Kerala Court March 2008 Judgments

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M.S. Mohan and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009ACJ326; 2008(2)KLJ225

K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The second respondent insurer in O.P. (MV) No. 1123/1995 on the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala is the appellant. Insurer has filed this appeal challenging an award passed by the Tribunal by which it had awarded an amount of Rs. 33,718/- as compensation to the first respondent/claimant for the damages sustained to his motor car bearing registration No. KL-5/A 3183. A collision took place between the car owned by the first respondent and a jeep bearing registration No. KEK 1933. On 16-2-1993 the car was proceeding towards south through Pala-Ponkunnam Road. According to the first respondent the jeep bearing registration No. KEK 1933 was parked on the eastern side of the road. The driver of the jeep abruptly started it and turned to the west in a rash or negligent manner which caused a collision of car with the jeep. The first respondent filed the Original Petition initially claiming an amount of Rs. 8,545/- as compensation alleging that car sustained subst...

Kavungal Kooppakkattu Zeenath Vs. Mundakkattu Sulfiker Ali

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ331

ORDERK. Hema, J.1. Can the court dismiss a petition for maintenance filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code', for short), on the ground that a decree is passed against the wife, in a petition for restitution of conjugal rights2. The revision petitioners are the wife and minor son of the respondent herein. They filed petition before the Family Court, claiming maintenance from respondent, under Section 125 of the code. The claim made by the wife was rejected, but maintenance was ordered in favour of the child at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. The challenge in this revision is only against rejection of maintenance to the wife. It is made clear at the time of hearing that the quantum of maintenance allowance ordered in favour of the child is not being challenged.3. The parties were married in 1998 and the second petitioner was born in the wedlock. The respondent is having sufficient means as he is engaged in stone-quarrying. He earns Rs. 50,000/- per month ou...

Chandrika Menon Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(2)KLJ237

K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.W.P.(C) No. 8421/20071. Petitioner is the owner and is in possession of 16.5 cents of property comprised in Sy. No. 191 of Madathuvilakom Village in Thiruvananthapuram City. She is residing in a two storeyed building situated in that property. The plot is situated on the eastern side of Pattom-Ulloor-Kochulloor road. As a part of comprehensive planning and development of Thiruvananthapuram City, it was decided to widen the Pazhaya Road on the west of the property of the petitioner. The existing width of the road in front of the property of the petitioner is 13.12 meters. The proposal is to widen that road to have a width of 17.30 meters. This consists of four lane carriage way of 13 meters width, Central median of 30 centi meters and two meters side walk on either side of the road. Ext.Pl, a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, (for short 'the Act'), was issued on 11-11-2004. The proposal was to acquire 5.5 meters of land on the eastern si...

Kolappa Pillai M. and anr. Vs. K. Vadivulekshmi and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(2)KLJ4

V.K. Mohanan, J.1. The defendants in a suit i.e., O.S. No. 316/1982 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Thiruvananthapuram are the appellants herein. In this appeal, the challenge is against the judgment dated 5-3-1998 of this Court in A.S. No. 121 of 1994. The prayer of the appellants herein is to set aside the above mentioned judgment dated 5-3-1998 and to restore the revised preliminary judgment and decree dated 30-1-1993 in O.S. No. 316 of 1982. According to the appellants, the judgment of this Court in A.S. No. 121 of 1994 is illegal, arbitrary and perverse since the above judgment of this. Court was passed without jurisdiction as the same was against the judgment of this Court in A.S. No. 273 of 1984 whereby the case was remanded to the trial court for a revised judgment in the light of the observations and findings entered into by this Court in that judgment. According to the appellants, the revised preliminary judgment and decree passed by the trial court is fully in terms o...

K. Ravindranathan Nair Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [2009]319ITR108(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The appeal is filed against the order of the Tribunal confirming penalty levied under Section 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for belated filing of audit report as required under Section 44AB of the Income-tax Act. We have heard senior counsel Sri P. Balachandran, appearing for the appellant and senior counsel Sri P. K. R. Menon, appearing for the Income-tax Department. On going through the Tribunal's order we find that the appellant did not adduce any evidence to justify the delay in filing the audit report as required under Section 44AB of the Act and if any acceptable explanation was filed, the appellant could have avoided penalty. In the absence of any evidence adduced by the appellant at least before the Tribunal, we do not find any ground to interfere with the minimum penalty imposed under Section 271B for admitted delay of filing audit report. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal....

Devasia C.a Vs. Senior Superintendent, K.S.E.B and Others

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in OP.196/03 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The case of the complainant seeking to set aside the revised bill issued by the opposite parties/KSEB was dismissed by the Forum. 2. The case of the complainant is that he is running an industrial unit with consumer No.7760. As per Government order G.O.(MS) 4/92/PD dated.6.2.92 and the subsequent Board Order No.254/99(PLG.COM.3443/97) the industrial units that commence commercial production between 1.1.92 and 31.12.96 is eligible to get lower power tariff for five years from the date of commercial production at pre 1992 tariffs. The petitioner started his factory with 16KW connected load. Accordingly the petitioner was granted concessional tariff for five years of the period from 5/96 to 6/01. Subsequently in February, 1999 he add 5KW connected load to the existing 16KW connected load with the permission of the KSEB. According to the petitioner, as per the Board Order h...

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kolassery Ratnakaran Girija Ni ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is insurance company/opposite party who is under orders to pay the sum of Rs.2,376/-with interest at 12% from the date of the complaint and also a sum of Rs.180/-towards costs. The case of the complainant is that he had insured with the opposite party, one C.D set. When the laser head of the C.D set stopped working the appellant refused pay the repair charges. It is the case of the opposite party/appellant the laser head became defective due to wear and tear on account of long and continuous use. Hence above is not covered by the policy and the policy conditions. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, RW1, Exts. P1 to P4 and R1. The appellant has stressed on Ext.R1 survey report and the evidence RW1 the Surveyor. In Ext.R1 survey report prepared by RW1 it is mentioned that the complainant had alleged that the Sony C.D. Player became damaged due to voltage fluctuation. It is recorded that the damage was due to th...

S. Latha Kunjamma Vs. K. Anil Kumar

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2008Ker203; 2008(2)KLJ49; 2008(2)KLT545

Harun-Ul-Rashid, J.1. This appeal is filed by the petitioner/wife in O.P. No. 554/2006 being aggrieved by the judgment dated 7-8-2006 on the file of the Family court Palakkad. The Original petition was filed for dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion which was dismissed finding that the ground of desertion is not proved and therefore the petitioner/ wife is not entitled to get a decree of divorce against the respondent/husband under Section 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The parties in this appeal are referred to as petitioner and respondent as in the Original Petition. The short facts pleaded by the petitioner are as follows:2. The petitioner and the respondent are B. Tech Degree Holders in Civil Engineering. The petitioner is employed as an accountant in the District Treasury, Palakkad. The respondent is employed in Nirmithi Kendra, Palakkad. Through the acquaintance at the work place the petitioner and the respondent fell in love with each other. Subsequently thei...

Prasheeb Kumar.K.K Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and Others

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER No representation for the appellant, though notice was issued to the appellant intimating posting of this appeal. Respondent also absent. On the last date hearing date also there was no representation from either side. Appellant is called absent. Hence appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution....

Mathew Jacob and Another Vs. Shaju Augustin

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the complainants in OP.5/03 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The complaint of the appellants stands dismissed. 2. The case of the complainants/appellants is that the second petitioner is supervising the construction of the house of the first petitioner and that for the purpose of construction marble slabs of the variety Toronto Slab PE 45D and 42 PS of 1007.861 square feet and 1420.965 square feet were ordered from the opposite party. The total amount of Rs.1,25,192.53/- including 14% sales tax and loading charges were paid on 22.10.02. The materials were despatched by the opposite party in two tracks on the same day. One of the trucks was intercepted by the Intelligence Inspector, Commercial Taxes, Kottayam at Pampady. The tax officials found that the quantity in the truck and the quantity mentioned in the bill does not tally. The opposite party informed the complainants to see that the additional amount of tax is paid and the ...