Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T.R. RAVI
T. Abdul Khader S/o Muhammed Kunhi – Appellant
Versus
Kannur Municipality – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
T.R. RAVI, J.
1. The second appeal is filed by the plaintiff against the judgment of the First Appellate Court whereby a decree in a suit for realisation of ₹2,06,287/- was reversed. The parties are referred to as per their status in the suit.
2. Plaintiff's case - The defendant constructed a market complex near the old bus stand in Kannur and resolved on 19.04.2000 to license the rooms based on the best offer. The plaintiff made the highest offer for room No.47 and on deposit of the amount (₹2,00,999/-), he was put in possession of the room on 14.06.2001. On 25.10.2002, the defendant reduced the amount of security to ₹1,20,000/-, and the plaintiff was entitled to get a refund of the balance amount. On the plaintiff’s request he was allotted Room No.46, and the security deposit of Rs.1,20,000/- was made up by payment of Rs.39,001/- and adjustment of the excess amount paid as security for Room No.47. The plaintiff was thus put in possession of room Nos.46 & 47 on security deposits of ₹1,20,000/- each. On 13.07.2004, the plaintiff surrendered room No.46, but the security deposit was not refunded. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.214/2005 before the Subordinate Court, Thalassery, fo
The claim for refund of a security deposit is not barred by limitation under Section 544 of the Kerala Municipalities Act if the refusal to refund is not an action done in pursuance of the Act.
The court upheld that withholding amounts without notice is unauthorized under the Kerala Municipality Act, and the appeal lacked a substantial question of law.
Civil Courts cannot entertain suits challenging notices of unauthorized construction unless a clear case of nullity is demonstrated, as per statutory provisions under Section 433A of the Maharashtra ....
The time for suit initiation under the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act begins at the record publication date, not knowledge. Claims are dismissed for failure to comply with limitation and notice requirements....
High Court could not have re-appreciated the evidence and the concurrent findings rendered by the courts below ought not to have been interfered with by the High Court while exercising revisional jur....
The amendment to Section 11(4) of the Rent Act applies retrospectively to pending suits, protecting landlords against unjust withholding of rent.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
