Kerala Court March 2008 Judgments

C. Ganga Vs. Lakshmi Ammal and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008CriLJ3359; 2008(2)KLJ25

ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Are the criminal courts jurisdictionally competent to impose a sentence of imprisonment in default of a direction to pay compensation under Section 357(3) CrP.C? What is the correct law on the point? Is the law declared in Harikrishnan and State of Haryana v. Sukhbir Singh and Ors. : 1989CriLJ116 reiterated unambiguously in Suganthi Suresh Kumar v. Jagdeeshan : 2002CriLJ1003 . in any way altered by the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Ettappadan Ahammedkutty @ Kunhappu v. E.P. Abdullakoya @ Kunhi Bappu and Anr. 2008 (1) KLT 851 SC? Will it now be lawful for the Magistrate to impose such a default sentence?2. The question appears to be a vexing one and it appears that there is absolute confusion in the subordinate judiciary about the correct law that ought to be followed. I deem it my duty to help the subordinate judiciary to ascertain the law with clarity. Such confusion cannot be permitted to continue. The question came up for consideration in many case...

Kanholy Ramankutty Nair Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(2)KLJ267; (2008)17VST386(Ker)

ORDERH.L. Dattu, C.J.1. In all these tax revision cases, the one and only question that arises for our consideration and decision is, whether Maize and flattened Maize (Maize Poha) are one and the same commodity so as to be covered by the term 'maize' under the heading. 'cereal' in Entry No. 9 of Second Schedule to Kerala General Sales Tax Act or a different commodity liable to be assessed as an unclassified item taxable under the residuary entry.These revision petitions pertain to the orders assessment passed by the assessing authority for the assessment years 1991-92,1997-98,1998-99,1999-2000 and 2000-01.2. The assessments had been completed by the assessing authority for the assessment year 1991-92. The assessing authority was of the view, that maize and maize poha are commercially different commodities and therefore, they are not covered by the term maize that find a place under cereal in Entry 9 of Second Schedule to K.G.S.T. Act. The first appellate authority had confirmed the fi...

Ajeer C.A. Vs. the Returning Officer (Asst. Registrar (Planning)

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(2)KLJ220

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. These writ petitions are filed raising the question as to whether the administrators appointed under Section 33 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', were within authority to allot additional shares to members of the Kerala State Co-operative Hospital Complex and Centre for Advanced Medical Services Ltd. No. 4386 after the declaration of election to that society, since Clause 20(ii)(c) of its Bye-laws provides holding of not less than Rs. 10,000/- share capital in the society as a qualification for being elected to its Board of Directors from among the ordinary shareholders.According to the petitioners, such allotment of shares would be contrary to Rule 26 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter, the 'Rules', for short, if such transfer is made within sixty days prior to the date of election.2. The notification for election to the committee of the society was published on 3-9-2007, f...

Owner, P.S.M. Silks Vs. P. Prema

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU :PRESIDENT The appellants is the opposite party in CC.11/07 in the file of CDRF, Malappuram. The appellant who is running PSM Silks, Tirur is under orders to refund sum of Rs.614/- towards purchase of a sari by the complainant which was of an inferior quality. 2. It is the case of the complainant that after the first use itself the colour got spread and the sari could not be used. Further, the request for refund or replacement was turned down. 3. The opposite party/appellant has disputed the genuineness of the complaint and contended that there is no guarantee for colour or jerry. gerine. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavits of both sides, Ext.s A1 and A2 bills and MO1 series ie sari and the blouse. We find that complainant was not been cross examined. The recitals in the proof affidavit stands unimpeached. No patent illegality in the order of the Forum could be brought out. In the circumstances we find no reason to interfere in the ord...

Owner, P.S.M.Silks, Tirur Vs. A. Dileep Kumar

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in CC.13/05 in the file of CDRF, Malappuram. The appellant who is running PSM Silks, Tirur is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.904/- and also sum of Rs.250/- towards costs. The complainant has claimed for an amount of Rs.3510/- It is the case of the complainant that he purchased two sarees for a sum of Rs.452/- each and that same were found to be defective. After the first use itself the colour got spread and the sari could not be used further. The opposite parties disputed case of the complainant. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavits and Ext.s A1 and A2 bills. We find that version of the complainant as narrated in the proof affidavit stands unimpeached as the complainant was not cross examined. Further no patent illegality in the order was pointed out before this Commission. We find no reason to interfere in the order of the Forum. The appeal is dismissed in limine....

The Managing Director, Malabar Fuel Corporation Vs. Thanbkamani and An ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the second opposite party in OP 103/01 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The appellant and the first opposite party/dealer are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.5075/- and cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant. The case of the appellant is that relationship between the appellant and the first opposite party is that of principal to principal and not that of principal and agent. The second opposite party/appellant is the manufacturer of gas and the second opposite party is the distributor. Hence according to him the appellant is not liable for the deficiency in service of that of the distributor. 2. The case of the complainant is that she obtained gas connection from the first opposite party/dealer of the gas manufacturer on 7.1.99. She paid a sum of Rs.5,210/- and obtained the gas connection. It is subsequently after supply on a few occasion only the fist opposite party discontinued supplying gas and the empty gas cylinder was also t...

Sajina T. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008CriLJ2712; 2008(2)KLJ43

R. Basant, J.1. Is the dictum in Sakiri Vasu v. State of UP. 2008 AIR SCW 309 in conflict with the earlier decisions in S.N. Sharma v. Bipen Kumar 1970 SC 786, State of Bihar v. J.A.C Saldanna 1980 S.C. 326 and State of West Bengal v. Sampat Lal 1985 SC 195 Does Vasanthi Devi v. Sub inspector of Police : 2008(1)KLT945 require reconsideration These questions are raised by Advocate AX Varghese before me in this Writ Petition with vehemence.2. Petitioner claims to be the unfortunate victim of an instance of gang rape. In respect of the crime committed against her, crime 273 of 2007 Payyannur police station has been registered under Section 376(2) IPC She had allegedly undergone this trauma while she was pregmant. A series of instance took place between the second week of April, 2007 to the end of April, 2007. The petitioner is a married woman, aged about 19 years. She lives with her husband. The husband in connection with his employment was obliged to be away from home on several days. It...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Medical Trust Hospital and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2008)220CTR(Ker)166

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. This appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Tribunal confirming first appellate order cancelling assessment pertaining to capital gains on sale of land and building by the respondent assessee. During the previous year, relevant for the asst. yr. 1994-95, the respondent a firm, sold one acre and ten cents of land and a hospital complex therein, to one Sri Satyabalan, for a consideration of Rs. 30 lakhs. However, during search conducted in the premises of the purchaser, he made a statement to the Department under Section 132(4) of the IT Act confirming that the sale price for the land and building purchased from the respondent assessee was Rs. 71 lakhs as against Rs. 30 lakhs declared in the document. In fact, pursuant to the statement given at the time of search Sri Satyabalan filed a return and paid tax on the additional income of Rs. 41 lakhs which, according to him, is the sale price paid over the value d...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Sanal Kumar

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [2008(118)FLR1069]

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The challenge by the petitioners is against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1039/2003. The Original Application was filed by the first respondent seeking for a direction to release the annual increment that fell due on 1.1.1996 with consequential benefits. He had retired from service on attaining the age of 58 years with effect from 31.12.1995. The Tribunal has taken the view that the applicant is entitled to be paid the increment which fell due on 1.1.1996 and granted consequential benefits. 'Heard learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the first respondent applicant. Relying upon Ext. P8 judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, Shri. T.P.M. Ibrahim Khan, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners contended that once a person has retired from service on attaining superannuation, there is no question of granting increments which fell due on the next day, as he was not in service on that d...

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. A.N. Viswambaran and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [2008(118)FLR584]; 2008(2)KLJ96; 2008(3)KLT114

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The respondents before the Central Administrative Tribunal are the petitioners herein. As per the order impugned, the Tribunal directed the petitioners to grant retirement benefits to employees who retired on 31-12-1995, as though they have retired only on 1 -1-1996. Ext.P3 is the order passed by the Tribunal.2. The applicants retired from the service of the Railways on 31-12-1995. They were paid DCRG reckoning their basic pay plus 97% of the basic pay treated as Dearness Pay as applicable as on 31-12-1995. Their grievance is that they were not given the pensionary benefits including DCRG as applicable to pensioners as on 1-1-1996 treating 148% of the basic pay as Dearness Allowance on the basis of the Railway Board's letter dated 5-11-1999. The Tribunal followed the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Union of India v. K.J. George 2003(2) KLJ 978 to hold that they are entitled to get pensionary benefits at the rate admissible as on 1-1-1996 in terms o...