Kerala Court February 2008 Judgments

Manoj Pandarakalathil Vs. Kollamthodi Narayanan

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2008Ker132

ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. The question involved in this Revision is whether an order for costs passed by the High Court in a Writ Petition can be executed by filing an Execution Petition in the civil Court.2. The revision petitioner, a cable T.V. Operator, was the respondent in a petition filed by the respondent before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum alleging deficiency in service. The District Forum passed an order directing the revision petitioner to deposit Rs. 1,400/- and certain other amounts. The revision petitioner challenged the order passed by the District Forum in appeal before the Consumer Disputes State Commission. As the petitioner did not get an interim order of stay, he moved the High Court in W.P. (C) No. 24112 of 2003. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition with costs by the judgment dated 3-6-2004. The office of the High Court certified the costs.3. The respondent herein filed an Execution Petition before the Court of the Munsiff of Parappanangadi fo...

Sajeev Kumar Vs. Dhanya

Court: Kerala

Reported in: II(2008)DMC19

ORDERR. Basant, J.1. This revision petition challenges a direction under Section 125, Cr.P.C. issued by the Family Court to the petitioner to pay maintenance @ Rs. 1,500 and Rs. 750 per mensem respectively to his divorced wife and child.2. The fundamental facts are not disputed. The marriage is admitted. The divorce under Ext. B1 order of the Family Court is also admitted. That divorce was granted on the ground of desertion by the wife is also not disputed. After the divorce, the divorced wife claimed maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. as she continues to be a deemed wife under Explanation (b) to Section 125, Cr.P.C.3. The petitioner attempted to resist the claim for maintenance on various grounds. It was contended that a woman who has suffered an order of divorce on account of contumacious matrimonial conduct on her part which led to the passing of the order of divorce is not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125. It was also contended that in any view of the matter, und...

investors Club Trichur Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [2009]318ITR427(Ker); [2009]184TAXMAN72(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The appeal is filed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal confirming disallowance of income-tax exemption claimed by the appellant. The main income of the appellant, in respect of which the exemption is claimed, is floor charges collected for allowing use of the space and facilities of the appellant, for trading in shares/stock. Even though appellant claimed that appellant has permitted only its members to trade in shares/stock in its premises, there is no document to prove it, as vouchers and the records were admittedly destroyed to save the members from individual tax liability. In any case, we find that the Tribunal accepted appellant's contention that share trading was permitted only to its members.2. The question raised before the Tribunal was as to whether the appellant was entitled to exemption on the ground of mutuality? In other words, the claim is that the appellant's benefit of the floor charges collected from members goes back t...

Dr.Anna Thomas, Mbbs (Rmo) Vs. P.K.Niju Kumar

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the second opposite party in OP.210/98 who is under orders to pay a compensation of Rs.10000/- and cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant who has alleged medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties that consisted of respondents 1 to 3. It is the case of the complainant that on 15.3.98 at 6.30 PM he went to the hospital of the opposite parties with the injury sustained on the 3rd toe of the right leg as a grinding stone fell on the tip of the 3rd toe. He was admitted at the hospital of the opposite parties and undergone I.P treatment for 9 days. On 23.3.98 he was discharged and continued O.P treatment for further 5 days. The wound did not heal and there was swelling. Then he went to the Taluk Hospital, Chengannur, wherein X-ray was taken and it was found that the bone is fractured and one portion of the bone is seen placed on the above other. At the above hospital the third toe was amputed. According to him the amputation is the r...

State of Kerala Vs. Bhasi Nair and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ543; 2008(1)KLT817

Harun-Ul-Rashid, J.1. The State of Kerala is the appellant. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Sub Court, Mavelikkara in LAR No. 155 of 1999. The acquisition is for the construction of Women's Poly Technic, Kayamkulam. Section 4(1) notification was published on 17-9-1998. The extent of land acquired is 2.03.67 hectares comprised in different survey numbers in Kayamkulam Village in Karthigappally Taluk.2. Before the reference court, the first claimant and another witness were examined as Aws. 1 and 2 respectively and Exts. A1 and A2 were marked. RW. 1 was examined on the side of the respondent and Ext. B1 was marked. Mahazar and report filed by the Commissioner was marked as Ext. C1. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed land value at the rate of Rs. 86,485/- per Are as against a claim of Rs. 2,00,000/- per cent. The claimant gave evidence stating that the acquired land is situated in the heart of Kayamkulam town in Kayalamkulam Municipality, adjacent to ...

S. Sulekha Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(1)KarLJ659; 2008(2)KLT23

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. An interim order was passed in these cases on 17-12-2007, which reads as follows:Learned Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents in these writ petitions. The bar hotel of the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 36834 of 2007 is outside G31 Edamulackal Grama Panchayat and G57 Elampalloor Grama Panchayat while the bar hotel of the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 36989 of 2007 is within G57 Elampalloor Grama Panchayat. However, that is beyond Ward No.04 in that Grama Panchayat where a bye-election is scheduled to be conducted on 17-12-2007.2. As per the impugned order dated 3-12-2007, the District Magistrate, in purported exercise of power under Section 54 of the Abkari Act has ordered closure of the bar hotels, including in the adjoining areas of Edamulackal Grama Panchayat and Elampalloor Grama Panchayat.3. Rule 28A of the Foreign Liquor Rules is a self working provision which does not depend upon any further order being issued by any authority. Condition...

Thomas and anr. Vs. Dr. A.A. Henry and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(2)KLJ316

Harun-Ul-Rashid, J.1. This appeal is filed by defendants 2 and 3 in O.S. No. 45 of 1990 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam against the decree and judgment dated 19-10-1992. Respondents 1 to 3 herein as plaintiffs filed the suit for a decree for setting aside Exts. A17 and A18 sale deeds assigning the first defendant's ownership over the plaint schedule property and conveying his rights therein to defendants 2 and 3 and to order defendants 2 and 3 to assign the right, title interest and possession obtained by them over the plaint schedule property by the above sale deeds to any one of the plaintiffs or to the plaintiffs jointly as required by them by executing a registered document and pay the plaintiffs the rent due and received from the shop rooms by defendants 2 and 3 with 12% future interest, failing which to allow the plaintiffs to deposit the consideration in court and get the document of assignment executed in their favour through court, for recovery of possess...

Tecsun Rubber Products Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2008)16VST10(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.2. Appeals arise from the suo motu revisional orders of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes issued under Section 37 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 cancelling the Deputy Commissioner's order in first revision and restoring the penalty levied by the assessing officer for the assessment years 1987-88 to 1992-93. The appellant is a manufacturer of tread rubber, purchasing rubber and other raw materials at concessional rate under Section 5(3) of the KGST Act by issuing form 18. The condition for availing concessional rate for purchase of raw materials, packing materials, etc., is payment of sales tax either under the KGST Act or under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 on the product manufactured. Admittedly, the appellant transferred substantial quantity of the products on stock-transfer basis to outside the State on which no tax was payable or paid und...

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nirarudeen

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008ACJ2871

J.B. Koshy, J.1. This appeal is filed by the insurance company. Contention raised by the insurance company was that the driver of the offending vehicle insured by it had no valid driving licence. As per the charge-sheet, the earlier licence expired before the date of accident, i.e., 2.5.1996. It was renewed only on 2.5.1996. Therefore, according to the appellant, on the date of accident there was no driving licence. The Apex Court in Narcinva V. Kamat v. Alfredo Antonio Doe Martins 1985 ACJ 397 (SC), held as follows:(12) It is contended on behalf of the insurance company that the appellant No. 2 did not have a valid driving licence. It is the insurance company which complains that there has been a breach of one of the important terms of the contract of insurance as evidenced by the policy of insurance (the whole of which was not shown to us) and that the appellant No. 2 who was shown to be driving the vehicle at the relevant time, did not have a valid driving licence to drive the pick-...

K.R. Madhavan Ezhuthassan and ors. Vs. P.V. Venkitarama Iyer and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2008Ker165; 2008(1)KLJ690

M. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. Whether the period of limitation of a suit for redemption and recovery of possession by the mortgagor against an assignee mortgagee is covered under Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Article 61 of Limitation Act 1963? This is the question to be decided in the appeal.2. The facts are not disputed. Plaint schedule property belonged in jenmom to Suriachira Ganapaty Devaswom. On 13-1-1945, under Ext. A4 registered mortgage deed 308/1945, for discharging debts, after receiving Rs. 800/-, the mortgage money, respondent Devaswom mortgaged plaint schedule properties in favour of Ayyaswamy Nalcker who was put in possession of the mortgaged properties on condition that he is entitled to appropriate the profits towards the interest due on the mortgage money and shall measure 122 paras of paddy annually on or before 30th Makaram every year. In 1965, mortgagee Ayyaswami Naicker assigned his mortgage right in favour of Kuttan, Kuttan has been in possession of the property as an...