Kerala Court July 2008 Judgments

Sandhya T.N. Vs. Jalaja Kumari and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(2)KLJ879; 2008(3)KLT655

P.N. Ravindran, J.1. These writ appeals arise from the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 26810 of 2007. They were therefore heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment. The appellant in W.A. No. 455 of 2008 is the fifth respondent and the appellant in W.A. No. 461 of 2008 is the first respondent in the Writ Petition. The first respondent in both the appeals is the writ petitioner. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the writ petition. The main question that arises in these Writ Appeals is as regards the effect of the amendments introduced in Rules 43 and 51A of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959, hereinafter referred to as the 'K.E.R.', for short on the rights of a teacher thrown out of service vis-a-vis, a teacher in service awaiting promotion to the higher post. The brief facts are as follows:2. The writ petitioner possesses B.Sc. degree in Chemistry, M.A. degree in Malayalam and B.Ed. degree i...

Muthu and Company Vs. Intelligence Officer (ib), Board of Revenue and ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2008)17VST300(Ker)

H.L. Dattu, C.J.1. The petitioner is a dealer in ghee and other food products. It is also registered as a dealer under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and doing business at Mahe, Pondicherry.2. In this original petition filed, the only question that would arise for our consideration and decision is, whether the intelligence officer of the department was justified in imposing penalty under Section 45A of the KGST Act on the sole ground that the petitioner has not surrendered transit pass at the last check-post point.3. The facts which are absolutely necessary for the disposal of the original petition is as under:The petitioner, in the course of its business, had purchased RKG brand ghee from a dealer in Kangayam in Tamil Nadu. The said goods was being transported in a transportation vehicle to the place of business of the petitioner which is in Pondicherry. The goods vehicle has to pass through the State of Kerala to reach Pon...

George Antony Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ527

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Appellant is engaged in blasting, crushing and sale of rock in various forms. Appellant has 24 vehicles used for transport of rubble, stone chips, etc. When appellant offered to remit mojor vehicle tax, the RTO demanded clearance certificate in terms of Section 8A of Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act for accepting tax. Since appellant had not remitted any contribution towards motor transport workers welfare fund, no certificate could be obtained. Consequently, motor vehicle tax was not received by the RTO. When the appellant approached this Court challenging the action of the RTO, this Court declared that appellant was covered by the definition of 'motor transport undertaking' under Section 2(h) of the act. However, the question of claim of exemption under the proviso to Section 4 was left open for the appellant to prove before the RTO. It is against this judgment that this appeal is filed.2. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellant a...

Anthoniyamma and ors. Vs. the Managing Director, Ksrtc and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ507

J.B. Koshy, J.1. A 7 year old child died in a motor accident. Father and mother of the child approached the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala for compensation. Even though Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the 2nd respondent, driver of the vehicle owned by the 1st respondent, against a claim of Rs. 3,20,000/- only an amount of Rs. 74,600/- was allowed. The dispute is regarding the quantum of compensation. It is contended that the child was a student. If compensation was awarded under Section 163A even without proving the negligence of the driver, the claimant will be entitled to a compensation of Rupees Two Lakhs. Based upon the Division Bench decision of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Muneer : 2003(1)KLT137 it was argued that quantum of compensation awarded under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short 'the M.V. Act') can never Section 163-A of M.V. Act because in claims under Section 163-A, negligence of the driver of ...

M/S National Insurancecompany Ltd., Represented the Sr.Divisional Mana ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/Insurance Company in OP.181/02 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The appellants are under orders to pay a further sum of Rs.43455/- with interest at 9% from 20.8.01 and also to pay compensation of Rs.4000/- and cost of Rs.500/-. 2. It is the case of the complainants ie. Secretary of the Consumer Protection Council, Kayamkulam and the owner of the car with registration No.KL-4H9897 that he purchased the car on 28.12.2000 for a sum of Rs.3,33,644/-(Hundai Sandro) hit against by a tanker lorry on 8.2.01. The vehicle had comprehensive coverage with the appellants. The car was taken to nearest service station ie Autocat as per the directions of the opposite party. The claim was preferred on 4.4.01. On 15.6.01 the appellants informed that 98 items of spare parts are to be replaced and the labour charge is estimated at Rs.25000/-. The complainant was forced to take the dismantled car to the MGF motors, Kottayam. The...