Kerala Court April 2008 Judgments

Branch Manager, Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. and Another Vs ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred against the order dated.3.2.04 of the CDRF, Kollam in OP.No.241/02. The complaint in the said original petition was filed by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellants as opposite parties claiming refund of Rs.5550/- which was collected by the opposite party KSFE, Kottiyam branch from the complainant as excess amount. He also alleged deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The claim was denied and disputed by the opposite parties. But the Forum below was pleased to accept the case of the complainant to a greater extent and thereby directed the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.5550/- collected by way of excess interest. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal is filed by the opposite parties therein. 2. When this appeal was taken up for final hearing, there was no representation for the respondent/complainant. We heard the counsel for the appellants/opposite parties. T...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sree Seetharama Anajaneya Veda Kendra

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2008)220CTR(Ker)646

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The appeals filed under Section 260A of the IT Act, are against the orders of the Tribunal upholding the respondent/assessee's claim for exemption under Section 11(2) of the Act for the asst. yrs. 1995-96 and 1996-97. The assessee is a charitable institution formed with the object of imparting education in Vedas and Upanishads. In the course of assessment for the assessment years concerned, the AO noticed that the assessee was carrying over 75 per cent of the income from year to year for 10 years every year on a regular basis and the assessee was only engaged in creation of assets. On enquiry conducted by the Inspector of Income-tax, it was found that there was no regular course study for Vedas and Upanishads and the Inspector noticed substantial reduction in student numbers in the course of time. Two teachers appeared to have been found with some students from Maharashtra. Even though notice for accumulation of income was given, the AO doubted whether the ...

The Secretary, Kseb, Thiruvananthapuram and Another Vs. Cyriac Sebasti ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/KSEB in OP.No.138/02 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The forum below set aside the penal bill issued with respect to the Consumer numbers of the complaint for sum of Rs.12051/- and Rs.57097/- and also directed to refund Rs.3122/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of receipt of the amount and to pay cost of Rs.750/-. 2. The case of the complainant who is running a hotel in a two storied building is that on 22.3.02 a penal bill as mentioned above was issued under the threat of dis connection. He paid Rs.3122/-. The balance was asked to be paid in 4 instalments. According to the petitioner he has regularly remitting the amounts. 3. Opposite parties filed version contending that on 21.3.02 the special Vigilance Squad conducted a surprise inspection of the petitioners premises and it was found that there was un-authorized connected load in both the consumer numbers. There was 2 KW of un-aut...

The Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board and Another Vs. .G. Anil

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/KSEB in OP.105/2000 in the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta. Invoice issued by the appellants/KSEB was set aside by the Forum finding deficiency of service. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he received an invoice dated.20.12.99 demanding to pay a sum of Rs.10215/- towards arrears allegedly from January 95 to July 99. According to him the meter was faulty and the readings taken are not correct. In order to avoid disconnection, the complainant paid Rs.1715/- on 14.2.2000 and Rs.1700/- on 15.3.2000 as per the direction from the KSEB to pay the current charges amount in instalments. He has sought for setting aside the bill and also compensation of Rs.500/-. 3. On the other hand, the KSEB has contended that the complainant was paying 30 units per month on the basis of Provisional Invoice Card for the period from 7/95 to 7/99. In the meantime, the Board revised the tariff from time to time. The service conne...