Kerala Court February 2008 Judgments

Murukan V. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009ACJ2018

J.B. Koshy, J.1. Appellant-claimant was injured in an accident due to a fall between the moving train and the platform and injured seriously. As a result of the accident, he sustained crush injury to the leg and 4th and 5th toes were amputated. The District Medical Officer certified that he had 40 per cent disability. The medical certificate further shows that debridement amputation of 4th and 5th toes was done on 3.6.1999 and a skin grafting and fascio cutaneous flap was done to cover the raw area on 1.7.1999. Thereafter, on 9.2.2000, another certificate was issued stating that 2nd, 3rd and 4th toes had undergone traumatic amputation and stumps only were seen on admission in the hospital.2. He filed an application for compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 read with the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 1997 for Rs. 2,00,000. It is not disputed that he was a season ticket holder. Exh. P1 is the monthly season ticket and Exh. P...

Andrew Mendez and ors. Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008CriLJ2368; 2008(1)KarLJ647; 2008(1)KLT1000

ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Which is the court referred to in Section 41(6) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) after its amendment by Act 33/06? can it be said that it is the Juvenile Justice Board itself? If not, which is the court which the Legislature had in mind when the Act was amended by Act 33/06? These are the question which come up before this court for consideration in this petition. How an in alert amendment of a statute can reap pernicious consequences in the implementation of the provisions of the statute is clearly revealed from the dilemma which is posed before the court in this case.2. The petitioners 1 and 2 are a couple, who had got themselves appointed as guardians of a child sponsored by the placement agency, the third petitioner. By order dated 6/6/97 passed by the Family Court, Ernakulam in O.P. No. 97/97 petitioners 1 and 2 were appointed as guardians of the child and the child continue to be under th...

Trends Polymer Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Asst. Commissioner-iii

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(238)ELT54(Ker); 2008(2)KLJ668; (2008)18VST33(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Petitioner is challenging Ext. P3 issued by the Assessing Officer revising the petitioner's sales tax assessment for the year 2002-03 under Section 19 of the K.G.S.T. Act, 1963 bringing to tax the turnover of polythene sheets at the higher rate of 12%, as against the original assessment of the item at 4% treating it as packing material under entry 102 of the first Schedule to the K.G.S.T. Act, 1963. Petitioner was engaged in the manufacture and sale of polythene film to those engaged in production, packing and sale of milk, oil etc. The main supply of the product was to the milk supplying organisation 'MILMA' alter printing their logo and name in the polythene sheets. The polythene sheets are converted into polythene bags in the course of packing milk wherein, the automatic packing machine converts the sheets to cover form and packs the same with specified quantity of the milk therein. The petitioner relying on Ext.P1 clarification of the commissioner of Co...

Mathew Varghese Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2008)15VST493(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioners are dealers in cycle and cycle parts. Bicycles, tricycles and cycle rickshaws and specified parts are brought under four per cent tax under entry 13 of the Third Schedule to the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. During inspection of the business premises by the audit team, it was noticed that all items were accounted by the petitioners at four per cent tax. The assessing officer was of the view that cycle parts such as seat cover, dynamo, bell, carrier, cycle stand, handle bar, etc., which are not covered by entry 13 of the Third Schedule, are assessable at 12.5 per cent under Section 6(1)(d) of the Act. Since petitioners have not shown any turnover of those items separately, the assessing officer estimated the turnover of cycle parts which are not covered by entry 13(3) of the Third Schedule and assessed the same at 12.5 per cent. These assessments are challenged on the ground that the provisions of the KVAT Act authorising levy of sales ta...

Silvery Fernandez Antony Vs. M/S.Air Travel Enterprises India Ltd., Re ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT It is the case of the complainant that he was working in Kuwait from 1992 to 1998 as sales representative, clearing agent etc.. at Talalco General Trading Contract, Kuwait. He returned to India on 1.6.1998. During February March, 1999 he had been negotiated a contract with M/S.AL-SAFAT TOWER EST, Kuwait for appointing him as their clearing agent and transporter with effect from 1.7.1999 to 30.6.2001. The remuneration for the same was finalized at 500 Dinar excluding expenses, accommodation and allowances. His past experience in the field was taken into account. The complainant was directed vide letter dated 20.3.1999 to reach Kuwait on or before 9.4.1999 for signing the contract. On receipt of the above letter along with visit visa he approached the 2nd opposite party M/S.Cristhu Raja Tours and Travels to arrange him an air ticket to reach Kuwait on or before 9.4.1999. The first opposite party/M/S.Air Travel Enterprises India Ltd., and 2nd oppos...

Mathew @ Raju Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ602; 2008(1)KLT915

ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Is the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act a bailable or a non-bailable one? This is bone of contention in this application for bail.2. The facts are simple. The first accused was allegedly involved in cultivation of ganja punishable under Section 20(i) of the Act. He was apprehended. His statement was recorded. It was revealed that some time earlier, the first accused had sold to the petitioner and the petitioner had purchased 500 grams of dried ganja. The petitioner was also proceeded against. He was arrested on 11 -1 -2008. He continues in custody from that date.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) is bailable and the detention of the petitioner, who is willing to offer bail, is unjustified.4. The learned Prosecutor, on the contrary, contends that Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act declares all offences under the N.D.P.S. Act to be non-bailable an...

P.N. Unni and ors. Vs. Baby John and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008ACJ2575; AIR2008Ker157; 2008(1)KarLJ678; 2008(2)KLT78

Harun-Ul-Rashid, J.1. The above appeals arise from the common award passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha in O.P. (MV) Nos. 699, 700 and 1104 of 1993. M.F.A. No. 442 of 1997 is filed against the award in O.P. (MV) No. 699 of 1993. The appellants who are the claimants in the said original petition are respectively the father, mother and brother of deceased Monisha. M.F.A. No. 353 of 1997 is filed by the sole claimant against the award passed in O.P (MV) No. 700 of 1993. The claimant in the said case is the mother of the deceased who is also the second claimant in O.P (MV) No. 699 of 1993. Both the appeals are filed by the claimants challenging the quantum of compensation. M.F.A. Nos. 398 and 774 of 1997 are filed by the Managing Director of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Thiruvananthapuram (for short 'the K.S.R.T.C.') who is the third respondent in O.P (MV) Nos. 699 and 700 of 1993, challenging the award by which 20% liability was fixed on it....

Madhurajan Vs. Dr.K.Lalappan

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The order assailed in this appeal has been passed by the CDRF, Malappuram in O.P.No.96/2001. By the order dated 31.7.2002 the opposite party has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.13,000/- together with a sum of Rs.2,000/- as cost with in three weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. There was also a direction to the opposite party that he will not print speciality center in the letter heads and his clinic will not be speciality center without specialized doctors with sufficient qualifications and facilities. It is aggrieved by the said directions that the opposite party has preferred the present appeal. 2. The case of the complainant bereft of unnecessary details in the complainant is that he had approached the opposite party for treatment of his teeth and even after prolonged treatment it was not cured and he had to approach the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode for getting things cured by one Dr.Ayyappan, The complainant had a...

Haji A. Abdul Rashid Vs. the Special Tahsildar and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2008Ker154; 2008(1)KLT623

K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The petitioners are owners of properties situated in Mammiyoor Village. Lands owned by the petitioners were acquired for a public purpose. They did not file petition under Section 18 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act') for referring the matter to the Land Acquisition Court for determining enhancement in the compensation. But some of the owners of properties lying adjacent to the properties owned by the petitioners filed applications under Section 18 of the Act claiming enhancement. Those cases were referred to Sub Court, Thrissur by the Land Acquisition Officer and the Sub Judge, Thrissur enhanced the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. On 20-12-2002 petitioners had filed Ext.P2 series applications under Section 28A of the Act claiming benefit under that Section. Those applications were dismissed by the Land Acquisition Officer vide Ext.P4 judgment the requisitioning authority filed L.A.A. No. 1401/2002 and connected case...

Gem Granites Vs. Deputy Supdt. of Police and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2008Ker170

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. This Is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying that the police may be directed to grant protection to the quarrying operations in the petitioner's property, for which it has obtained quarrying lease from the Director of Mining and Geology, as evident from Exts. P1 and P2 proceedings of the said officer. The respondents resisted the application, contending that the petitioner does not have the statutory licences/clearances under other relevant statutes and therefore, it is not entitled to do any quarrying. That being so, according to them, its prayer for police protection is untenable. But, according to the petitioner, once it has got the lease under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, nothing more is required to run the quarry. The above dispute is the point that arises for decision in this case.2. The brief facts of the case pleaded by the petitioner are the following: The petitioner firm, represented by its Mana...