Kerala Court November 2007 Judgments

The Inspector General of Police Vs. M.V. Raghavan and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(1)KLT71

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.W.A. No. 2700/2007:1. The appellant is the 3rd respondent in the writ petition. The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the validity of the election held on 23.9.2007 to the Managing Committee of the 5th respondent Co-operative Society. The appellant is one of the returned candidates. This Court admitted the writ petition and ordered notice on the respondents. This Court also passed an interim order restraining the newly elected Managing Committee from enrolling new members and also from making appointment of any employees. The appellant filed a counter affidavit, raising a preliminary objection that the writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that the Co-operative Societies Act is a self-contained code. It provides for an effective alternative machinery for resolution of election disputes. Further, it was also contended that as the disputes raised in this writ...

Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2009)20VST433(Ker)

V. Giri, J.1. The petitioner challenges exhibit P24 order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (General), Department of Commercial Taxes, Thiruvananthapuram, declining its application for exemption from payment of sales tax in terms of S.R.O. No. 1729 of 1993 as amended by S.R.O. No. 1092 of 1999 and modified by S.R.O. No. 295 of 2000. Though S.R.O. No. 1729 of 1993 has been considered and discussed by this Court as also the Supreme Court on more than one occasion, the scope and ambit of the two other notifications have not been squarely considered by this Court, except on a previous occasion involving the same assessee, in a judgment inter partes in O.P. No. 8563 of 2003 (T) Reported as Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala . By the said judgment (exhibit P2) this Court had remitted the question of eligibility in terms of S.R.O. No. 1729 of 1993 to be considered by the Director of Industries. A conditional certificate of eligibility was issued by the Director. The Deputy Co...

Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. C.K. Vasu

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN:JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated:18..8..2004 in OP:42/04 on the file of the CDRF, Kottayam. The complaint in the said OP:42/04 was filed by the respondent as complainant against the appellant as opposite party claiming the insurance claim, compensation on the ground of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in honouring the insurance claim with respect to the policy of burglary. The opposite party repudiated the insurance claim on the ground that the insured failed to take necessary precautionary steps for safeguarding the insured premises and the insured goods. But the lower forum on an appreciation of the evidence adduced from either side came to the conclusion that there occurred deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and thereby directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.38,156/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of repudiation till the date of payment and cost of Rs.1...

M/S. Krishnan Nair and Sons Vs. B. Prem and Others

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated:31..7..2002 of the CDRF, Trivandrum in OP:261/99. The complaint in the said OP:261/99 was preferred by the respondents 1 and 2 herein as complainants against the appellant (1st opposite party) and the 3rd respondent (additional 2nd opposite party) alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 and requesting for replacement of the defective watch or for refund of Rs.2720/- representing the price of the defective watch and also for compensation and cost. The aforesaid claim was repudiated by the 1st opposite party. There was no representation for the 2nd opposite party and they remained exparte. The lower forum accepted the case of the complainants to a greater extent and thereby directed the opposite parties 1 and 2 to refund Rs.2176/- with future interest at the rate of 14.5% and also to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- as compensation with cost of Rs.1500/-. Aggrieved by the af...

Manikandan Vs. S.i. of Police and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008CriLJ1338; 2008(1)KLJ173; 2008(1)KLT37

ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. The interesting question which arises for consideration in this revision is as to whether a person who is arrested by a police officer without a warrant under Section 41(1)(d) Cr.P.C. on the reasonable suspicion that such person is in possession of stolen property or is reasonably suspected of having committed an offence with reference to such property, when produced before the Magistrate without anything more, is liable to be remanded to judicial custody2. The revision petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 317 of 2007 of Nallalam Police Station. The said crime was registered at the instance of the Sub Inspector of Police, Nallalam. The Sub Inspector is said to have inspected the godown of the accused at Kolathara in Cheruvannur amsom on 31-10-2007 at 12.15 p.m. and is alleged to have found 300 kgms of aluminium wire. Suspecting that the aluminium wire belonged to and was used for drawing overhead lines by the Kerala State Electricity Board, the Sub Inspector se...

M.S. Mohan Kumar Vs. Ulahannan Mathew @ Yohannan

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU :PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in OP.237/02 under orders to pay compensation of Rs.3000/- and cost of Rs.750/- to the petitioner. The grievance of the complainant is that she had made arrangements in the appellant/respondent to provide two tourist buses on 15.5.2000 for taking the invitees for the marriage of his daughter. The buses were booked on 15.4.2000 after paying Rs.1000/- as advance. But on the particular day of marriage only one bus was made available. The appellant filed an affidavit stating that both buses were provided, but one bus reached the place only at 10.30. The delay was occasioned on account of mechanical problems. Both parties have only filed affidavits and the complainant filed Ext.A1 to A3 documents; ie., the copy of the booking receipt, copy of the lawyer notice and acknowledgement card. The case of the petitioner is that only one bus was sent to him and the same has been denied by the respondents/appellant. In orde...

Vasanthakumari and ors. Vs. Sarojini and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ91; 2008(1)KLT451

ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. The question involved in this Revision is whether donees under a gift deed, who were made liable to pay certain amounts to certain persons under the terms of the gift deed, are entitled to deposit before the civil court the amounts so payable and get such deposit recorded, when the genuineness of the gift deed itself is disputed by the persons to whom the amounts are to be paid.2. The petitioners in the Revision filed O.P. No. 12 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the III Additional Munsiff, Thrissur, under Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act, to record the deposit of amounts as per the terms of settlement deed, No. 6148 of 1981, Sub Registrar's Office, Thrissur. The petitioners are the widow and children of late Gangadharan, who died on 21-1-2000. The first respondent is the sister of Gangadharan. Respondents 2 to 5 are the legal representatives of Kalyani, another sister of Gangadharan. The sixth respondent is the foster son of Ammu, mother of Gangad...

Tessy P. Das Vs. Secretary, Paippadu Grama Panchayat

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2008Ker82

ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J.1. The grievance of the petitioner, a widow, in this writ petition appears to be genuine. Her grievance is that the respondent (Secretary of the Paippadu Grama Panchayat) who is registrar of births and deaths has declined under Ext. P4 to register the death of her husband late Jose Das T.V. under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, on the ground that the death occurred outside his jurisdictional limits viz. the area of Paippadu Grama Panchayat. The petitioner submits that her husband Sri. Jose Das died in Madurai in Tamil Nadu, but the dead body was brought over to Paippadu, his village and was buried at the Cemetry of St. Thomas Church, Paippadu, his parish Church. Ext. P3 Certificate issued by the Vicar of the Church is relied on by the petitioner in this regard. Ext. P3 was submitted by the petitioner before the respondent along with an application for issuance of a Death Certificate in respect of Sri. Jose Das. But that application was rejecte...

Prakasan Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008CriLJ1272; 2008(1)KLJ45

ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. In this Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., the revision petitioner who is the complainant in C.M.P. No. 9229 of 2005, a private complaint filed before the J.F.C.M.-I, Attingal for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 447, 427 I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 read with Section 149 I.P.C. challenges Annexure C order passed by he Magistrate taking cognizance only of the offences under the Indian Penal Code.2. I heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.Annexure A is the private complaint filed by he revision petitioner before the court below. Apart from the fact that it contains averments with regard to the offences under the Indian Penal Code, it also contains specific allegations with regard to the offences under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 by stating that his house was attacked with country bombs etc. causing extensive damage to the b...

K.K. Pushpakaran Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008ACJ2469; AIR2008Ker107

J.B. Koshy, J.1. Appellants filed an application, O.A. No. 30 of 1999, before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench claiming a compensation of Rs. 4,00,00/-for the demise of their son in a train accident, under Section 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 read with Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. The application was dismissed for default as appellants were absent on one day of the posting dates. They filed an application for setting aside the order dismissing the original application for default. Rule 18 of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 reads as follows:18. Action on application for applicant's default.- (1) Where on the date fixed for hearing of the application or on any other date to which such hearing may be adjourned, the applicant does not appear (when the application is called) for hearing, the Tribunal may, in its discretion, either dismiss the application for default or hear and decide it on merit.(2) Where an application has been dismissed ...