Court : Kerala
Decided on : Oct-20-2011
R. BASANT.J 1. Two questions of moment which have substantial significance in the Rent Control law in the State are raised for consideration in this revenue petition. Challenge is raised against concepts that have occupied the field for a fairly long period of time. Ideal law is the perfect and just law. The quest and the endeavour to achieve that must continue. That concepts have occupied the field for a long period of time is not, by itself sufficient reason to refuse to have a re-look at the law when serious doubts exist about the validity of such entrenched concepts. The questions are: i) In a claim for eviction under Section 11(3), 11(4), 11(7) and 11(8) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act (the Act hereafter), is the landlord bound, after establishing such grounds for eviction, to show further that his claim for eviction is bona fide? Is not the Court under Section 11(10) at all bound to consider the bona fides of such claim? Is there serious dichotomy between Aboo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Sep-27-2011
K.M. Joseph, J. 1. ARBA No.40/2010 is directed against the order OP (Arb) No.21/2009 passed by the District Court, Kollam. The OP was filed under Sec.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the appellants to set aside the arbitral award dated 14.1.2009. ARBA No.41/2010 is filed against the order passed in OP (Arb) 231/2008 filed by the respondent under Sec.9 of the Act to secure the award amount that was likely to be passed in his favour. 2. The respondent company which is incorporated at Singapore is doing business in species, edible oil, nut etc. The appellant is a cashew exporter. Purchase confirmation note dated 2.5.2007 containing admitted signature of the appellant was issued agreeing to export cashew kernel to the respondent. Likewise, confirmation note dated 25.5.2007 was admittedly issued by the appellant. So also, confirmation note dated 6.7.2007 also containing the admitted signature of the appellant was issued agreeing to exp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Aug-02-2011
Joseph, J. These two civil revision petitions are filed against the common order passed by the Wakf Tribunal, Ernakulam. C.R.P.644/2010 is filed against the common order passed in W.O.A.No.1/2001 and C.R.P.499/2006 is filed against the common order in W.O.A.No.6/2001. 2. The petitioner is a Jama Ath owning 16 cents of land. There is a mosque situated therein. There is an extensive area of 8 acres and 3 cents. It is known as Putharipadam Jama-ath and its burial ground (Mayyathankara). 3. The dispute essentially relates to the administration of the aforesaid 8 acres and 3 cents. The dispute had its origin in the year 1956. Apparently, it started when the Managing Committee of the petitioner auctioned about 2,000 numbers of teak wood trees standing in the compound of Putharipadam Mosque. Some of the inhabitants and beneficiaries of the said Mosque, it appears, objected to the auction by the petitioner committee. They approached the Executive First Class Magistrate, Palakkad seeking an inj...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Sep-27-2011
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.- Whether the liability to pay ‘Ground Rent’ in respect of the containers unloaded in the Cochin Port, lying uncleared by the Consignees/Importers and refused to be destuffed by the Port, for inadequate storage space, can be mulcted on the owners of the Vessel/Steamer Agents beyond 75 days, in view of the Scheme of the Statute (Major Port Trusts Act, 1963-in short ‘MPT Act’) and the contents of the TAMP (Tariff Authority for Major Ports) Orders dated 10-11-1999, 19-7-2000 and 13-9-2005, is the point. 2. Altogether nine Writ Appeals have been preferred against the common judgment dated 16-9-2002 in O.P. 9730 of 2000 and five other original petitions (total six original petitions). The above original petitions were filed by concerned Shipping Agents mainly for destuffing the cargo and to release the containers; to stop appropriation of any amount towards ‘Ground Rent’ from the ‘pre-deposits’ effected by them and al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on : Jul-14-2011
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT Appeal No. 454/2010 is filed by the complainants and Appeal No. 524/2010 is filed by the first and second opposite parties dealers in CC No. 144/08 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The Forum has allowed the complaint in part directing the opposite parties to return the vehicle repaired in perfect running condition without collecting costs of the replaced ECM and also to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation for the delay in returning the vehicle after repair and cost of Rs. 2,000/-. The complainants who are the wife/RC owner and her husband respectively have filed the complaint for a direction to the opposite parties to replace the vehicle with a new model car or to refund the price of the vehicle ie, Rs. 7,77,668/- with interest at 18% per annum and also to pay compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-. It is the case of the complainants that the Maruti Suzuki SX4 ZXI car purchased by the first complainant from the first opposite party d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on : Jul-20-2011
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA: MEMBER The appellant is the complainant who prefers this appeal from the order passed by the CDRF Kottayam in O.P. No.124/2004 dated 17-1-2006. The respondents are the opposite parties in the above mentioned case. The appellant prefers this appeal under the order of the dismissal of the complainant. Which filed by the complainant before the forum below. 2. In short, the complainant have the case that he and his wife Sucy, Alias, Latha mole were residing together as husband and wife for 23 years and in the relationship they have 2 children named Vinod and Vineeth aged 22 years and 20 years respectively. The appellant is doing various types of business including financial business. While so his wife Sucy developed some Psychartic problem and she took her house of the 1st opposite party on 9-2-2003. He told the problems of Sucy to the 1st opposite party doctor and paid for @ . 200/- as consultation fee. The 1st opposite party after medical examination of Sucy, pre...
Tag this Judgment!