Kerala Court July 2008 Judgments

Proprietor, Saire Automobiles and Others Vs. Smitha B.G. Smitha

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in OP:530/01 in the file of CDRF, Trivandrum and under orders to refund a sum of Rs.31,412/- with future interest at 14.5% and also to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as cost. 2. It is the case of the complainant that she purchased a Saffire Scooter from the 1st opposite party/dealer on 26..1..2001 for a sum of Rs.34,903/-. She an engineering student was attending the classes using the vehicle. From the very beginning it was having starting trouble, mis firing, head light disorder, body rattling etc. On several occasions the vehicle was subjected to minor and major repairs and every time it took one day to one week for effecting repairs. The dealer was also charging the complainant for the repairs effected. Finally on 17..11..2001 it was taken to the dealer for repairs. Even after a month the defects could not be rectified and the vehicle is still in the custody of the 1st opposite party. The ...

Prakasan and anr. Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(2)KLJ903

V. Ramkumar, J.1. The revision petitioners, who are accused Nos. 2 and 3 in C.C. 1434/2003 on the file of JFCMI, Aluva for offences punishable under Sections 457, 380 and 461 read with Section 34 IPC, challenge the conviction entered and sentence passed against them concurrently by the courts below.2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows:On 15-6-2001 at about 1.15 a.m. the first accused Rajendran broke open the front door of the house of PW1 Grorge at Edathalakara in Aluva East Village using a chisel and committed theft of gold ornaments and cash worth Rs. 9,500/-, causing a total loss of Rs. 60,500/- after breaking open the almirah inside the house. The accused have thereby committed the aforementioned offences.3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against them by the trial court for the aforementioned offences, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 9 witnesses as PWs. 1 to ...

E.M. Sunny Vs. Tahsildar and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2008Ker214; 2008(3)KLT766

ORDERKurian Joseph, J.1. What is the crucial date the date of completion of construction of the building or the date of occupation for the purpose of luxury tax assessment under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is the question to be decided in this case. It is the case of the petitioner that he completed the construction of his residential building with a plinth area of 425.96 square meters on 25-3-1999. For the purpose of assessment of building tax under the Act, a return was submitted in Form No. II (Ext. P1), prescribed under Rule 4 of the Kerala Building Tax Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). According to the petitioner, based on the return, an order of assessment was served on him in Form No. V, prescribed under Rule 8 of the Rules, wherein also, the date of completion of construction of the building is shown as 25-3-1999. It is seen from Ext.P1 that the date of completion of the building is 25-3-1999 and the date of occu...

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hydrose and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009ACJ416; 2008(3)KLJ9; 2008(3)KLT778

J.B. Koshy, J.1. Insurance company filed this appeal as the liability to pay compensation for the injuries of a pillion rider was cast on the Insurance company. It is the case of the appellant Insurance company that, in United India Insurance Co. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 . Honourable Supreme Court held that in an Act only Policy, rider and pillion rider are not covered and for covering pillion rider or a gratuitous passenger, there should be specific coverage. As held by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Jaya 2002 (1) KLT 596 (SC). merely because policy is comprehensive, the liability is not absolute for the Insurance company. Act only policy covers statutory liability. In certain comprehensive policies, apart from the statutory liability, only own damages are covered. In such circumstances, gratuitous passengers are not covered. Apart from the risk compulsorily to the coverage under the Motor Vehicles Act, coverage of other risk depen...

Preemohammed M. Vs. the Chirakandam Grama Panchayath

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(2)KarLJ856

Antony Dominic, J.1. The issue raised in all these writ petitions being common, these cases are disposed of by this judgment. For convenience, I shall first dispose of W.P.(C) No. 8987/2008.W.P.(C) No. 8987 of 2008:2. Petitioner submits that by Sale Deed No. 2778/1 dated 21-12-2007, he has purchased 5.19 Ares of land situated in Block No. 36 of Pampady Village. He wanted to construct a residential house and submitted a building plan before the Pampady Grama Panchayat for obtaining necessary permit. Since his plot is abutting the National Highway, Exts. P2 and P3 applications were made for obtaining No Objection Certificate and permission for access to the highway.3. On receipt of the applications from the petitioner, the 1 st respondent Panchayat referred the matter to the 4th respondent, the Executive-Engineer, National Highway, Roads Division, Muvattupyzha, seeking NOC from him. The 4th respondent considered the matter and by his order on Ext. P4, declined to grant NOC stating mat th...

Ouseph T.L. Vs. the District Collector and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ10

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Petitioner is challenging assessment and demand of building tax in respect of a three storied building constructed by petitioner in stages. The ground floor was constructed in 1993 and the first and second floors were constructed only in the year 2003. When the ground floor was assessed to building tax, petitioner contested the same in appeal on the ground that the plinth area of a shed was also added to the building. Learned Government Pleader submitted that in appeal, the RDO remanded the matter and thereafter the Tahsildar reduced the plinth area by 75 sq.m. i.e. by excluding the plinth area of the shed, which was originally constructed for storage of building materials like cement, steel, etc. When petitioner constructed first and second floors in 2003, the Tahsildar assessed the plinth area of the entire building gave rebate of tax paid for the ground floor and demanded balance tax. It is against this order petitioner has filed this writ petition on th...

Pillai K.D. Vs. Chairman-cum-managing Director, Ongc

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ179; 2008(4)KLT199

J.B. Koshy, J.1. The writ petitioner in this case is a retired employee of Oil and Natural Gas Commission, the first respondent. He retired from service after continuous service of more than 37 years. The Post Retirement Benefit Scheme (PRBS) was promulgated with effect from 1.4.1990, which is an optional scheme. The petitioner became a member of the PRBS and remitted contributions accordingly. The petitioner retired on 30.4.1998. After his retirement with effect from 30.6.1998 another scheme was formulated. There is variance of rate of contribution. The only dispute is whether the petitioner is entitled to get the benefits under the old scheme as he retired when the old scheme was in force.2. The petitioner filed O.P. No. 18359 of 2001 for getting the retiral benefits and a learned single Judge of this Court by judgment dated 16.10.2001 allowed the Original Petition along with another Original Petition O.P. No. 18358 of2001 filed by another similarly placed employees (Ext.P5 judgment)...

Sathi Lakshmanan K.C. and anr. Vs. P.C. Mohandas and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ190; 2008(4)KLT401

M. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. When there is no request as provided under Section 2 of Partition Act, whether Court is competent to direct sale of the property by auction among the shares or by public auction? Whether for an equitable and fair division of the property dehors of Partition Act court can direct sale of the property or is it mandatory to allot the property to one of the sharers with a direction to pay compensation to the other shares if it is found that the property cannot be reasonably and conveniently be divided. These are the questions to be answered in this Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. The facts are not complicated O.S. 224/1999 was instituted before Sub Court, Kozhikode for partition and separation of share of plaintiffs. As per the preliminary decree, it was found that plaint schedule property is available for partition and it is to be divided into 26 equal shares and plaintiffs are entitled to one share. So also defendants 5 to ...

Sangeetha Ready Made World Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2008)17VST51(Ker)

ORDERH.L. Dattu, C.J.1. Sri Muhammed Rafiq, learned Senior Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondent.2. Since the issue involved in this revision petition lies in a narrow compass, though the matter is listed for admission, by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties to the lis, the revision petition is taken up for final hearing.3. The assessee has raised the following questions of law for our consideration and decision. They are as under:(i) Is the Tribunal correct in holding that the subsequent production of document in the case would not absolve the assessee from the liability?(ii) Whether the Tribunal is justified in restoring the penalty which is solely based on certain technical omissions in preparing the invoices?(iii) Whether the Tribunal is justified in cancelling the first appellate order when there is no valid reason to deviate from the findings of the first appellate authority?(iv) Whether the Tribunal is justified in restoring the penalty imposed...

CochIn Cadalas (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2008)16VST319(Ker)

ORDERH.L. Dattu, C.J.1. The only question that arises for consideration and decision in these revision petitions is, whether 'craft paper' falls under entry 94(i) or 94(ii) of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and the rate of tax payable thereon.2. The assessing authority for the assessment years in question has classified the commodity in question as a 'paper product' coming under entry 94(ii) of the First Schedule to the KGST Act on the sole ground that paper and craft paper are goods of different identity and has different use. The first appellate authority in the appeals filed by the assessee has held that craft paper requires to be classified as an item falling under entry 94(i) of the First Schedule, treating it as paper, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Khatema Fibres Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in [2004] 135 STC 193 : [2001] 9 KTR 349. In the second appeal filed by the Revenue, the Appellate Tribunal has taken th...