Kerala Court June 2008 Judgments

Rajesh Ramachandran Vs. Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(2)KarLJ821

Antony Dominic, J.1. The main prayer sought in this writ petition is to direct the respondent, the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram, not to prevent the petitioner from carrying on the retail store 'Big Bazaar' in the building 'Kalpana Heights' Pattom, in Sy. No. 1548/6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 in Ward No. 2 of the respondent Corporation. Petitioner is seeking this relief on the basis that a deemed licence as provided under Section 447(6) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short) has accrued in its favour.2. To decide this controversy, the short facts to be noticed are that on 13-3-2008 petitioner submitted an application for licence in terms of Section 447 of the Act. Ext. P1 is the receipt issued by the respondent acknowledging the receipt of application on 13-3-2008. On receipt of the application as above, the respondent by Ext.P2 communication dated 1-4-2008 informed the petitioner that there are certain inadequacies in the application submitted an...

K. Bhaskaran Nair Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [2009]177TAXMAN478(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The question raised is whether the rental income received for the building is assessable under the head 'Income from house property' or as 'Income from other source'. Petitioner let out lodging house charging separate rent for the building and the furniture. According to the petitioner, for several years the entire income was returned was income from other source and it was being accepted by the Assessing Officer. However, for the assessment year 1990-91, the Assessing Officer bifurcated the rent and assessed rental income from building under the head 'Income from house property' and rental income from furniture under the head 'Income from other source'. Apart from the past assessments consistent with the assessee's claim, we do not think assessee has any case to ask for assessment of rental income from building under the head 'Income from other source' because rental income from building squarely falls under the head 'Income from house property'. If the pe...

The Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Balusseri and Others Vs. P ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR: MEMBER The opposite parties in OP No.525/03 of CDRF, Kozhikode are the appellants here in who are aggrieved by the order dated 30/4/2004 wherein and whereby the bill issued by the opposite parties is cancelled with further directions to give reconnection and issue proper bills based on the actual consumption of energy by the complainant. 2. The case of the complainant is that he is given a bill for Rs.2,925/- by the 2nd opposite party for a sum of Rs.2,925/- which he is not liable to pay. Though he has given a request for reconsidering the calculation, the opposite part refused do so and hence the complaint was filed praying for directions to cancel the bill. 3. The 2nd opposite party was called absent and set exparte. Based on the affidavit of the complainant and Ext.A1 to A3, the Forum below passed the impugned order directing the opposite parties to issue a fresh bill based on the actual consumption canceling the bill already issued. 4. We heard the co...

Jojo Frozen Foods (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2009)24VST327(Ker)

ORDERH.L. Dattu, C.J.1. In all these sales tax revisions, the one and only question that arises for our consideration and decision is, whether the royalty income received by the assessee from the franchisees for the use of the trade mark is exigible to tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 ('the KGST Act', for short) in the hands of the assessee. The other question is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, can it be said that there exists the concept of 'goods', 'turnover' and 'taxable turnover' with reference to the receipt of royalty by the assessee from its franchisees ?2. The questions of law raised by the assessee in these revision petitions are no more debatable in view of what has been stated by this Court in the case of Mechanical Assembly Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [2006] 144 STC 536. In the said decision, the court was pleased to observe as under : (page 545)The traditional meaning of the word 'goods' has undergone radical ch...

The Branch Manager, the Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. and Another Vs. Ant ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/insurance company in OP.No.276/2001 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The appellants are under orders to pay a compensation of Rs.1,20,577/- to the complainant with interest at 9% and also to pay a compensation of Rs.2000/- and cost of Rs.500/- with respect to the insurance claim of the vehicle that was damaged. 2. The case of the complainant is that the Lancer Car owned by him and insured with 1st opposite party got damaged on 13.9.2000 at about 7.30 pm when he was travelling from Kottayam to Pathanapuram through M.C.Road when it reached near Chingavanam at Kottayam. It is the case that a KSRTC Fast Passenger bus passing through the same direction with high speed overtook the car and splashed gutter water and the water entered into the silencer of the Car and then the engine stopped. On the next day, on 14.9.2000 he intimated the opposite parties who deputed a surveyor. The repair bill amounted to Rs.1,20,577/-. ...

Fr.James thennana Principal St.Joseph’s Itc and Another Vs. Sabu ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER This appeal is preferred by the opposite parties who are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.25000/- each to the complainant by way of compensation for the deficiency of service along with cost of Rs.2000/- as per order dated 20.7.04 in OP.No.5/04 of CDRF, Idukki. 2. The grievances of the complainants in brief are that they had joined for a course of Refrigeration and Air conditioning Mechanic in St.Josephs Industrial Trainining Centre, Koduvely of which the first opposite party is the Principal and the second opposite party is the Manager. The complainants allege that the opposite parties made them believe that the training centre had affiliation to National Council for Vocational Training (NCVT) and that the course was approved by NCVT. As per the assurance of the opposite parties they had joined for the two year course during 1994 1996 and even after passing examination they did not get the National Trade Certificate by the NCVT. Attributing defici...

Biju Purushothaman Vs. the State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008CriLJ4488; 2008(2)KLJ625

ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. The Revision Petitioner who is the 2nd accused in a private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent herein as Crl.M.P. No. 588 of 2006 before the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Special Judge') alleging offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120B I.P.C. challenges Annexure XVII order dated 25-3-2008 passed by the Special Judge ordering Investigation by the Superintendent of VACB, SIU, Thiruvananthapuram, under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. after concluding an enquiry by the Special Judge himself under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C.2. I heard Adv. Sri. M. Ajay, the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Adv. Sri. P.N. Sukumaran, the learned Public Prosecutor who represented the State. Eventhough the 2nd respondent/complainant (Madathil Marakkar Haji) was duly served, he has not chosen to enter appearance through counsel or op...

Green Sea Marine and ors. Vs. V.A. Anty and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(2)KLJ780

ORDERThottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This revision is by the three accused in a complaint filed alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, hereinafter referred to as the 'NI Act'. 2. The allegations are that the complainant does the business of seafood supply; the first accused is the firm; the second and third accused are its partners; the accused firm deals with seafood; the complainant had business relationship with the accused; as part of the transactions between the accused firm and the complainant, two cheques were issued, of which the first cheque was honoured on presentation, however that the second cheque was dishonoured showing the reason 'funds insufficient', though it was presented on the instructions of the accused; the first accused firm received the notice intimating the dishonour; the notices issued to the other two accused were returned as 'not claimed', the accused did not pay even after such demand and have,...

Mohammed Haneefa Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(2)KarLJ841

M.C. Hari Rani, J.1. The appellant, who is the first accused in S.C. No. 212/1999 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-II), Thiruvananthapuram, has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The said judgment is under challenge in this appeal.2. The prosecution case is summarised as follows:- Subaida Beevi, the daughter of PW1 died while undergoing treatment in the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram at about 6 p.m. on 4-6-1998. The appellant herein is the husband of Subaida Beevi and they were residing together in Shameer Manzil in Block No. 8, Sasthavattom Pattom Colony along with their two children. The appellant/first accused was on inimical terms with his wife Subaida Beevi on account of her refusal to accede to his demand for sale of the property in her name to pay off his debts ...

Jaimon Vs. the District Collector and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(2)KLJ965; 2008(3)KLT614

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.1. This writ petition raises an important question. The question is whether, when an erratum notification is published to the original notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, the period of one year for making declaration as envisaged by the first proviso to Section 6 can be reckoned from the date of the erratum notification. The Supreme Court has held in its judgment in State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. v. Mahalaskhmi Ammal and Ors. AIR 1996 Supreme Court 866 that in an erratum notification is published to an original notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, the same will date back to the date of the original notification. As for the facts of the present case, the original notification under Section 4(1) was published in the Gazette on 25-4-2005 and in Malay ala Manorama daily on 8-6-2005. Going by Section 4, which provides different modes of publication of the notification under Section 4, it is the last date of publication and ...