Kerala Court December 2007 Judgments

BerIn P. Varghese and ors. Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008CriLJ1759; 2008(I)KLJ227; 2008(1)KLT317

ORDERR. Basant, J.1. A person attempts to commit suicide. He is culpably abetted by another to so commit suicide. Providentially he escapes and he does not die. Is the law helpless against the one, who abets the commission of suicide (I mean the attempt thereof) merely because the attempt was unsuccessful? Is he guilty of the offence punishable under Section 306 r/ w. 511 I.P.C. or at least under Section 309 r/w. 116 I.P.C.? Or, is the law to throw its hands up and say that you can go on abetting; you can go on attempting to persuade or goad a person to commit suicide; you may succeed in your attempt to abet; he amy attempt to commit suicide also; but if he does not die, you can go scot free. Can that be the law2. How serious is the law in its attempt to prevent ragging? De we lack the societal, political, legislative and administrative will to prevent ragging? Do we accept ragging as not serious enough that it can be left entirely to the managements, principals and Wardens to tackle t...

K. Premerajan Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2008)14VST202(Ker)

ORDERH.L. Dattu, C.J.1. The assessee is common in all these petitions, and therefore, these petitions are clubbed, heard and disposed of by this common judgment.The assessee has called in question the correctness or otherwise of the common order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A. Nos. 404 of 2003 and 405 of 2003 and Cross Objection Nos. 34 of 2003 and 35 of 2003 dated May 12, 2004.2. The assessee is a dealer registered both under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 ('the Act', for short) and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.The assessee is a small-scale industrial unit (for the sake of brevity, referred to as 'SSI unit') and is engaged in the manufacture of block board, flush board and plywoods.3. The State Government, in exercise of the power conferred by Section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, and in supersession of notifications mentioned in the Schedule, having considered it necessary in public interest, has issued Notification S.R.O. No....

Ramakrishna Sharma S. and ors. Vs. Inspector of Plantations and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2008)2LLJ789Ker

ORDERV.K. Mohanan, J.1. Crl. M.C. No. 5254/2003 is filed with a prayer to quash the complaint in S.T. No. 901/2003 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Punalur and Crl. M.C. No. 5255/2003 is also for quashing the complaint in S.T.No.900/2003 pending before the same Court. Since the reliefs sought for in both these Crl. M.Cs are similar, the facts and circumstances involved are more or less identical and especially the parties are the same, these matters are heard together and being disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioners/accused, who are 7 in number in Crl. M.C. No. 5254/2003, are the Directors of Travancore Rubber & Tea Co. Ltd., Plantation House, Pattom Palace P.O., Thiruvananthapuram. The company inter alia owns the Ambanad estate, Kalthuritty in Kollam district, which is principally planted, with tea and rubber which has an extent of about 1000 hectares. The Inspector of Plantations, Nedumangad filed Annexure A complaint against the above Directors date...

Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Aa) and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2009)25VST268(Ker)

ORDERAntony Dominic, J.1. The prayers sought for in this writ petition are to quash exhibit P11 final assessment order for 2005-06 under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and for directing the respondents to refrain from enforcing the demand pursuant to exhibit P11. The petitioner is also seeking a declaration that the sales turnover of its products is liable to be taxed only at four per cent and that the levy of tax at 12.5 per cent is illegal and unauthorized.2. Exhibit P11 challenged in this writ petition is the final assessment order for the period 2005-06. By this order, tax at the rate of 12.5 per cent has been levied on the petitioner and the balance tax due to be remitted is Rs. 1,59,60,720 and interest is also levied. The contention raised is that what is manufactured by the petitioner consists of household pesticides and insecticides which fall under serial No. 45(5) of the Third Schedule to the KVAT Act and the rate of tax payable thereon is only four per cent. According ...

Suresh Kumar Vs. Dipu Mohan, Rep. by Power of Attorney Holder, Mohanda ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in CC.330/06 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam who is under orders to pay compensation of Rs.23200/- with 9% interest and cost of Rs.1000/-. It is the case of the complainant that he was a passenger in the bus of the opposite party on 5.11.2005 that started from Bangalore at 6 PM. He had entrusted two suit cases with the crew of the bus which were kept in the luggage area provided in the bus. When he reached the destination it was found that the luggages are missing. The luggages contained goods worth Rs.35000/-. He claimed the amount of Rs.35000/- plus Rs.20000/- for mental agony with 18% interest. It is the version of the opposite partys/appellant that he has no responsibility in the matter and it is for the passengers to ensure that their luggages are kept safely. Power of attorney of the complainant who is the father of the complainant was examined and Ext.A1 to A9 marked. DW1 the Manager of the opposite par...

Yesudas and anr. Vs. Sub Inspector of Police and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008CriLJ1290; 2007(I)KLJ237; 2008(1)KLT245

ORDERR. Basant, J.1. What is the correct procedure to be followed by the Investigating Officer when composition of a compoundable offence (with or without permission of the Court - Section 320(1) or (2)) is reported to him in the course of investigation? At that stage what relief can be claimed by the accused and the complainant/victim? From which court can such relief be claimed? These questions of day to day relevance before the criminal courts arise for consideration before me in this case.2. To the vital facts first. Crime No. 825 of 2007 of Kalamassery police station is registered against the three petitioners herein on the basis of the F.I. statement lodged by the defacto complainant/third respondent herein. The crime is registered Under Section 341 and 324 r/w. 34 I.P.C. The offence under Section 341 I.P.C. is compoundable under Section 320(1) Cr.P.C. even without the permission of the court, whereas, the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. is compoundable only with the permission ...

Saly Paul and ors. Vs. the Food Inspector and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ340; 2008(1)KLT896

V.K. Mohanan, J.1. Petitioners are the accused in C.C.No. 1873/2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Changanacherry for the offences punishable under Sections 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7(i)(v), Section 2(1a)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rule 5-Appendix B of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 (hereinafter referred to for short 'the Act and Rules'). According to the petitioners, going by Annexure-A Charge Sheet and Annexure-B Report of the Public Analyst, no offence is disclosed against them and the petitioners 1 to 3 who are the Directors of the 5th petitioner company are not liable to be prosecuted in the light of Section 17(2) of the above Act. Thus, the petitioners seek an order to quash Annexure-A complaint and all further proceedings thereon.2. Annexure-A is the complaint filed by the Food Inspector-Ist respondent therein, in which the allegation is that on 9-9-2002, at about 2.30 p.m. he had inspected the 5th petition...

Argus International Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2008)14VST171(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Petitioner is challenging exhibits P15 and P16 orders of assessment issued by the first respondent under Section 19B of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The petitioner is a manufacturer of 'Cuticura' brand of talcum powder for the brand name holder M/s. Mullar & Phipps (India) Limited, the third respondent herein. The petitioner's factory is located at Madras wherefrom the product is stock transferred to Kerala and sold to the brand name holder for marketing in the State. The first respondent found that as against the normal margin of 15 per cent in the nature of wholesale trade of the product, the brand name holder resold the item after purchase from petitioner at a gross profit of 55.05 per cent. The first respondent, therefore, rejected petitioner's sales consideration and made assessment under Section 19B of the KGST Act. The turnover adopted for first sale by petitioner is 85 per cent of the sales turnover of the brand name holder, i.e., by prov...

The Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority, Vellayambalam, Trivandr ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated:30th July 2004 of the CDRF, Kollam in OP:423/03 which was filed by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellants/opposite parties for quashing the bill dated:6..10..2003 and also for compensation on the ground of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The aforesaid case of the complainant was disputed by the opposite parties and contended that the disputed bill was issued on the basis of the actual consumption of water by the consumer and there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. But the lower forum accepted the case of the complainant and thereby the bill dated:6..10..03 for Rs.5900/- was cancelled with a direction to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as compensation to the complainant. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal is preferred. 2. When this appeal was taken up for final hearing there was no representation for the responden...

Sugunan N. Vs. O.V. Joseph and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(1)KLJ6

K.T. Sankaran, J.1. The Regular Second Appeal as well as the First Appeal against Order arise out of the same judgment and decree, dated 19-11 -2004, in A.S. No. 166 of 2003, on the file of the Court of the Additional District Judge, North Paravur. Since the appellate court has rendered a finding that the plaintiff is entitled to get damages and also that the second defendant is liable to pay the damages, by way of abundant caution, the appellant/second defendant has filed the Second Appeal though the appellate court had remanded the case to the trial court for fresh consideration in respect of quantum of damages. Since a remand was made, the appellant/second defendant has filed F.A.O. No. 308 of 2004. Notice was ordered on the substantial questions of law formulated in the Memorandum of Regular Second Appeal. The same questions of law as raised in the R.S.A. have been raised in the F.A.O.as well.2. The appellant is the second defendant in O.S.274 of 2000, on the file of the court of t...