Kerala Court July 2008 Judgments

Udhaya Bhanu M. Vs. Vasantha Anirudhan and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2008Ker254; 2008(3)KLJ612

ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J.1. In these petitions the writ petitioners seek review of my common judgments in the writ petitions. The writ petitions were filed for quashing Ex.P4 order in WP(C) No. 24366 of 2004 and Ext.P5 order in WP(C) No. 30592 of 2004 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge respectively in O.S. Nos. 107/01 and 422/02. Both these orders were passed on preliminary issues raised in the suit regarding the maintainability of the suit and the propriety of valuation and sufficiency of court fees. The suits were filed primarily against the respondents herein who were legal representatives of one G. Aniruddhan, a Government Contractor. The case of the plaintiffs was that Sri. Aniruddhan was indebted to them and that upon the demise of Sri. Aniruddhan all his rights and liabilities devolved upon the respondents being his legal heirs and representatives. It is averred in both the suits that Sri. Aniruddhan was indebted to several other creditors also and therefore repayment coul...

Asst.Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority Vs. M. Sudevan

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/Water Authority in OP.54/98. The appellant is under orders to refund sum of Rs.2463/- to the complainant, collected towards arrears of water charges. 2. It is the case of the complainant that the average recorded consumption from the installation of the water meter in 1970 is only 12000 liters per month. But on 14.10.97 the appellant issued an additional bill for Rs.2463/- mentioning water consumption at the rate of 41000 liters per month. According to him when meter reading was taken on 13.10.97 the meter was found faulty and a notice was given to change the meter. According to him he has not consuming that much of water and that water is not available also as his house is situated at a higher elevation. Hence he has dug a borewell also in April 1996. 3. On the other hand the appellant has contended that in October 1993 the meter was found faulty and a notice was issued to change the meter on 6.11.93. The meter w...

The Superintendent of Post Offices, Alappuzha Division Vs. Sri. V.J. P ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/postal authorities in OP.57/06 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.425/- and cost of Rs.350/- to the complainant. 2. The case of the complainant is that on 18.2.2001 he had sent by speed post the power of attorney of his son to be signed and returned, to Damam- Soudi Arabia through the 2nd opposite party post office. He was told that the article would be delivered to the addressee within 22.2.2006. Till 5.3.2006 when the complaint was filed the article was not delivered. As the power of attorney could not be signed and returned the proposed agreement for sale of his property could not be executed. He had to prepare another power of attorney and sent it through private courier. 3. The opposite parties/appellants have admitted the despatch of postal article by speed post and the same was dispatched vide Flight No.SV 0723 despatch No.052 Bag No.I through Mumbai In...

Muthulangayil Kunhabdulla Vs. E.K. Prakasan

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ438

ORDERM. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. This petition is filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure to review the judgment dated 5.6.2008 in W.P.(C) 10822/2008. The Writ Petition was filed challenging the dismissal of an application filed under Rule 5 of Order XXXVIII of Code of Civil Procedure in O.S. 71/2007 on the file of Sub Court, Koyilandy. Respondents instituted the suit for specific performance of an oral agreement for sale with an alternate prayer for return of the advance amount of Rs. 20,05,001 with interest at 12% per annum. Writ Petition was disposed quashing the order passed by the trial court and directing petitioner defendant to furnish a security of Rs. 98,40,000/- before the trial court within one month from that date, providing that on failure to furnish security, there would be an order of attachment was also passed which would be in force till the security is furnished. The said order was passed, as is clear from paragraph 2 of the judgment, solely based on...

Muhammed Basheer Vs. State of Kerala and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009CriLJ246; 2008(3)KLJ385

ORDERR. Basant, J.What is the import and consequence of the amendment to Section 202 Cr.P.C. by Act 25 of 2005 w.e.f. 23.06.06 by which the words 'and shall in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction' were introduced? Is the stipulation couched in the above language directory or mandatory? Does that stipulation apply at all to prosecutions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act? If the sworn statement of all necessary witnesses cited by the complainant is recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the materials are sufficient to induce the requisite satisfaction in the mind of the learned Magistrate that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, should the learned Magistrate still proceed to the stage of Section 202 Cr.P.C. and conduct a further enquiry? What would be the content and scope of such an extended enquiry in such circumstances? When does the enquiry under Section 200 Cr.P.C. end and the enquiry under S...

Joseph George Vs. Mary Thomas and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2008Ker225; 2009(237)ELT224(Ker)

ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Can there be a settlement of a claim under Section 125, Cr.P.C. before the Counsellor of the Family court Is the Family Court justified in accepting and acting upon such report of the Counsellor These are the questions strenuously raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this revision petition at the stage of admission.2. Fundamental facts are not disputed. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is not in dispute. That the spouses are residing separately is also not disputed. Separate residence, according to the petitioner, started on 8-12-2003. The claim for maintenance was filed by the claimants-wife and child, on 16-3-2007. Parties were referred to Counsellor and the Counsellor made attempts to settle the dispute. On 10-10-2007 there allegedly was a settlement before the Counsellor. The Counsellor recorded that settlement, countersigned the same and along with a report submitted the same to the learned Judge of the Family Court. In such settlement, it was re...

Britannia Industries Limited Vs. V.O. Mathew and Another

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER This appeal is preferred against the order dated.18.9.03 of CDRF, Kottaym in OP.No.314/02 directing the first opposite party to pay Rs.12/-, the cost of the biscuit Rs.1000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as costs to the complainant. 2. The facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a packet of Britania Jacobs Thin Arrow Root Biscuit for Rs.13/- from the shop of the second opposite party. The first opposite party is the manufacturer of the said biscuit. The complainant purchased the packet because of the caption in the packet that the packet contained arrow root biscuits. But when he examined the biscuit packet the ingredients were shown as wheat flour, sugar, edible vegetable oils, edible starches, milk and milk products, invert syrup, leavening agents, salt, permitted emulsifiers dough conditioner and antioxidants. But the arrow root was not seen included in the list of ingredients. Hence alleging unfair trade practice the complainant fil...

State of Kerala Vs. P. Vinod

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ12; (2008)18VST4(Ker)

ORDERH.L. Dattu, C.J.1. In these revision petitions, the primary question that would arise for our consideration and consequent decision is, whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in directing the assessing authority to allow deductions towards mortality and weight loss during the transportation of chicken, while quantifying the sales tax liability under the provisions of Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 read with the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963?2. In these revision petitions, the assessees are dealers in live chicken and the assessment for several assessment years in question were completed by the assessing authorities by resorting to the best judgment assessment, since they have found that the books of accounts and the annual returns filed by the dealers cannot be accepted as correct and complete.3. In order to understand the controversy between the parties to the lis, it may be useful to notice, how the authorities under the Act and the Appellate Tribunal has decide...

Finimole T.P. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(2)KLJ60; (2009)24VST385(Ker)

H.L. Dattu, C.J.1. The judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 9272 of 2008 dated 12.06.2008 is the subject matter of this Writ Appeal.2. The petitioner is an Advocate. To facilitate a person to register himself as a dealer, the petitioner had offered her assistance, like, identifying the person before the registering authority/assessing authority. Apart from that, she had no other to play in the business activities of one Sri. T.P. Varghese.3. For the assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06, the assessing authority, after issuing notice to the petitioner, has proceeded to pass a protective assessment order under Section 26 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ('KVAT Act' for short), inter alia, directing the petitioner to pay huge tax liability. Pursuant to the orders so passed, has also issued Exhibit P8 and P9 demand notices.4. Aggrieved by the order so passed under Section 26 of the Act and the demand notices issued pursuant thereto, petitioner was before this Court in...

Aravindakshan P. Vs. the President, Pallikunnu Grama Panchayat and ors ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ307; 2008(3)KLT800

V. Giri, J.1. The petitioner is an Upper Division Clerk in the Pallikkunnu Grama Panchayat. While so, under Ext.P1, the President of the Panchayat, Ist respondent herein, suspended the petitioner in exercise of his powers under Rule 8 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Control over officers) Rules 1997 (for short 'the Rules'). Ext.P1 order is dated 25.3.2008. Ext.P1 is challenged in this writ petition.2. The petitioner contends that, in terms of the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Rules made thereunder, Ext.P1 order of suspension will continue to be operative only if it is placed before the Panchayat Committee at its next meeting held by the Panchayat, after the order of suspension and it is ratified by the Panchayat Committee as such. It is common case that Ext.P1 order was placed by the President of the Panchayat before the Panchayat Committee in the next meeting held after Ext.P1 viz., 10.6.2008. It is also on record that the suspension o...