Kerala Court September 2012 Judgments

Pushpa and Others Vs. T.V. Josekutty and Others

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(4)KLT204

1. Is a Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the ‘CPC’ for short) maintainable against an order determining a question of restitution under Section 144 CPC? Can the Civil Revision Petition so filed be permitted to be converted into an Execution First Appeal when it is found not maintainable? 2. The suit for realization of money due under a demand promissory note in O.S.No.167 of 1992 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Kozhikode was decreed by judgment dated 30.09.1993. The decree holder attached the property of the judgment debtor (8 cents of land with a building thereon) in execution and brought it up for sale wherein he himself bid it in auction. The decree holder obtained delivery of the property in E.A.No. 1543/2001 in E.P.No. 61/1996 in O.S.No. 167/1992 and the same was recorded by the execution court on 20.12.2001. 3. The judgment debtor challenged the decree of the trial court in A.S.No. 514/1995 which was ...

Sivadasan Vs. E.K. Sindhu

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(4)KLT301

Pius C. Kuriakose, J. 1. Under challenge in this Original Petition filed under Article 277 of the Constitution filed by the petitioner who has finally suffered an order at the hands of the Family Court and this Court to pay maintenance to the respondent, his wife, is Ext.P4 order passed by the Family Court, turning down his plea that Execution Petition No.996/2010 in which Ext.P4 is passed by the Family Court is barred by limitation. The respondent remains absent notwithstanding the service of notice by this Court. Mr. K.Rakesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, relies on the proviso to Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. reads as follows: "125(3) If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole, or any part of each month's allowance...

The Divisional Manager, New India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. K.M. Sreedevik ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR-- JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellant was the second opposite party in OP.87/05 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The first respondent was the complainant. Her case was that her husband late K.G.Sureshkumar was a subscriber to the Asianet Cable connection with effect from 4.9.95. He was regular in remitting monthly subscription till his death. Being a subscriber to the Asianet Cable connection the deceased K.G.Sureshkumar was covered under the Asianet Privilege Insurance Scheme with the second opposite party as per Policy No.761400/42/02/00183. Sureshkumar died in an accident on 17.7.03 and the complainant as the legal heir and nominee of the deceased submitted death claim before the second opposite party. The complainant submitted all available documents along with the claim application. The first opposite party collected monthly payments regularly and directly from the residence of the subscriber. As per the endorsement, printed in the bill cum receipts issue...

M/S Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. A. Inees Chiriankandath House and Another

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : HON.ACTING PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party and the respondent is the complainant in CC.No.522/05 dated 28.8.06 from the CDRF, Ernakulam. Later an additional 2nd respondent was impleaded as Focus Motors, FocusTowers, Edappally, Kochi-24 in the appeal stage. The appellant prefers this appeal under the direction of the Forum below that to pay Rs.17517/- incurred by the complainant as repairing charges as per Ext.A5. The opposite party shall also pay Rs.1500/- as costs to the complainant. In short thus the complainant who suffered a breakdown of his vehicle on 5.4.05 and it was taken to local workshop. The complaint could be determined only after opening the engine of the vehicle and when he contacted an authorized service centre and he was informed inorder to carry out repairs he would have to meet the expenses since the warranty period for the vehicle had long expired.. The complainant there upon having got his vehicle repaired from the local workshop...

The Regional Manager Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. Vs. P ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR-JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellant was the first opposite party in CC.No.139/08 in the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alappuzha. Respondents 1 to 5 were the complainants therein. They were farmers in Alappuzha. Their grievance was that during 2006-2007 each complainant had raised Punja crops over 5 acres of paddy filed and the crop was insured with the first opposite party. There was un-expected infestation of the crop and more than 50% of the yield was damaged. The complainants were remitting the insurance premium in the District Co-operative Bank, Alappuzha. They lodged a claim for the sum assured with the opposite party. The first opposite party without valid reason repudiated their claim. The complainants claimed the assured amount of Rs.15,000/- per acre and Rs.10,000/- as compensation 2. The appellant/first opposite party filed detailed version and additional version. Based on their contention opposite parties 2 and 3 were impleaded. Thereafter, the third o...

C.R. Devassy, Proprietor Vs. P.R. Joy, Panengadan House

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER The appellant is the opposite party who preferred this appeal against the order passed by the CDRF, Thrissur in CC No.526/09. 2. When this appeal came up for hearing on the question of admission the counsel for the appellant submitted that the opposite party was exparte before the Forum below. It is also submitted that the complainant entrusted the case with a lawyer who could not contest the case. The appellant has a strong case and prayed for a remand in order to contest this case before the Forum below. 3. This Commission find that the order passed by the Forum below is an exparte order. On going through the order it is clear that it is not a considered order. In the interest of justice, the Forum below is directed to allow the opposite party to contest the case on payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. The opposite party may be permitted to file version on payment of cost to the complainant and also to adduce evidence by both parties in support of ...

The Secretary Kerala State Housing Board Santhi Nagar. Thiruvananthapu ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

COMMON JUDGMENT: SHRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER In these appeals the common order pronounced by the CDRF, Pathanamthitta in OP Nos. 13/91, 33/91 and 136/93 on 25/10/10 is challenged by the common opposite party namely the Kerala State Housing Board and the complainants in OP.Nos.13/91 and 136/93. The CDRF Pathanamthitta jointly tried the 3 OPs mentioned above and disposed of the same by a common order. The complainants were allottees of Plot Nos. 4,18 and 17 respectively in the Pathanamthitta Housing Scheme implemented by the common opposite party, the Kerala State Housing Board. Pursuant to the scheme the Board acquired landed property which was divided into plots and allotted to different applicants including the complainants for construction of residential buildings. The complainant in OP.13/91 was allotted Plot No.4 having an extent of 328.33 Sq.meters (8.5 cents) fixing a tentative value of Rs.64,000/-. Similarly the complainant in OP.33/91 was allotted Plot No.18 having...

State of Kerala Vs. Mythri Vidya Bhavan English Medium School

Court: Kerala

Ramachandran Nair, J. Kerala has 12600 and odd schools in the Government; Aided and Unaided sector imparting education mostly in Malayalam under the Kerala syllabus which is not upto the standards of education under the CBSE/ICSE syllabus which is in English. Very few Central Schools are established by the Central Government in big cities mainly for the children of Central Government employees through the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangham and a few schools following CBSE/ICSE syllabus are run by the Armed Forces and few large Central Public Sector Undertakings in their locations. The limited and restricted availability of facility for schooling in English medium under CBSE/ICSE syllabus and consequent public demand for such schools led to establishment of large number of CBSE/ICSE-private schools, which as of now is over 900 in the State. The more intelligent and ambitious lot of students prefer CBSE/ICSE syllabus and the less clever join schools following Kerala syllabus. The demand for CBSE...

Aswini Hospital Pvt. Ltd Vs. Intelligence Officer

Court: Kerala

This batch of writ petitions arefiled by the private hospitals in the State and the Kerala Private Hospitals' Association (Modern Medicine) State Committee. They have approached this Court disputing their liability to get themselves registered as dealers under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) and to pay tax under the said Act for the medicines and consumables sold to their patients. 2. The issue being common, the cases were heard together treating WP(C) No. 7129/08 as the leading case. 3. In these writ petitions, there are two main prayers. The first prayer is to declare that hospitals are not liable to take registration and pay tax under the Act for the supply of medicines and other items meant for treatment. The second prayer, which was urged as an alternative one, is to declare that Section 6 of the Act and the corresponding rules are ultra vires and unconstitutional to the extent it seek to impose tax on hospitals and compel them to take...

Veeramani Chettiar Vs. Davis and Others

Court: Kerala

K. Harilal, J. 1. An interesting as well as unusual issue that emerges in this intra court appeal is broadly the nature and extent of liability of the owner/keeper, for the damages caused by his dangerous animal. More precisely, the points that arise for our decision are: (1) What is the law governing the nature and extent of liability of the owner/keeper, for the damage caused by a dangerous animal? (2) Whether an elephant is a dangerous animal? (3) Whether the owner/keeper of a dangerous animal is strictly liable, independently of negligence, for the damage caused by the dangerous animal? (4) Whether wrongful act of a third party can be a defence to liability for the damage caused by the dangerous animal? (5) Whether the defence that a particular dangerous animal was always quiet, well trained and tamed, makes any difference in the application of the doctrine of strict liability? 2. This intra Court Appeal is directed against judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge of ...