Kerala Court October 2007 Judgments

Komalan Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ488

R. Basant, J.1. Are the amendments to Rule 2(n) and Rule 9(2) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 (for short 'the Rules') brought in by Ext. P3 notification consequent to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Unni 2007 (1) KLT 151 and the later Notification - Ext. P4, legal valid and constitutional? Do they and the consequent prosecutions initiated against the petitioners herein deserve to be quashed? These are the questions that arise for consideration in these proceedings.2. To the crucial and vital facts first. The petitioners are allegedly the licensees and their employees of toddy shops. They face prosecutions for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 57(a) and 56(b) of the Kerala Abkari Act (for short 'the Act'). The crux of the allegations raised against them is that toddy which was allegedly kept in their premises for sale was found to contain ethyl alcohol in excess of 8.1 %. The prosecution alleges that the ethyl alcohol present in exces...

E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Appollo Tyres Ltd.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2008)ILLJ1033Ker

J.B. Koshy, J.1. This case is referred to the Division Bench noticing conflict of views in the decisions in Regional Director, ESI Corporation v. Cannanore Spinning and Weaving Mills 2001-II-LLJ-1573 (Ker) and Cannanor Drug Lines v. ESI Corporation 2007-II-LLJ-661 (Ker) regarding liability to pay interest on delayed contribution due to the stay order issued by the court.2. Respondent is a factory covered under the ESI Act. The wage ceiling for coverage under the Employees' State Insurance Act was extended from Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 6,500/- with effect from January 1, 1997. Unions challenged the above notification before this Court and this Court granted a stay. In view of the above stay order, respondent was not able to collect the contribution from the employees who were drawing salary between Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 6,500/-, but, later, stay was vacated and coverage was accepted by the court. When the stay was vacated, the entire employees' contribution and employers' contribution were. pai...

C.R. Sindhu Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2008Ker65; 2007(3)KLJ633; 2008(2)KLT736

ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. In this revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. the revision petitioner challenges the order dated 22-2-2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram in C.M.P. 5129 of 2006 appointing an Advocate Commission to take possession of 12.43 cents of land situated in Survey Nos. 317/A3,318/B 4 and 318/B7 of Muttathara Village in Thiruvananthapuram Taluk together with the residential building thereon bearing No. TC. 61 of 2038 and to handover the said property to the authorised officer (Chief Manager), Kesavadasapuram branch of the State Bank of Travancore on or before 13-3-2007.2. I heard Advocate Sri. C.S. Manu, the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Advocate Sri. Satish Ninan the learned Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 and advocate Sri. Ramesh Chander, the learned Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent.REVISION PETITIONER'S CONTENTIONS3. Advocate Sri. C.S. Manu the learned Counsel appearing f...

Y.P. Baiju Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008CriLJ928

ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Is composition of a criminal offence a unilateral act or a bilateral one Is it necessary to insist on the appearance of an accused person to enable the victim to compound a criminal offence Is a Criminal Court justified in insisting on a joint application for composition by the victim and the accused for invoking the powers under Section 320, Cr. P. C. to accept and/or accord permission for a composition Is there any distinction between 'withdrawal' of a complaint under Section 257, Cr. P. C. and composition of an offence under Section 320, Cr. P. C? Even if there be such a distinction, is that distinction relevant in the dynamics of operation under Section 320, Cr. P. C? Does such alleged distinction justify insistence by the Court on the personal appearance of the accused to consider an application for composition In a case where the Court has chosen to issue non-bailable warrant against the accused, is it essential that such accused must appear personally before...

The Peerless General Finance and Investment Corporation, Ltd. Vs. T.K. ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal is preferred against order dated 30th September 1998 of the CDRF, Kannur in OP.129/98. The complaint in aforesaid OP 129/98 was filed by the respondent herein as the complainant against appellant herein as opposite party claiming compensation on the ground of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Company in disbursing the amounts due to the complainant by virtue of the endowment policy issued by the opposite party Company in favour of the complainant as holder of the aforesaid endowment certificate bearing No.E.15302574 with the office records 970. The opposite party repudiated the claim for the entire endowment amount which was offered by the said policy, on the ground that the complainant-certificate holder had only remitted 5 half yearly instalments amounting to a total of Rs.800/- at the rate of Rs.160 per installment. The lower forum allowed the complaint in the said OP.129/98. Thereby the opposite party Peerless...

H.D.F.C. Vs. Anilesh

Court: Kerala

Reported in: II(2008)BC578

ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Is it invariable that the complainant must appear in person before a Court to file a complaint? If the complainant is not personally present, will the Magistrate be justified in not receiving the complaint at all? Is it possible for the Magistrate to receive the complaint and post the case for recording the sworn statement to a later date after condoning the absence of the complainant on the date of presentation? In a case like Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act where the personal presence of the complainant is not necessary for recording the sworn statement under Section 200, Cr.P.C, and an affidavit in its place has been filed under Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is it at all necessary for the Magistrate to insist on the personal appearance of the complainant/his attorney? These are the questions that arise for consideration in these Crl.M.Cs.2. The common petitioner-H.D.F.C. Ltd. is the complainant in 2 separate prosecutions-both befor...

Dr. Mathew Abraham Vs. V. Gopalakrishnan and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008CriLJ2686; 2008(1)KLJ86

ORDERR. Basant, J.1. When does a Criminal Court have the obligation to 'briefly record its reasons' for dismissing a complaint under Section 203 Cr/P/C?. Does that obligation exist only when the complaint as such - in its entirety, against all accused and in respect of all offences, is dismissed? Will the expression 'in each case' in Section 203 Cr.P.C. take in a case when the complaint is not dismissed as such, but is dismissed as against some accused or in so far as it relates to some offences? These are the questions to be considered in this revision petition.2. To the vital and crucial facts first. Shorn of unnecessary details and avoiding reference to various steps and proceedings taken so far, the facts can be summarised thus: The complainant, a Surgeon, filed a complaint before the Magistrate raising an allegation that the first respondent, a Police Officer, had committed offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 307 and 326 I.P.C. against him. Detailed enquiry under Secti...

A.M. Padmini Amma and anr. Vs. Vijayalakshmi Amma and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2007(3)KLJ640

Harun-Ul-Rashid, J.1. This Appeal Suit arises from the judgment and decree dated 21-12-1991 in O.S. No. 92/1988 on the file of the Sub Court, Thalassery. Defendants Nos. 12 an 24 are the appellants herein. The plaintiffs and defendant No. 3 have jointly preferred the memorandum of cross-objection challenging the finding of the court below in regard to item No. 6 of the plaint schedule property. The parties herein are referred to hereafter as plaintiffs and defendants.2. O.S. No. 92/1988 is a suit for partition praying to pass a preliminary decree for partition of item Nos. 1 and 2 in the plaint schedule properties into 25 shares, to allot 18 shares to the plaintiffs and for partition of item Nos. 3 to 6 in the plaint schedule properties into 23 shares and to allot 18 such shares to the plaintiffs with the past and future profits and for such other consequential reliefs.3. The facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:The plaintiffs and the defendants in the suit are...

Jas Agencies Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2007(3)KLJ746; (2009)20VST101(Ker)

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Order passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Thiruvananthapuram invoking Section 37 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 revising an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner reducing the amount of penalty to Rs. 5,000/- is under challenge in this appeal.2. Intelligence Officer in exercise of the powers under Section 45A of the Act imposed penalty of Rs. 6 lakhs on M/s. Jas Agencies, Sultan Bathery for the year 1995-96 stating that the assessee had deliberately acted in contravention of the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and that he had failed to produce true and complete accounts and hence maximum penalty was imposed. Deputy Commissioner entertained the revision filed by the assessee against the imposition of penalty and reduced the same to Rs. 5,000/-. Commissioner in exercise of the powers under Section 37 of the Act reversed that order and restored the order of the Intelligence Officer.3. M/s. Jas Agencies, is an assessee borne o...

Saramma Itticheriya Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2008Ker72

J.B. Koshy, J.1. Three questions arising out of interpretation of Section 49(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act') were referred to the Full Bench for consideration by a Division Bench of this Court. These questions are:1. Has Collector vested with power to reject the claim under Section 49(1) put forward by the owner to acquire entire building and proceed with acquisition of part of the building without Court interventions?2. Whether tenant can file a writ petition challenging the action taken by the Collector when the option under Section 49(1) is exercised by the landlord?3. When the Collector accepted the option to acquire the entire building, whether only building materials are to be acquired or the entire building including the land where it is situated also need be acquired?2. W. P. (C) No. 5512 of 2006 was filed by the owner of the building situated in Survey No. 1254/1 of Vanchiyoor village, Thiruvananthapuram. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land ...