Kerala Court June 2008 Judgments

Pathrose T. Vs. the Kerala Water Authority and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(2)KLJ893

ORDERV. Giri, J.1. While serving as a Head Operator in the Water Authority, the petitioner was placed under suspension as per Ext.P1 order, consequent upon what was noted as 'unauthorised absence from 7-7-1999'. This, it turned out, was on account of the fact that the petitioner was an accused in Crime No. 126/99 of the Mankara Police Station for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He was later reinstated on 23-12-1999 as per Ext.P2 order, wherein it was made clear that the suspension period can be regularised only after finalisation of the criminal case. The petitioner was tried in S.C. No. 183/2000, which ultimately resulted in his acquittal as per Ext.P3 judgment. The petitioner then sought for regularisation of the period from 7-7-1999 to 23-12-1999. By Ext.P4 order, the competent authority decided under Rule 56 Part I of the Kerala Service Rules (for short 'the Rules') held that the petitioner is not entitled to full pay and allowances for the said period of su...

Santhosh Vs. J. Lalithamma, L.H.i., Ph.C. Vandiperiyar

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 29/11/00 passed by CDRF, Idukki in OP No.74/99. The complaint was filed alleging the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not completing the construction of house building on behalf of the complainant. The opposite party filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. But the Forum below accepted the case of the complainant to a large extent and thereby passed the impugned order directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- representing the amount received by the opposite party from the complainant and also a compensation of Rs.10,000/- with a cost of Rs.500/-. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal is filed by the opposite party. 2. When their appeal was taken for final hearing there was no representation for the respondent/complainant. We heard the counsel for the appellant/opposite party. The learned c...

P. Rehim (Advocate) Vs. Binoy Viswam and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(2)KarLJ803

ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. In this Revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. the revision 'petitioner' who was the complainant in a private Complaint filed as Crl. M.P. No. 956 of 2007 before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Special Judge' for short), alleging the commission of an offence under Section 13(1)(d) and punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120B, I.P.C., challenges the dismissal of the said complaint by the Special Judge.2. I heard Adv. Sri. K. Harilal, the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/complainant. At the stage of hearing on admission of this revision petition, I had heard Adv. Sri. P.G. Thampi, the learned Director General of Prosecutions. Now, at the stage of final hearing I also heard Adv. Sri. P.N. Sukumaran, the learned Public Prosecutor.3. Even though in a revision against an order of rejection of a private complaint ...

Heera Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Corpn. of Thiruvananthapuram and ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(2)KLJ863

Antony Dominic, J.1. The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext. P21, an order passed by the Secretary of the respondent Corporation, cancelling Ext. P1 building permit issued to the petitioner.2. The petitioner company is engaged in real estate development and construction of multi storied apartments. The petitioner claims to have surrendered a portion of its land for road widening purposes and on that basis was granted the benefit of certain exemptions from the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as Rules for short). It is stated that it was on that basis that an application was made and Ext. P1 building permit was granted. On the strength of Ext. P1 building permit, they have constructed a residential apartment complex having 14 floors including the basement and ground floor.3. According to the petitioner, on completion of construction by April 2006, they had obtained Ext. P2 NOC from the Airports Authority of India and Ext. P2(a) from the Fire ...

Benny Varghese, Hoel ‘surya’, Pampa Tourist Home Vs. the Man ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 11/2/2005 passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam in OP No.577/03 which was filed by the appellant herein as complainant against the respondents 1 and 2 as opposite parties claiming a total of Rs.1,10,000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in supplying defective flooring tiles. The opposite parties entered appearance and disputed the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. They also disputed the deficiency of service alleged by the complainant. The Forum below admitted the case of the complainant regarding deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. But the complaint was dismissed on the ground that the complainant will not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint, the present appeal is f...

Sunil C.K. Vs. the Kerala State Public Service Commission

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(2)KLJ906

J.B. Koshy, J.1. Appellants in these cases applied for the post of Surveyor Grade II in pursuance to Ext. P1 notification. Qualifications prescribed in the Special Rules for the post are the following:(1) A pass in S.S.L.C. examination or possession of any of the other equivalent qualification specified in the Schedule to Part II of the General Rules.(2) Must possess:i) I.T.I. (Surveyor Trade) Certificate introduced with effect from the year 1966; orii) The I.T.I. (Surveyor Trade) Certificate issued prior to the year 1966 and satisfactorily completed six months inplant training according to the rules approved by the Board of Revenue in this regard; oriii) A pass in Surveying and Levelling (Higher) M.G.T.E. or K.G.T.E. with Chain Survey Test; oriv) Experience in Military service for a period of six years in Surveyor trade;Provided that in the absence of candidates with the technical qualifications mentioned above, a pass in Higher Survey Test shall be deemed sufficient:Provided further ...

Faisal P.A. Vs. K.A. Abdulla Kunhi and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(2)KarLJ849

Antony Dominic, J.1. Ext.P4, an order passed by the 2nd respondent exercising its power under Section 4 of the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1999 declaring that the petitioner herein shall cease to be a member of the Mogral Puthur Grama Panchayat from 29-09-2007 onwards and a disqualified from contesting as a candidate in the election to the local bodies for a period of six years from 29-9-2007 onwards, is under challenge in this writ petition.2. The petitioner contested election as an Indian Union Muslim League candidate and was elected as a member of the Mogral Puthur Grama Panchayat. He was also elected as the President of the said Panchayat in September 2005. There were 14 members in the Panchayat and 7 of them belonged to the Muslim League, 5 belonged to the BJP, 1 to Congress and 1 to Indian National League.3. It is stated that by Ext. P3 dated 30-6-2006 produced before the State Election Commission in OP 44/2006, the Kasargode District Secretary of the...

The Keralastate Financial Enterprises Ltd., Represented by Its Managin ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in OP.No.255/2000 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellant/KSFE, Neyyattinkara branch is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- with interest at 14.5% from 13.4.92 till realization after deducting Rs.8400/- with future interest at 14.5% from 11.12.94 till date of decree from the above amount and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as costs. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he was a subscriber of two chitties Nos. 16/91 and 24/91 of the opposite parties. He had priced the chitty No.24/91 on 13.4.92 for a sum of Rs.28,000/- and Chitty No.16/91 for a sum of Rs.7000/- on 15.1.93 and he made arrangements to execute bond for releasing of the amounts. But the same was not allowed as he had stood surety for one Ajayakumar for a loan and the above Ajayakumar had defaulted. Subsequently the dues of Ajayakumar were attached from the salary of the complainant. Accord...

Smt. S. Soumyakumari Vs. M/S. Amar Builders, Represented by Its Partne ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT With drawn vide memo....

Eldho Paul Vs. the State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(234)ELT53(Ker); 2008(2)KLJ593; 2008(3)KLT440; (2008)18VST73(Ker)

ORDERH.L. Dattu, C.J.1. Since the assessee is common in both these revision petitions and since the legal issue involved is identical, these revision petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.2. The petitioner is a dealer engaged in purchase and sale of public call office monitors, (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'PCO Monitors') for use in telephone booths, for the assessment year 2000-01, the petitioner had filed annual returns conceding total and taxable turnover of Rs. 5,53,200.00 and Rs. 3,96,750.00 respectively. For the assessment year 2001 -02, in the returns filed, petitioner had conceded total and taxable turnover of Rs. 5,65,875.00 and Rs. 5,29,265.00 respectively. In the returns filed the petitioner had conceded liability to tax at the rate of 4% treating PCO Monitors as a type of computer falling under Entry 56 of the First Schedule to KGST Act.3. Since the conceded turnover was less than Rs. 15,00,000/-the assessing authority h...