Kerala Court August 2008 Judgments

Baby Sam, Power of Attorney Holder of M/S. Rocklyn Trading Company Vs. ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. M.V. VISWANANTHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred against the order dated.19.12.03 of the CDRF, Kollam in OP.No.198/02. The complaint in the said original petition was filed to get the maturity amount of Rs.6724.50/- covered by deposit reinvestment certificate. The opposite party filed version contending that the deposit amount of Rs.5000/- with interest accrued thereon was received by the complainant on 1.11.1991 by premature closure of the said account. Thus, the claim of the complainant was denied by the opposite parties. The forum below on an appreciation of evidence on record accepted the case of the opposite parties and thereby dismissed the complaint in OP.No.198/02. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed by the complainant therein. 2. We heard the counsel for the appellant/complainant and the respondents/opposite parties. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum ...

Puthuppan P.K. Vs. K.S. Girija and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ416; 2008(4)KLT189

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Petitioner is the President of a Co-operative Society. The first respondent, an employee of that Society filed a complaint before the fourth respondent Kerala Women's Commission, hereinafter referred to as the 'Commission', constituted under the provisions of the Kerala Women's Commission Act, 1990 (Act 17 of 1995), which provides for the constitution of a Commission for the purpose of that statute and with such powers, duties and responsibilities as are enjoined therein. The Commission, through its member, heard the first respondent and the petitioner regarding the complaint and the petitioner regarding the complaint and drew up a report to the effect that after her initial appointment, the first respondent was promoted as an Accountant. However, the Commission opined that, in appointing the Secretary, the claim of the first respondent was overlooked and that there was intention to harass the first respondent. This was on the basis of the allegation o...

Santhamma P.S. Vs. Krishnakumar M.P. and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ344

A.K. Basheer, J.1. Since these two writ appeals arise from the same judgment passed by a learned Single Judge, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.The short question that arises for consideration is whether the promotion given to the appellant in W.A. No. 989/2008 to the post of Junior Foreman (Composing) in the University Press under the Kerala University overlooking the claim of respondent No. 1/writ petitioner is legal, valid and sustainable?2. The learned single Judge held that since respondent No. 1/petitioner possessed the requisite qualification for promotion as on December 1,2002, the date on which the vacancy arose, the appellant who admittedly possessed only an alternate qualification, was not liable to be promoted.The above order is impugned by respondent No. 3 as well as the University in these two appeals.The tussle for promotion arose in the following facts and circumstances.3. Respondent No. 1 in the appeal (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) enter...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Cardamom Marketing Corporation

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009[13]STR6

ORDERH.L. Dattu, C.J.1. Since common questions of law are involved in these appeals, they are clubbed, heard and disposed of by this common order.2. Central Government has filed these appeals, being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Cochin in Final Order Nos. 1125 of 2007 and 1126 of 2007 in Service Tax Appeal Nos. 94 of 2006 and 76 of 2006 dated 18-9-2007. By the impugned order, they have not interfered with the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), who is of the view, that the respondents herein are auctioneers, engaged in the business of conducting cardamom auction and they cannot be categorized as 'clearing and forwarding agents'.3. As usual, Shri P. Parameswaran Nair, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, is very fair to the Court and, therefore, submits that going by the facts pleaded by the respondents before the first appellate authority and the Tribunal, by no stretch of imagination they can ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Cardamom Marketing Corpn.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [2009]19STT372

ORDERH.L. Dattu, C.J.1. Since common questions of law are involved in these appeals, they are clubbed, heard and disposed of by this common order.2. Central Government has filed these appeals, being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Cochin in Final Order Nos. 1125 of 2007 and 1126 of 2007 in Service Tax Appeal Nos. 94 of 2006 and 76 of 2006, dated 18-9-2007. By the impugned order, they have not interfered with the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), who is of the view, that the respondents herein are auctioneers, engaged in the business of conducting cardamom auction and they cannot be categorized as 'clearing and forwarding agents'.3. As usual, Shri P. Parameswaran Nair, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, is very fair to the Court and, therefore, submits that going by the facts pleaded by the respondents before the first appellate authority and the Tribunal, by no stretch of imagination they can...

Babu Vs. Thankachan

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in OP.264/04 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 2500/-being the price of the digital receiver and to take back the same from the complainant and to pay Rs.500/- towards cost within 30 days failing which the amounts would carry interest at 12% from the date of default. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased a digital receiver from the opposite party in October 2004 on payment of Rs.2500/-. The opposite party/appellant undertook that there is six months guarantee and free service. But after one month ie 5.11.04 the receiver became functionless. Appellant promised to replace the same but did not fulfill the promise and hence the complaint. 3. It is the contention of the opposite party/appellant that the complainant wanted a digital receiver and when the appellant purchased one for himself, he purchased one for the complainant also. He had told that there...

Girisankar S.S. Vs. State of Kerala and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ419

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Petitioners and the second respondent are Lecturers in Law in the State service. They were posted in the Government Law College, Thrissur. These writ petitions are filed challenging the decision of the Government transferring the second respondent from Thrissur to Ernakulam.The petitioner in WP(C) No. 22740 of 2008 joined service on 4-7-2000 and the petitioner in WP(C) No. 22755 of 2008 joined service on 16-4-2005 on the basis of appointment order dated 8-4-2005. The second respondent joined service on 25-2-2008.2. Hereinafter, reference is made to the materials and exhibits in WP(C) No. 22740 of 2008, treating that as the main case.The fact that the petitioners and the second respondent have declared Ernakulam as their home station is not in dispute. The entitlement of the petitioners for being considered for transfer to their home station in accordance with Ext.P 12 transfer norms is also not in dispute.3. The petitioners challenge the impugned trans...

Jubairiya and anr. Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008CriLJ4753; 2008(3)KLJ463

R. Basant, J.1. Which is the court to which an appeal under Section 449 Cr.P.C. would lie against an order passed by the Assistant Sessions Court under Section 446 Cr.P.C? Is this appeal under Section 446 Cr.P.C. maintainable before this Court or should the appeal be preferred before the Sessions Court? These are the short questions that arise for consideration in this appeal now.2. The impugned order under Section 446 Cr.P.C. has been passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kottarakara. Under Section 449(ii) Cr.P.C., when the impugned order is passed by a Court of Session, an appeal lied to the court to which an appeal lies from an order made by such court. The Assistant Sessions Court is also a Court of Session. To which court does an appeal lie from an order passed by the Assistant Sessions Court. This is the short question that has got to be considered.3. No binding or persuasive precedents are cited before me by the learned Counsel for the appellant though sufficient oppor...

M. Vijayan Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2009)22VST117(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The question raised in the revision case filed by the assessee is whether petroleum jelly is taxable as a petroleum product under entry 108(vi) or a chemical under entry 33 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The Tribunal upheld the assessment of petroleum jelly as a petroleum product against which this revision is filed. We have heard counsel appearing for the petitioner and Government Pleader for the respondents.2. The contention raised by counsel for the petitioner is that petroleum jelly is a chemical falling under entry 33 and therefore, the same will not fall under entry 108 which covers petroleum products. Entry 33 is as follows:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sl. Description of goods Point of levy Rate of No. tax-%-------------------------------------------------------------------------------33. Chemicals including caustic soda, caustic At the point 12potash, sodash, sodium ...

Sathyan A.V. Vs. Govt. of Kerala and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(244)ELT41(Ker); 2008(3)KLJ532

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, C.J.1. The petitioner, an employee of a co-operative society, challenges Ext. P6. At the outset, it is clarified that this judgment is being issued on the main issue that Ext. P6 is a non-speaking order, leaving open all other issues.2. The petitioner's employer, a co-operarative society, resolved and requested for exemption from possessing a qualification, for the purpose of promoting the petitioner in its service. The Registrar forwarded that request to the Government. The Government sent impugned Ext. P6 to the Registrar stating that it has been decided that exemption need not be granted. It is single line order, a cryptic one, stating no reason for that decision.3. The request was for exercising a power of exemption. To grant or not, is within the power of the authority empowered to grant in terms of law. But, it is of the core principles of administrative law, that a decision has to contain its reasons. This is on account of different reasons. One is t...