Varkala Railway Station, though he was travelling in the train that left from Varkala to Chennai on 8.7.2010. 2. At the outset, we may record that earnest efforts are taken by the learned standing counsel for Railways by making reference to the Indian Railway Commercial Manual which, among other things, in Clause 239 provides that the tickets are available only for the day and train for which they are issued except when otherwise permitted; clause 209.1 of that Manual provides, inter alia, that tickets issued to passengers are available only from the date and for the period specified by the Railway Administration by which they are issued. Note (3) under Clause 209.2 provides that in all cases of advance booking the date of commencement of journey ...

T.N. Arjunan and Others Vs. the President, Temple Advisory Committee a ...

Court: Kerala

ThottathilB. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. This DBP is registered on the basis of TDS Report No.39 of 2011 of learned Ombudsman, generated on a complaint by Sri. T.N. Arjunan and others. We have perused that report and the documents made available therewith. 2. The complaint relates to purchase of 20 cents of land in front of Kaippillikkavu Bhagavathi Temple. That parcel was purchased utilizing money collected from the devotees. The Temple Thanthri inaugurated that collection scheme “Malayalam”. Money was collected from the devotes by a temple advisory committee consisting of three members. However, Somanathan, who was dealing with the affairs of the Temple Advisory Committee, and Madhusoodanan drew up and registered a Trust in the name “Sree Bhagavathi Seva Trust” and the land was purchased in the name of that Trust utilizing the aforesaid funds. 3. Notice was issued to Somanathan, Secretary of the aforesaid Trust. The justification in his counter affidavit is that thou...

Lillykutty Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by District Collector

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(4)ILR(Ker)211; 2012(4)KLJ186

Pius C. Kuriakose, J. 1. LAA. No. 1447 of 2007 is directed against the award in LAR. No. 49 of 2005, while LAA. No. 1487 of 2007 is directed against the award in LAR. No. 45 of 2005. The awards in these two references were passed as common award after conducting joint trial by the Reference Court. The appellant in LAA. No. 1147 of 2007 is the wife of the appellant in LAA. No. 1487 of 2007. The acquisition was of property in Kuruvilangad Village for the purpose of the Muvattupuzha Valley Irrigation Project. The husband's property was included by the land acquisition officer in category - IV - reclaimed land with PWD road frontage. Wife's property which was lying contiguous to the husband's property was however, included by the land acquisition officer in category - V only - reclaimed land with no road frontage. For property included in category - IV, the land acquisition officer awarded `10,639/- per Are relying on the basis document. For the wife's property which was included in catego...

K. Abdul Basheer Vs. District Collector, Kannur and Others

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)ILR(Ker)967; 2012(4)KLJ76; 2012(4)KLT257

1. Can the District Collector, in exercise of the power under the proviso to Section 54 of the Revenue Recovery Act, set aside the sale once the sale is confirmed , is the point of dispute. 2. An extent of 0.0324 hectares of land and building situated thereon, belonging to the 5th respondent, was subjected to revenue sale for realisation of amount due to the 4th respondent under a housing loan. The petitioner participated in the sale and turned to be the successful bidder, who remitted 15% of the bid amount of Rs.50,000/- on the same day, i.e. on 30.03.2006. The balance amount was satisfied within 30 days, as prescribed under Section 49(3) of the Revenue Recovery Act, as borne by Ext. P1 receipt. Since there was no complaint from any corner (as no objection was filed either under Section 52 or  Section 53 of the Revenue Recovery Act, seeking to set aside the sale), further steps were pursued and the sale was confirmed in the name of the petitioner, as per Ext.P2 order dated 28.03....

G.K. Granties Ltd. Vs. Vellavoor Grama Panchayath and Others

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLJ867; 2012(3)KHC775; 2012(3)KLT881; 2012(4)ILR(Ker)46

1. The question that arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions (hereinafter referred to as the `Tribunal' for short), constituted under Section 271S of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as the `Act' for short) has the power to allow impleadment of third parties in an appeal or revision pending before it. 2. Petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Ext.P1 is a notice issued by the Panchayat calling upon the petitioner to stop its activities. On receipt of the notice, petitioner filed Appeal No.193/2011 before the Tribunal, a copy of which is Ext.P2. The Tribunal by Ext.P6 order stayed all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1. While so, respondents 4 and 5 filed I.A.No.481 of 2011, a copy of which is Ext.P7, seeking to be impleaded as additional respondents in the appeal. Petitioner objected to Ext.P7 by filing Ext.P8 objections. However, the Tribunal passed Ext.P9 order, holding that responden...

Sophy Paul Vs. the District Collector and Others

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLJ871; 2012(3)KLT909; 2012(3)ILR(Ker)982

1. Petitioner seeks a direction requiring the 1st respondent to take action on Ext.P3 application filed by her under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act' for short). 2. According to the petitioner, 1.3 ares of her property comprised in Sy. Nos.7/1 and 7/2 of Maradu Village was acquired under the Act for the Container Terminal established by the 3rd respondent. Award was passed on 19.10.2000 and compensation was also paid. Subsequently, petitioner filed an application dated 10.03.2007 under Section 28A of the Act for re-determination of the compensation relying on the awards in LAR Nos.62/2001 and 64/2001. By Ext.P1 order dated 16.04.2008, 2nd respondent rejected the application and the relevant portion of the order reads thus: "The application filed by Smt.Sophy Paul for re- determination of land value based on the judgment in LAR 62/2001 and 64/2001 is verified with connected records and decided to reject the applications on the following groun...

C.P. Reshma Vs. P.K. Jayan

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(4)KLJ22; 2012(4)KLT200

M.L. Joseph Francis, J. 1. This Original Petition (Family Court) is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs : (i) Direct the Family Court, Kannur to transfer the necessary records of M.C. No. 425/2005 and M.C. No. 458/2011 to Family Court, Kasaragod or any other Court at Kanhangad for realizing the amount standing due from the respondent towards the petitioner and her children.(ii) Allow the petitioner for her behalf and on behalf of her two minor children to realize the amount now due and may become due in future by initiating necessary legal proceeding before the Family Court, Kasaragod or any other Court at Kanhangad. 2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows: The petitioner herein is the first petitioner in M.C. No. 425 of 2005 on the file of the Family Court, Kannur. The petitioners 2 and 3 in the M.C. are the children born in the wedlock between the petitioner and the respondent. Their marriage took place on 25-03-2002. It is alleg...

State of Kerala, Rep. by Deputy Commissioner (Law), Commercial Taxes, ...

Court: Kerala

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. This revision by the State raises the question whether the impugned order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse, unreasonable and against law inasmuch as the Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction by not interfering with the decision of the first appellate authority which reduced the gross profit rate on IMFL sales to 36 percent for the period from 1.4.2008 to 30.9.2008, when the assessee had admitted 60.40 percent of gross profit on such sales from 1.10.2008 onwards. 2. Supporting the appeal, the learned Government Pleader argued that the Tribunal has essentially passed a non-speaking order without considering the questions raised before it. He points out that the Tribunal is not precluded from deciding issues of facts as may be relevant and proceeded to argue that the first appellate authority egregiously erred in law in trimming down profit rate on IMFL sales to 36% from 1.4.2008 to 30.9.2008 while the assessee had admitted the prof...