Kerala Court June 2008 Judgments

Shajudeen E.A. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer-1 and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2009)24VST448(Ker)

K.M. Joseph, J.1. The petitioner, in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calls in question exhibit P14 order of assessment for the assessment year 2003-04 and seeks a mandamus to issue a copy of the verification report of the intelligence officer which is referred to in exhibit P12 notice.2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:The petitioner came to be served with pre-assessment notice dated January 25, 2008 and it was received on January 31, 2008. The petitioner filed exhibit P13 reply which is dated February 2, 2008. According to the petitioner, the assessment is proposed on the basis of the verification report of the intelligence officer. It is a document which is relied on by the assessing authority. Hence while filing objections, the petitioner requested that a copy of the said report may be given to the petitioner. The impugned order dated February 15, 2008, however, came to be passed overruling the objections and also rejecting the reque...

M/S. Bajaj Tempo Ltd. Vs. K.Daniel and Another

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Appellant is the 1st opposite party in OP.584/2000 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The appellant has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.75000/- for engine overhauling and other repairs and also to pay cost of Rs.2000/-. 2. It is the case of the complainant that the Bajaj Matador pickup vehicle purchased by him on 3.10.96 developed serious mechanical defects immediately after the purchase of the vehicle itself. The vehicle was brought to the service centre of the 2nd opposite party. The complainant was pressing for replacement. The complainant sent complaints to the 1st opposite party manufacturer. 1st opposite party inspected the vehicle and informed that there is manufacturing defects to the vehicle. The allegation is that vehicle is having manufacturing defects and that he had to take the vehicle repeatedly to the workshop but the condition of the vehicle remained the same. 3. The 1st opposite party has filed version that the opposite party is not...

Sainudheen R.S. Vs. the Dy. Tahsildar (R.R.) and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(2)KarLJ840

Antony Dominic, J.1. Petitioner challenged Exts. P1 and P3. Ext. P1 is a notice issued by the Enquiry Officer appointed by the District Collector to conduct an enquiry, against the petitioner on the allegation that, in the matter of assessment of a building tax in respect of certain buildings there was under assessment of tax and thus causing loss to the Government. Ex. P3 is a notice issued under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act for realising the loss allegedly caused on account of the underassessment of tax.2. The facts of the case are that, the petitioner was working as a Tahsildar and on attaining the age of superannuation he retired from service on 31-3-1990. Long after his retirement on 26-3-1992, the Accountant General in the local audit report pointed out short assessment of tax under the Building Tax Act. Following the report of the Accountant General, an enquiry officer was appointed for conducting a formal enquiry against the petitioner in terms of the provisions c...

iype Scaria and Another Vs. the Superintendent of Post Office, Idukki ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the complainants in OP.270/04 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. It is the case of the Complainants that the money orders for the period of March, April, May, June, July, August and September 2003 sent by the son of the first complainant to the first complainant were not delivered. His son is working in the army. The above money orders were served wrongly to one Zacharia @ Scaria Mullasseril. When enquired the complainants were told that no such money orders have been received. After further enquiries and on complaint filed a detailed enquiry was conducted by the Post Office authorities and realizing that the money orders were received not to the correct person the amounts were recovered and paid to the complainant . The money orders were for a sum of Rs.3500/- each. The complainants suffered a lot on account of the non delivery of the money orders as the insurance premium and bank loan could not be remitted. It is the contention of ...

The Secretary, Kseb, Pattom and Another Vs. Rasheed, Managing Partner, ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN: MEMBER The above appeal is directed against the order dated.24th March, 2004 of the CDRF, Kottayam in OP.No.199/03. The complaint in the said original petition was filed by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellants as opposite parties requesting for getting the bills (A1 and A2) dated.26.06.03 cancelled. The opposite parties disputed the case of the complainant and contended that those bills were issued for the electrical energy actual consumed by the complainant. But the forum below accepted the case of the complainant to a greater extent and thereby passed the impugned order directing the opposite parties to revise the disputed A1 and A2 bills thereby to exclude the current charges for the period from 8.5.03 to 2.6.03. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal is preferred. 2. We heard the counsel for the appellants/opposite parties and the respondent/complainant. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted his arguments based on th...

The Officer, Kerala Karshaka Thozhilali Kshema Nidhi Board Thadiyampad ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party /Kerala Karshaka Thozhilali Kshemanidhi Board that has sought for setting aside the order of the Forum in OP No.46/05 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The opposite party has been directed to take earnest efforts to make available the requisite funds and disburse the amount due to the complainant at the earliest and at any rate not later than 6 months from the date of judgment. 2. It is the case that the complainant is a 66 years old agricultural labourer and he joined the Agricultural Workers Welfare Scheme 1990 on 23.11.92 and subscribed up to March 2001 and completed the term stipulated and on expiry of the term the total amount due is Rs.8.911/- and he had incurred a sum of Rs.2,000/- for enquiring the above release of the amount . He has sought for the amount with compensation. 3. It is the contention of the opposite party that the payments are made according to the availability of funds. According to them th...