Kerala Court November 2008 Judgments

Pournami Vs. Sandhya Sundheer and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009ACJ1291

C.N. Ramchandran Nair, J.1. The Director General of Police, Thiruvananthapuram and the Transport Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram are impleaded as additional respondents in these appeals. Government Pleader takes notice for additional respondents.2. The appellants are husband and wife who while travelling along with their two children aged four years and two years on a motor bike met with an accident on 12.4.2002 causing injury to three of them. The bike in which the appellants were travelling from Perumbavoor towards east in the Munnar Road was knocked down by a car. While both the appellants and one child sustained injuries, the other child escaped unhurt. Since injury to the child was minor in nature, the insurance company offered compensation and settled the liability. However, when the appellants filed separate claim petitions, the same was resisted by the insurance company of the offending vehicle, among other things, on the ground that accident is on account of contributory negl...

State of Kerala Vs. Malabar Regional Co-op. Milk Producers Union Limit ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2009)23VST414(Ker)

ORDERH.L. Dattu, C.J.1. The one and only question that arises for our consideration and decision is, the rate of tax payable on the sale of 'sambharam'. The assessee had claimed reduced rate of tax on the ground that sambharam is nothing but buttermilk, as envisaged under entry 49 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 ('the KGST Act', for short). However, the assessing authority was of the view that, for the purpose of preparing sambharam, ginger, chilly, etc., are added to the buttermilk, and, therefore, the identity of the buttermilk changes, and, therefore it should be treated as an item falling under the residuary clause, and, therefore, the assessing authority taxed it at eight per cent. Further, the assessing authority had relied upon the clarification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, in Clarification No. C3.62774/01/CT/ dated February 15, 2003.2. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the assessing authority, the assessee had carried the m...

The Branch Manager, State Bank of Travancore Vs. K. Purushothaman

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Appellant is the opposite party in OP:256/03 on the file of CDRF, Kollam. The appellants/Bank authorities are under orders to pay to the complainant Rs.15,000/- with 9% interest from the date of the complaint and also to pay Rs.1000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as cost. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he presented cheque bearing No:674725, dt:25..10..2002 drawn on SBT Nedungadi branch for collection at the opposite party branch of the bank. The date of presentation of the cheque was 10..12..2002. As no intimation was received by the drawer bank from the opposite party and no satisfactory explanation for the delay was given he issued lawyer notice on 26..2..2003 to the opposite party. A reply was received mentioning that the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds on 24..12..2002, and that the cheque and the dishonoured memo has been lost in transit and that they have obtained another cheque for the same amount from the ...

Managing Director, Kerala State Fiancial Enterprises, Thrissur and Oth ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated:15th November 2002 passed by CDRF, Kollam in OP:367/2001. The complaint in the said OP was filed by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellants as opposite parties claiming refund of the excess amount of Rs.67.233/- with 18% interest and compensation of Rs.20,000/- with cost of Rs.5000/-. The opposite party/KSFE entered appearance and contended that no amount was collected in excess and they have collected only the amount which was due to the KSFE with the penal interest as agreed upon by the parties. But the Forum below accepted the case of the complainant to some extent and thereby passed the impugned order directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.33,334/- with 12% interest from the date of the complaint till realization with compensation of Rs.1000/-. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal is filed by the opposite parties in OP:367/01. 2. We heard both sides. L...

Aloshia Joseph Vs. Rev. Dr. Joseph Kollamparambil and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009CriLJ2190; 2008(1)KLJ508(1)

ORDERM. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. Whether a complainant has a right to demand that Magistrate shall forward the complaint for investigation under Sub-section (3) of Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure? Is it for the Magistrate to decide whether a complaint is to be forwarded for investigation by the Police? Can the Magistrate to take cognizance and conduct an inquiry under Section 202 of Code of Criminal Procedure even if complainant seeks only for forwarding the complaint under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. If the allegations in the complaint with the sworn statement of the complainant makes out a prima facie case can the Magistrate dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of Code of Criminal Procedure?. These are the relevant aspects to be decided in this revision petition.2. Revision petitioner filed a complaint before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Irattupetta with a prayer to forward the complaint to Sub Inspector of Police, Irattupetta for investigation ...

Rajasekharan Nair Vs. the Returning Officer and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ875

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Petitioner submitted nomination for election, notified as per Ext.P1, to the committee of the 2nd respondent co-operative bank. Ext.P3 evidences that his nomination was rejected on the ground that he was in default to the bank as on the date of submission of the nomination and though he is shown to have deposited Rs. 8,875/- on 7-11-2008 towards interest, he is in default, going by the ledger. That is under challenge.2. The petitioner says that the loan account was closed on payment of interest as evidenced by Ext.P2 and renewed in his favour on 7-11-2008. Ext.P2 evidences only payment of interest. It does not disclose the alleged closure of the loan account.3. The other pleadings in paragraphs 2 and 4 of the writ petition are than an amount of Rs. 1 lakh was sanctioned under the Kissan Credit Card account in favour of the petitioner and that the loan has been renewed on 7-11-2008. He also relies on entries in Ledger No. 8 of the bank as recorded in pa...

NithIn Norbert and ors. Vs. the University of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2009Ker60; 2008(3)KLJ843

K.T. Sankaran, J.1 The questions involved in this Writ Petition are: (1) Whether the Lok Ayukta and Upa Lok Ayukta appointed under the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999 have jurisdiction to allow amendment of a complaint or an application; and (2) Whether the Lok Ayukta and the Upa Lok Ayukta have power to invoke Rule 8 of Order I of the Code of Civil Procedure and permit a representative action being taken, empowering one or more parties in the complaint to defend the complaint in a representative capacity on behalf of other who are not parties to proceedings.2. The writ petitioners are not parties to the proceedings before the Lok Ayukta. Their grievance is against Exts. P3 and P5 orders passed by the Upa Lok Ayukta. As per Ext.P5 order dated 4th July 2008, the Upa Lok Ayukta impleaded additional respondents 4 and 5 (respondents 5 and 6 in the Writ Petition) in a representative capacity representing similarly situated persons. By the same order, the Upa Lok Ayukta directed the complainant ...

Rajan P. Vs. K.J. John and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2006ACJ2631; AIR2009Ker136; 2009(1)KLJ618

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The appeal is filed against the order of the MACT dismissing a claim petition filed by the appellant for compensation for injury sustained by him in an accident claimed by him to be road accident. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellant, Senior counsel appearing for the Insurance Company and counsel appearing for the registered owner of the vehicle involved in the accident.2. The facts leading to the case are the following. On 4-3-1998 at around 7.30 p.m. a load of marble was being unloaded in the house premises of a person who purchased and transported marble to his house in the same truck. The appellant's case is that while unloading the marble, driver of the vehicle took it in the reverse gear which led to a marble piece falling on his left leg causing serious injury. Before the MACT, Insurance Company pleaded that accident occurred in a private premises i.e., in the compound of a house and that accident is not on account of any rash and neglig...

Subramanian, S/O. Parangodankutty Vs. the State of Kerala,

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(1)KLT77

V. Giri, J.1. The constitutionality of certain provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Sand Act') and the validity of some of the provisions contained in the Rules framed thereunder (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') have been challenged in these writ petitions.2. Challenge has been mounted in certain writ petitions against the proceedings taken for alleged contravention of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, essentially resulting in the confiscation of the vehicles belonging to the petitioners. The competence of the State legislature to enact the Act in question itself has been questioned in some of the writ petitions, though the focus of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in this regard, has also been centered around the validity of certain provisions in particular. Since, pleadings are complete in W.P.(C). No. 15847 of 2008, I have taken up the same as the...

Jailavudeen A.C. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(2)KLJ129

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. In spite of three postings, after service of notice on them, respondents 3 to 5 have not appeared.2. The petitioner, while the Secretary of the 5th respondent, was suspended and was later dismissed from service following disciplinary proceedings. X, an advocate, was the Enquiry officer. The petitioner sought that three resolutions in relation to disciplinary proceedings be rescinded. Whatever be the effect of Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, the 'Act', for short, one glaring illegality that appears on the face of the record is that X, the Enquiry officer, appeared on behalf of the employer to support the findings and the decisions which were impugned by the petitioner before the Deputy Director. Loosing his case before the Deputy Director, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Government. X appeared for the employer even before the Government.3. The Enquiry Officer in a domestic enquiry as part of disciplinary proceedings,...