Kerala Court July 2008 Judgments

K.C. Reghu Kumar Vs. Star Foundation and Structures Pvt.Ltd. and Anoth ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER The complaint filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 2. The case of the complainant is as follows :- The complainant entered in to an agreement dated 1/7/1998 with the opposite parties and thereby the opposite parties agreed to construct an apartment with two bed room having an area of 573.50 Sq.ft. identified the apartment with No. 4F5, in the 4th floor of the said building project on a total sale consideration of Rs.6,55,000/- which is to be paid in 17 instalments including the registration fee ending by 10th November 2000. The complainant paid a total of Rs.4,03,200/- as on 12/6/99; but the opposite parties failed to commence the construction of the work. So the complainant stopped payment of remaining instalments. Even though the complainant issued letters to the opposite parties requesting for the completion of the work, they failed. There occurred deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the comp...

Vijayan P.K. and ors. Vs. the Govt. of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(2)KLJ934; 2008(3)KLT941

Antony Dominic, J.1. These writ petitions are filed praying for quashing the notification dated 06-05-2008 and for directing to consider and pass orders on the application for renewal of permit submitted by the petitioners, untrammeled by the aforesaid notification. In this judgment, facts as pleaded in W.P.(C) No. 15194 & 17813 of 2008 alone are referred and the exhibits referred to are in the order in which they are marked in W.P.(C) No. 15194/ 2008.2. Petitioner in W.P.(C) 15194/2008 is the registered owner of stage carriage KL-5Q4050, operating on the long distance inter-district route Kottayam-Banthadukka. Ext. P1 permit was originally granted to one Shaji Kuruvilla and was valid for the period from 12-9-1996 to 11 -9-2001 and was subsequently renewed for a further period of 5 years upto 11-9-2006. In the meanwhile, with effect from 16-4-1998 the permit was transferred to the petitioner. Petitioner sought renewal of the permit for a further period of 5 years by submitting his appl...

Mohammad Rafi S. Vs. Fathahudeen and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ276

ORDERM. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. First respondent was declared elected to Ward No. 19 of Mayyanadu Grama Panchayath of Kollam District in the election held on 24.9.1995. Petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 were the other candidates. First respondent secured 385 votes out of the total polled votes of 1029. Petitioner received 382 votes, second respondent 5 votes and third respondent 230 votes. 27 votes were declared invalid. Petitioner filed O.P.(Ele). 2 of 2005 before Additional Munsiff, Kollam to set aside the election of the first respondent. The election was challenged only on the ground of double voting. It was contended in the election petition that there were 13 double votes. The details of the votes were specifically pleaded. First respondent resisted the election petition denying the case of double voting. After the election petition was included in the special list petitioner filed, I.A. 1090 of 2006 on 4.3.2006 to amend the election petition incorporating the detail of one mor...

Air India Ltd. and Others Vs. Mathew Philip

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred against the order dated.7.5.03 of the CDRF, Kottayam in OP.No.490/01. The complaint therein was filed by the respondents herein as complainants against the appellants 1 to 4 as opposite parties 1 to 4 claiming compensation on the ground of deficiency in service and also on the basis of the contract entered into between the complainants and the opposite parties regarding the quantum of compensation. The opposite parties filed joint version through their Sales Manager, Cochin denying and disputing the case of deficiency in service. They also contended that the offer made by the opposite parties to pay compensation @ 20 US dollars per kg on the weight of the cargo was not accepted by the complainants and so they are not liable to pay any compensation because there was no deficiency in service on their part. The opposite parties had also contended that the District Forum, Kottayam had no territorial jurisdiction to enter...

Administrator, Josgiri Hospital Vs. Govt. of Kerala and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(2)KLJ951

H.L. Dattu, C.J.1. The question for consideration is whether the building owned by the petitioner is eligible for exemption from payment of tax under the provisions of Kerala Building Tax Act and the Rules framed thereunder.2. Petitioner is miming a Nursing School in the ground and first floor of a building. The second and third floors of the building are used as hostel. The Tahsildar, Thalassery Taluk, Thalassery had issued Notice No. C-4/23220/03 dated 26-11 -2003, calling upon the petitioner to file details regarding the construction of new building for the purpose of fixing the Building Tax/Property Tax under the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act and the Rules framed thereunder. After receipt of the notice, the petitioner had filed a detailed reply dated 17-12-2003 and in that it was stated, apart from others, that the Nursing School building has four floors, the ground floor accommodates the Principal's and Vice Principal's Offices, visitors room, library, dining hall, kit...

Raveendran K. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008CriLJ4648; 2008(3)KLJ476

ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Does the procedure adopted-in the filing and disposal of Leave applications and in the admission of appeals after securing leave, deserve rationalisation? Is there unnecessary wastage of judicial time and needless repetition of non productive work in such procedure followed? These questions arise for consideration incidentally in this case.2. This petition is filed by the petitioner for leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. The petitioner had filed a private complaint against the respondents/accused 1 and 2. In the said private complaint, the petitioner had alleged that the accused had committed offences punishable under Sections 341 and 323 r/w 34 I.P.C. Accused 1 and 2 are the elder brother and sister in law respectively of the petitioner/complainant. Before the court below, the complainant examined himself as PW1, his wife as PW2 and an alleged independent witness as PW3. Exts. D1 and D4 were marked.3. The crux of the allegations is that on account of prior animosi...

Sushil Thomas Abraham Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and anr ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Ker)182

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioner, an assessee under the IT Act filed Ext. P3 return for the asst. yr. 1996-97. Even though petitioner declared a business profit of Rs. 6,08,680 and tax liability of Rs. 1,57,969, the petitioner did not remit the admitted tax before filing of the IT return as required under Section 140A of the IT Act, 1961. On processing Ext. P3 return, the AO noticed that the calculation of tax on the returned income is incorrect and petitioner was liable to pay interest under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. He accordingly sent intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act vide Ext. P1 demanding payment of Rs. 2,81,473. After sending intimation vide Ext. P1 dt. 24th March, 1997, the AO took up assessment under Section 143(3) which led to an additional demand of Rs. 10,61,252 vide Ext. P2 besides the demand under Ext. P1, When petitioner filed appeal against regular assessment completed under Section 143(3) before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) noticed that a...

Shanavas S.R. Vs. Kerala Public Service Commission and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ248

V. Giri, J.1. The petitioner responded to a notification issued by the 2nd respondent Public Service Commission (for short 'the Commission') inviting application for the post of Forest Guard, in the Forest Department. The notification inviting applications was published on 27.4.2004. The selection was conducted and Ext.P1 rank list was published on 15.9.2007.83 persons were included in the main list and 225 persons were included in the supplementary list. The petitioner was included as Rank No. 10 in the Muslim supplementary list. According to the petitioner, there were 105 vacancies of Forest Guard in Ernakulam District, at the time of publication of Ext.P1 rank list. Four Muslim Candidates included in the rank list viz., persons with Rank Nos. 67 and 79 in the main list and Rank Nos. 7 and 9 in the supplementary list, had relinquished their claim for advice as per the rank list. The petitioner contends that, going by the details given by the Commission in its counter affidavit, the d...

Varkey T.U. and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ779

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Petitioners are challenging Ext.P13 order issued by the Government pursuant to the directions contained in Ext.P9 judgement in WP(C) No. 36402/03 dated 19/11/2003. The facts leading to the case are the following:The 5th respondent availed loan from 6th respondent Bank and on account of default, the Bank authorized recovery authorities to recover the arrears by resort to revenue recovery proceedings under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. The amount due to the Bank was Rs. 5,57,908/- with interest thereon from the date of recommendation for revenue recovery. The property was notified for sale on 16/01/2002. In the auction 1st petitioner purchased the property for Rs. 1,07,500/-. Since the highest bid amount was far below the debt amount, the recovery authority was bound to defer the sale to another date in terms of Section 50(1) of the RR Act. However, the sale was proceeded with and the Revenue Divisional Officer confirmed the sale in violation of the above ...

India Food Exports Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2009)21VST436(Ker)

ORDERH.L. Dattu, C.J.1. The levy of penalty under Section 29A(4) of the 1 Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 ('the Act', for short) by the Enquiry Officer and confirmed by the first appellate authority and the Appellate Tribunal is called in question by the assessee in this revision petition filed under Section 41 of the Act.2. The assessee is a firm engaged in the processing and export of cashew 2 kernels. In the course of its business, it has imported 3,500 bags of raw cashewnuts from a foreign country. To demonstrate this aspect of the matter, the petitioner has not only produced the bill of entry dated October 18, 2001 but also the certificate issued by the clearing agent both before this Court as well as before the authorities under the Act. Out of the goods imported, the petitioner was transporting 280 bags of cashew kernels to the assessee's own factory situate at Kuzhithura in Tamil Nadu for the purpose of processing. The goods vehicle was detained by the check-post authority a...