Kerala Court July 2008 Judgments

Vimala K.A. and anr. Vs. R. Anantha Mallan

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ185

ORDERP.R. Raman, J.1. The defeated tenant in a proceeding under the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), initiated by the landlord seeking eviction under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act is before us in this revision.2. The landlord sought eviction of the tenanted premises on the ground that the tenant has subsequently acquired a building reasonably sufficient for his requirement in the same city, town or village. The petitioners are the legal representatives of the original tenant who dies during the pendency of the original petition. There is no dispute in this case that the tenants, the petitioners before us, in fact, after the death of the original tenant, sold away the said building for discharge of the liabilities incurred by him during the pendency of the appeal. This fact was subsequently sought to be placed on record by filing an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 23 of the Act....

Zeeshan Vs. District Educational Officer and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2008Ker226; ILR2008NULL984

K.T. Sankaran, J.1. The question involved in this Writ Petition is whether a child, who is a citizen of Pakistan by birth, is entitled to be admitted in a school in Kerala during the stay of the child along with his mother and grand-mother in India pending consideration of their application under Section 5(1)(f) of the Citizenship Act, 1955.2. The Writ Petition and the affidavit filed by the petitioner on 3-7-2008, reveal the following facts:The petitioner, Zeeshan, is a minor aged 11 years represented by his mother Zuhra. The petitioner was born to Zuhra while she was in Pakistan. Zuhra's father Abooty migrated to Pakistan several years ago. Abooty's wife, Aysha, had also migrated to Pakistan. Abooty died in the year 2007 at Karachi. It is stated that Zuhra, Zuhra's mother Aysha, the minor petitioner Zeeshan and his sister came to India on 17-08-2007. Zuhra was born in Pakistan. Zuhra was married to Subair Arangoth who is stated to be an Indian citizen and who is now working abroad. I...

Premakumari C. Vs. the Commissioner, Land Revenue Dept.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ65; 2008(3)KLT798

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Payment in the W.P. is for direction to the respondents to grant notional promotion to the petitioner in the cadre of Deputy Tahsildar with effect from 1.8.2002 as against the actual date of promotion given to her on 29.11.2002 and for consequential reliefs, particularly in regard to subsequent promotions and seniority. I have heard counsel appearing for the petitioner and Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.2. The petitioner joined service as a Copyist on 10.7.1976. She got promoted as UDC on 1.12.1986 and as Head Clerk on 16.11.1999. Promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar is from the cadre of Head Clerk/Revenue Inspector. In the seniority list of UDCs and Revenue Inspectors published on 24.12.2001, petitioner figured as 1501. However, petitioner noticed that four persons junior to her were promoted as Deputy Tahsildars from July to October 2002 i.e. by denying promotion to the petitioner who was higher in rank. When petitioner represented,...

Managing Partner, Shanthi Flour Mills Vs. Regnl. Director, E.S.i.C.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [2008(119)FLR354]; 2008(3)KLJ465; (2009)ILLJ100Ker

J.B. Koshy, J.1. Whether the appellant's establishment is covered under the Employees' State Insurance Scheme as a factory or not is the question to be considered in this case. The appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the manufacture of Orid flour. An inspection was conducted by the Insurance Inspector on 18-4-2000 at the appellant's factory premises. Nine persons were seen employed in the factory and its premises. If has come out in evidence that usually the number of employees engaged in the factory and its premises is seven, but, during two months the appellant had on some days engaged two more casual employees. It was found out from records that the appellant has a sales depot at Kozhikode. Two persons were employed in the sales depot. Therefore, demands were issued for covering the establishment under the Employees' State Insurance Scheme including those two persons also as employees of the factory. It is the contention of the appellant that his establishment is not a factor...

Surendran K. Vs. Govt. of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ258

J.B. Koshy, J.1. The appellant, a Senior Inspector in the Co-operation Department now working as Lecturer in Co-operative Training Centre at Palakkad, was suspended pending enquiry into acts of misconduct, alleged to have committed in the year 1999, about a decade back. The order of suspension is under challenge in these proceedings. He was on deputation to A.K.G. Memorial Co-operative Hospital, Kannur from 24.2.1997 to 5.6.1999. But on 6.6.1999 he came back to the parent department and was again sent on deputation to Co-operative Training Centre, Palakkad. According to the allegations, while he was working on deputation as the Chief Executive of A.K.G Memorial Co-operative Hospital, Kannur, he had unauthorisedly given a cheque in the name of a consultancy by name M/s. Surgi Tech India in connection with the service charges of the hospital equipment, in the year 1999.2. The appellant denied the allegations. According to the appellant, he has not done anything wrong. A registered lawyer...

Vettukuzhy Traders Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2010)27VST314(Ker)

ORDERH.L. Dattu, C.J.1. A Division Bench of this Court had doubted the correctness or otherwise of the declaration of law made this Court in Surya Agencies v. State of Kerala [2008] 11 VST 419 : [2004] 12 KTR 215 and C.O. Varghese v. State of Kerala [2008] 11 VST 149 : [2004] 12 KTR 528 and, accordingly, had referred the matter to a Full Bench to furnish its opinion on the question whether the additions made on account of suppression of inter-State purchases and sales should be only for the value of actual suppression noticed or whether the assessing authority, after rejecting the books of accounts and the returns filed, could make further addition, apart from the actual suppression.2. The Full Bench has answered the aforesaid question by its order dated April 11, 2008 (Abookacker v. State of Kerala [2010] 27 VST 308 (Ker). While doing so, the court has stated as under:.We are therefore of the view that decision of the Division Benches in the above two decisions restricting addition on...

Senior Postmaster, MaIn Post Office and Others Vs. Sivarama Krishnan, ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred against the order dated 21/2/2005 of the CDRF, Ernakulam in OP No.290/04. The complaint there in was filed by the respondents as complainants against the appellants as opposite parties 1 to 3 claiming the amount deposited in the Monthly Income Scheme with the interest thereon. The opposite parties filed written version disputing the claim put forward by the complainants. They contended that the aforesaid deposit under the Monthly Income Scheme was effected in violation of the provisions contained in the notification prescribing the limit for effecting deposit under the said scheme at Rs.2,04,000/-. Thus the opposite parties justified their action in not paying the interest on the exceeded amount of Rs.1,53,000/-. But the Forum below accepted the case of the complainants and thereby directed the opposite parties to pay the complainants the amount that had been promised at the time of deposit with the interest promised...

Chandrasekhara Prabhu A. Vs. Vadakke Parammal Kunhimoideen

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ487

ORDERP.R. Raman, J.1. This revision arises out of a common judgment dated 11/1/2008 in RCA Nos. 112 14/2004 rendered by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. R.C.A. No. 112/04 was filed by the 2nd respondent herein. Both these appeals were preferred challenging the order of the Rent Controller in R.C.P. No.26/99. The Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed both these appeals. Aggrieved thereby this revision is preferred.2. The Rent Control Petition was filed by Vadakke Parammal Kunhimoideen in the capacity as the landlord seeking eviction of the respondent (Chandrasekhara Prabhu) alleged to be the tenant of the building under Sections 11(2), 11(3), 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The petition schedule building and the property in which it situates were obtained by the Rent Control Petitioner in EP.64/95 in O.S. 197/77 of the Sub Court, Thalassery. He obtained delivery of possession of the petition schedule property as per order in E...

Great India Service Club Vs. Branch Manager National Insurance Co Ltd. ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER The above appeal is directed against the order dated.27.1.04 in OP.No.222/03 of CDRF, Idukki, directing the appellant/first opposite party to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant. 2. The case of the complainant is that he joined in a medical insurance scheme sponsored by the first opposite party with the assistance of the second opposite party on payment of Rs.200/- as first premium to the first opposite party. The complainant sustained fracture to his back bone in a fall and was treated as inpatient for 11 days from 8.3.02 and had to spend an amount of Rs.6000/-. A claim form along with necessary documents were entrusted to the opposite parties. But the insured amount was not paid. Hence he filed the complaint before the Forum alleging deficiency in service and claimed Rs.19,300/- by way of compensation. 3. It is the case of the first opposite party that they are only a Master policy holder, issued by the second opposite party. Thereby...

The Secretary, K.S.E.B., Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR: MEMBER It is aggrieved by the order dated.26.12.01 in OP.87/01 of CDRF, Idukki that the opposite parties have come in appeal. By the said order they are under directions to collect amounts from the complainant and other beneficiaries only as per the terms of the original agreement or the actual consumption charges. 2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he had applied for an electric connection along with three other persons on executing a minimum guarantee agreement on 3/11/94, expecting the connection immediately. But it was given only on 5.9.01. The complainants further case is that at the time of execution of the minimum guarantee agreement the total amount required for the work was Rs.1,79,185/-. It is alleged that the amount at the time of execution of the work was unilaterally enhanced by the opposite parties to Rs.2,43,060/- and the complainant is not liable to pay the charges based on the revised amount. Alleging inordinate delay in giving...