Kerala Court June 2008 Judgments

P.V. Kunhikrishnan Nambiar and Others Vs. Sree Chitra Tirunal Institut ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

This OP has been finally heard on 11.03.08 and the Court on 19.06.08 delivered the following. JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The complainants are the LRs ie., husband and children of the deceased Smt.Chandramathi. The 1st complainant the husband of the deceased died during the pendency of the proceedings and complainants 2 to 5 were recorded as his LRs. 2. It is the case of the complainants that their mother was suffering from cough with yellow sputum and was also having fever. She was treated at Tely Medical Centre Ltd., Thalassery. On examination by the concerned doctor it was diagnosed that she is having rheumatic heart disease and Mitral Stenosis. The doctors of the above hospital advised her to have the further treatment at the opposite party/hospital. The patient was registered at the opposite party/hospital ie., Sreechitra Thirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology (hereinafter to be mentioned as SCTIMST) on 30.05.1997 paying Rs.70 as registration charges. O...

Shaiju Vs. Asstt. Excise Commissioner and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(2)KarLJ692

Antony Dominic, J.1. Petitioner is the registered owner of a Hero Honda motor cycle bearing Regn. No. KL-7 AP 9646, which was seized from him following his involvement in CR No.5/05 registered under the Abkari Act on the allegation that the vehicle was used for the transportation of illicit arrack. The motorcycle was eventually ordered to be confiscated by the 1st respondent as per his order dated 22-3-2007. Petitioner thereafter filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent and by Ext. P1 order dated 29-5-07, the appeal was rejected, but it was ordered that the vehicle be released to the petitioner on his paying the market value of the vehicle. It is stated that he could not comply with the condition imposed in Ext. P1 and therefore the vehicle continued in the possession of the respondents.2. Subsequently, the petitioner was informed by the 1st respondent, by Ext. P2 letter dated 16-10-2007, that if he did not deposit an amount of Rs. 22,500/- within 7 days, the vehicle will be sold and ...

Santhoth and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008CriLJ4103; 2008(2)KLJ794

ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Does the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab 2008 AIR SCW 2287 permit composition of non compoundable offences with the only difference that the parties have to come to the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (and not the lower courts under Section 320 Cr.P.C.) to achieve the benefit of such composition? This is the question raised for consideration in this case.2. Petitioners are accused in a crime registered alleging offences punishable under Section 394 IPC. That crime was registered on the basis of the complaint of the third respondent/defacto complainant. In the said FI statement the defacto complainant had alleged that he was the driver of a national permit lorry and that he had run into the company of certain persons who had wanted him to permit them to join him while he was taking alcoholic drinks. While the defacto complainant with some other strangers was taking drinks, another group of five persons came and joined them. The defacto complainan...

South Indian Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2009)223CTR(Ker)418; [2009]308ITR351(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The appellant, a scheduled bank, claimed deduction of 4/5th of the dividend income received from the Unit Trust of India under proviso (a) to Section 80M(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1994-95. The Assessing Officer, however, restricted the deduction to 4/5th of 60 per cent, of the dividend income from the Unit Trust by taking the view that 'such income' referred to in proviso (a) above referred means 60 per cent. of the dividend income mentioned in Sub-clause (i) of Section 80M(1) of the Act. Even though the first appellate authority allowed the appeal holding that the appellant is entitled to deduction of 60 per cent, on the dividend income from the Unit Trust in terms of proviso (a) to Section 80M(1) of the Act, the Tribunal reversed the order of the first appellate authority and restored the assessment. It is against this order of the Tribunal, the assessee has filed this appeal raising two questions of law. Since the questions ...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. T. George and M. Syed Alavi

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2009)223CTR(Ker)471; [2009]316ITR333(Ker); [2009]177TAXMAN424(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The question involved in the connected appeals and reference case is one and the same. The appeals and reference case are therefore grouped together and disposed of by this common judgment. We have heard senior counsel appearing for the revenue and counsel appearing for the respondents-assessees.2. The residential premises of one Sri T. George and Sri M. Syed Alavi, were searched by the department on 25-6-1987. During search, statements were recorded from these persons under Section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act. From the seized records it was found that these two persons were engaged in contract work for slaughter tapping and sale of rubber trees from two rubber estates namely, Vijaya Estate, and Mukkattumala Estate. The assessees did not co-operate in the assessments, which is clear from the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer. Assessments were made based on entries in the seized records and available evidence including statements recorded from the ...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M.M. Nagalinga Nadar Sons

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2009)222CTR(Ker)518; [2009]318ITR210(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Heard standing counsel for the appellant and the counsel appearing for the respondent assessee.2. Two issues are raised in the appeal filed by the Revenue. The first question pertains to the bogus purchases accounted by the assessee as excess driage for the copra purchased and crushed in the assessee's mill. The entire copra was purchased by the assessee from its sister concern M/s Sree Rajvel and Company. The case raised by the Department against the sister concern is that they were not accounting the full purchases and sales of copra and driage was accounted to cover unaccounted transaction. The entire quantity purchased by the sister concern M/s Sree Rajvel and Company was transported to the assessee and the assessee accounted the difference of quantity also as purchases which were found to be bogus by the AO. The CIT(A) reversed the finding of the officer and the Tribunal confirmed it. In the appeal filed before us, the contention of the Revenue is that...

Sreedharan N. Vs. G. Ramachandran Pillai

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(2)KLJ580

R. Basant, J.1. A pernicious practice appears to be in vogue before the subordinate courts in prosecutions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The cases are posted to distant dates by notification without the presiding officer applying his mind to the question whether service is complete or not. The practice definitely deserves to be frowned upon and discouraged. The practice has got to be discontinued forthwith.2. The petitioner is the complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He is aged 72 years. Cognizance has been taken. The accused has not entered appearance so far. The complaint was filed on 1/3/2007. The case was then posted to 24/11/2007. On that day, the case was adjourned by notification to 26/3/2008. On 26/3/2008, the case was adjourned to 2/4/2008 on 2/4/2008, the case was adjourned to 18/2/2009 - all by notification. The service is not complete yet.3. Finding the procedure adopted to be unjustified and improper, repo...

CochIn Cements Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(2)KLJ582; (2008)18VST224(Ker)

ORDERH.L. Dattu, C.J.1. Pursuant to the direction issued by the apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 12914/2007 dated 7-4-2008, to dispose of these revision petitions within two months, though the petitions are of the year 2007, they are taken up for final hearing and disposed of by this common order.The assessee is common in these two revision petitions, and the legal issue raised is also identical.The assessee is a Public Limited Company. It is engaged in the manufacture and sale of 'Portland Pozzalona cement'.2. The Central Government by circular dated September 1991 had suggested to the State Governments to grant incentives/tax concessions etc. for such of those industries which would use 'fly ash' as the raw material for the manufacture of its products. Pursuant to the aforesaid circular, the State Government has issued SRO No. 388/1996, in exercise of its powers under Section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (KGST Act for short), in supersession of its earlier ...

Priya Vs. Shibu and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ304

ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. The interesting question which is raised in this revision is as to whether a divorced wife is entitled to file a petition under Section 12(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') claiming return of dowry and ornaments and also for maintenance payable under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.2. I heard Adv. Sri. Padmakumar, the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Adv. Sri. R. Reji, the learned Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3.3. The facts leading to the impugned proceedings are the following:The marriage between the first respondent, Shibu and the revision petitioner, Priya was solemnised on 17.4.2003. Their post marital life lasted only for about the year. In November, 2004 the marital partners parted company. Subsequently as per order dated 13.5.2005 passed by the Family Court, Alappuzha, their marriage was dissolved and a decree of divorce was passed. On 11.1.2007, the revision petit...

Kerala Electrical and Allied Engg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Leemns D'Cruze and Ors ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [2008(119)FLR685]; 2008(2)KarLJ673; 2008(3)KLT449; (2009)IILLJ94Ker

S. Siri Jagan, J.1. Dissatisfied with the award of the Labour Court, Kollam, in I.D. No. 111 of 1995, both the management and the Union in that I.D. are challenging that award in these original petitions.2. The issue referred for adjudication was:Denial of employment to the following 16 workers engaged in the canteen at Kerala Electrical and Allied Engineering Company Limited, Kundara with effect from 1-6-1994. 1. Sri. Chandrasekharan Pillai2. Sri. P. Mani 10. Sri. N. Somarajan3. Sri. Vijayan R. 11. Sri. Jayakumar4. Sri. Raju a. 12. Sri. Aji B.5. Sri. Shaji P. 13. Sri. Satheesan6. Sri. Ranjan P. 14. Sri. Suresh7. Sri. Sasidharan Pillai 15. Sri. P. Bose and8. Sri. Biju a. 16. Sri. V. Kishore.9. Sri. Raju P.3. The facts necessary for disposal of these two writ petitions may be summarised thus:4. The management is a Government company employing more than 250 workers in their factory at Kundara. Since, as per Section 46 of the Factories Act, an occupier of a factory is statutorily bound to...