Kerala Court April 2008 Judgments

T.C. Mathai and Another Vs. K.S.G. Vergis and Another

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE. SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The complaint is a long pending one in this Commission. Although instituted in October 1992 the Commission as per order dated 28.12.92 returned the complaint directing to seek reliefs in appropriate proceedings. The National Commission as per order in Appeal 138/93 remitted the matter back directing to admit the complaint. Subsequently after adducing the evidence, as per order dated 8.7.97 the Commission rejected the contention of the opposite parties that complainant is not maintainable as the Company of which the opposite parties are the Chairman and Managing Director and Director respectively are not sufficient in the party array as the Company has not been impleaded and held that as the allegations are mainly fraud and cheating and also in view of the existence of criminal cases in between the parties and as the matter required elaborate enquiry directed the parties work out their rights in a civil court. All the same, it was found that Comp...

State of Kerala Vs. Manager, Nimala Public School and the Principal Of ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2008Ker197; 2008(2)KLJ704; 2008(3)KLT47

J.B. Koshy, J.1. All these appeals are filed by the State against the common judgment passed by the learned Single Judge quashing of a Government order No. GO(P). No. 107/07G.Edn. dated 13.6.2007 regarding issuance of no objection certificate for starting CBSE and ICSE school in the State of Kerala. Petitioners in those cases applied for issuance of NOC for affiliation to CBSE and ICSE respectively in the year 2005. It is their case that their applications were processed and reports of the concerned District Educational Officer etc. were received. But, they were informed that Government will pass final orders in the applications only after policy decision is formed regarding the matter. It was also not disputed that as per the Government order, and Kerala Education Rules, only up to Vth standard, a student can study in unrecognised schools. But the CBSE will consider the applications only if the school is having classes up to minimum VIth standard. According to the petitioners, their s...

Ararammal Parkum A.B. and ors. Vs. Panangadan Vachali Subhadra and ors ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(2)KLJ508; 2008(3)KLT233

Kurian Joseph, J.1. Blood is thicker than water is a proverb first recorded about 1412, indicating stronger bonds within the family. Water is thinner and leaves no mark on evaporation; blood on the contrary is thicker and always leaves a stain. There is no difficulty in effecting partition of family property when the stain is fresh. But thinner the stain owing to passage of time, more difficult and complicated is the process of partition since the relationship among the members is distanced, if not strained. This is the crux of the problem in these cases, perhaps the oldest before this court. During the beginning of the 20th century one Karathotti and Matha did not deem it serious to partition their family property. They had six children namely (1) Kunhikannan, (2) Chathan, (3) Manikkam, (4) Paru, (5) Karinji and (6) Mathu. It is not in dispute that kunhikannan had released his rights in the properties in favour of ethers. So the dispute is only with regard to the descendants of the re...

The Managing Director, M/S.General Motors India Pvt Ltd. and Others Vs ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR: MEMBER The opposite parties in OP.504/03 of CDRF, Kollam are the appellants herein against the order dated.25.10.04 wherein and whereby they are under orders to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as costs to be paid to the complainant within one month from the date of order. 2. The case of the complainant is that she had purchased an Opel Astra car from the fourth opposite party for a price of Rs.9,68,688/- . The car was purchased for her personal use and when herself and her family were visiting the Indira Gandhi Wild Life Santuary and National Park at Pollachi during the first week of February 2003, the metallic portion of the key of the car broke into two pieces while the complainants husband tried to start the car. The broken metallic portion was in the keyhole and the same was removed subsequently. The engine of the vehicle could not be started as a result of the breakage of the key and the complainant and her family members including the ...

Union of India (Uoi) and Vs. Godrej-ge Appllences Ltd.,

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(235)ELT435(Ker); 2008(3)KLT694

K.T. Sankaran, J.1. This batch of Writ Appeals and Writ Petitions are disposed of by a common judgment since common questions relating to interpretation of the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Standards Act'), the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Enforcement Act') and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') are involved in these cases.2. W.A. Nos. 218 of 2003 and 1098 of 2003 arise out of O.P. No. 16488 of 1998. The Original Petition was filed by Godrej/GE Appliances Limited, first respondent in the Writ Appeals. These Writ Appeals are being dealt with at first so that the decision herein can be followed, to the extent possible, in other cases.3. O.P. No. 16488 of 1998 was filed for the following reliefs:(a) for an order and declaration of this Hon'ble Court that the provisions of Standards of W...

Dr. M.K. Koshi, Akg Hospital, Kannur Vs. E.Mayankutty and Others

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER Counsel for the appellant present. It was reported by the statement dated 13.12.07 that the sole appellant is no more and the appeal is posted to this day for taking steps to get LRs if any impleaded. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that no steps is taken for impleading the LRs and the appeal may be dismissed as abated. The counsel for R1 and R2 is present. No representation for R3. Since the appellant is no more, the appeal dismissed as abated....

The Senior Divisional Manager, the New India Assurance Company Ltd.and ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated:24..11..2005 passed by CDRF, Kannur in OP:250/02. The complaint in the aforesaid original petition was filed by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellants as opposite parties claiming the insurance claim under Ext.A1 Pravasi Suraksha Social Welfare Scheme. The complainant claimed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- by way of the insurance claim. But opposite party/insurance company repudiated the claim by relying on the clause attached to the Pravasi Surakhsa Social Welfare Scheme. But the Forum below accepted the case of the complainant and thereby directed the opposite parties (Insurance company) to pay the insurance amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the complainant with cost of Rs.1000/-. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal is preferred by the insurance company. 2. We heard the counsel for the appellants/opposite parties and the respondent/complainant. The learned counsel for the app...

Subramanian M.B. Vs. Krishnakumar and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(2)KLJ607

A.K. Basheer, J.1. Can a criminal court compel the complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to file proof affidavit in lieu of examination in chief2. The learned Magistrate before whom the case came up for consideration insisted that the complainant should file a proof affidavit. Though the complainant who was present in court was prepared to step in to the witness box and give evidence, the learned Magistrate took the view that the complainant was bound to file a proof affidavit under Section 145 of the Act. According to the learned Magistrate, the obstinacy shown by the complainant in refusing to file the affidavit was not justified. Therefore the learned Magistrate proceeded to acquit the accused under Section 255(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.3. Section 145 of the Act reads thus:Evidence on affidavit:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974), the evidence of the complainant may be given...

Commonwealth Trust (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2008)218CTR(Ker)424; [2008]306ITR256(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The connected appeals filed by the appellant arise from order of the Tribunal upholding levy of capital gains on land acquired from the appellant by the Government during the previous years relevant for the asst. yrs. 1990-91 and 1991-92. The land acquired originally belonged to Basel Mission Trading Co. which was declared as an enemy property during the first world war and taken over by the British Government. The British Government thereafter, transferred the property to a U.K. company by name Commonwealth Trust Ltd. The property in the form of land and buildings remained that Of British company until 1977. However, in the year 1977 the High Court approved a scheme of amalgamation whereunder the landed properties of the British company namely, the amalgamating company were transferred to the petitioner which is an Indian company. During the previous years relevant for asst. yrs. 1990-91 and 1991-92, Government of Kerala acquired some extent of land from t...

Jalaludeen Vs. Modi Xerox Ltd and Another

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDNET The appellant is the complainant in OP.483/99 in the file of CDRF. Thiruvananthpauram. The matter related to the allegation that the 1st opposite party made an offer that every buyer of the photocopier of the opposite parties will be supplied with a cellphone free of cost. It is the contention of the 2nd opposite party that in lieu of giving the cell phone the complainant has been paid Rs.6463/- and has also produced receipt in this regard. It is mentioned in the order that in view of the contention that the receipt is a forged one it was ordered to sent it to the handwriting expert of the FSL. The handwriting expert has reported that for examination and report it will take 3 years time. Hence the Forum ordered that the case cannot be tried summarily and has to be considered to the merits in a civil proceedings. We find the above observation of the Forum below cannot be countenanced. The Forum is presided over by a person competent to be appoint...