Kerala Court August 2008 Judgments

Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Premlal

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2009)IILLJ441Ker

M.N. Krishnan, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order of the Employees' Insurance Court, Kollam, in I.C. No. 38/2001. The applicant before the said Court had challenged the initiation of proceedings covering the applicant's establishment under the Employees State Insurance Act. Now the Corporation would contend that list of ten employees were furnished by the applicant himself to the Insurance Inspector duly authenticated with the particulars of their address. Further the use of LPG for cooking amounts to use of power for manufacturing process. The EI Court held against the Corporation and also observed that 'however the applicant has admitted use of cooking gas for the purpose of preparation and sale of food items in the establishment. But it is not legally established by citing decision of any Court that use of cooking gas alone would amount to manufacturing process in order to attract the establishment as a factory under the Act.' So it was for want of decision by a High Co...

K.J. James Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2009)22VST165(Ker)

ORDERC.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. During the year 2001-02, the petitioners manufactured jute products and sold the same to an exporter who exported the same to foreign buyers. However, the petitioner did not take any registration under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter called 'the KGST Act'). In the course of investigation, the Sales Tax Department noticed the purchase and export of goods by the exporter from the petitioners and consequently the petitioners were called upon to furnish accounts. On verification of accounts, the department noticed purchase and sale of goods by the petitioners in excess of the turnover that requires registration and payment of tax under the KGST Act. Petitioners conceded that there was violation of the provisions of the KGST Act and Rules inasmuch as they have not taken registration and filed monthly returns. The offence was compounded by remitting compounding fee and consequently no penalty was levied.2. During assessment for the same y...

State of Kerala Vs. Malabar Cements Ltd.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2009)21VST291(Ker)

ORDERH.L. Dattu, C.J.1. The Revenue is before us in this revision petition filed under Section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Palakkad in T.A. No. 10 of 2006 dated March 30, 2006. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has cancelled the orders passed by the first appellate authority in Section T.A. No. 6469 of 2005 dated November 24, 2005.2. The respondent in this revision petition is a Government company and is engaged in the manufacture and sale of cement. The assessee-company has several cement manufacturing units including one at Cherthala. It is only in their unit cement is manufactured using 'fly ash' as basic raw material. The unit had started its commercial production with effect from May 7, 2003 and marketed the cement so produced under the label 'Portland Pozzoloria' cement. The unit had charged sales tax in the invoices raised and had collected the same from its consumers a...

Mary Antony Vs. the State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ823; 2009(1)KLT119

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The dispute arising in both the revision cases is against the addition to the turnover made in the sales tax assessment of the petitioners, confirmed by the Tribunal. While the petitioner in T.R.C. No. 237 of 1999 was a dealer in arrack and toddy during the relevant year, the petitioner in T.R.C. No. 392 of 1998 was engaged in retail sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor in the bar hotel. In both the cases, there was an inspection by the intelligence Wing of the Sales Tax Department in the business premises of both the petitioners during the relevant year and in the course of inspection, variation of physical stock with accounts was noticed. Both the petitioners admitted the incorrectness and incompleteness of the accounts and compounded the offence by paying the compounding fee and avoided prosecution. While the compounding fee paid by the petitioner in T.R.C. No. 237 of 1999 for the assessment year 1988-89 was Rs. 44,300/- the compounding fee paid by the pet...

Deepthy Vijayakumar Vs. Jt. Registrar of Co-op. Societies and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ617

J.B. Koshy, J.1. This appeal relates to the appointment of Junior clerks in the second respondent Co-operative Bank Ltd. in the year 2001 .Appellant was one of the candidates to the above post. She was rank No. III in the written test. Appellant got 94 marks out of 160. Even though she was rank No. III in the written test, after the interview she was placed in Xth rank as she got only 3 marks out of 20 in the interview. It is contended that a candidate/respondent No. 9 who got rank No. 13 in the written test was awarded 20 out of 20 in the interview and 65 marks out of 160 and who was placed as rank No. 5 she was given appointment. The appellant alleges serious irregularities in the conduct of the selection. According to her interview was conducted by the Board members in such a way as to give maximum marks to the persons of their choice. The specific allegation of the appellant is that written test was conducted by an independent agency (Institute of Management in general) and the mar...

Bhaskaran Pillai K. Vs. Nediyavila Milk Producer's Co-op. Socy. Ltd.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ539

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Petitioner, a member of the first respondent, a Milk Producers' Co-operative Society challenges Ext.P2 notice issued scheduling the election to the committee of that society and Ext.P4 voters' list. The plea of the petitioner in the writ petition is that Ext.P2 notice is invalid, it having been issued in violation of Rule 35(3)(a)(iii) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules' and Clause 5.1 (a)(i) of the bye-laws of the first respondent society. It is also contended that the fixation of 14-7-2008 as the date for consideration of objections to the voters list is in violation of natural justice since Ext. P2 notice was served on the petitioner through post only on 15-7-2008, owing to which he could not filed objections on or before 14-7-2008. It is contended that many eligible persons are excluded from Ext.P4 list while different ineligible persons are included therein. The petitioner seeks a further direct...

Komalam Gopi Vs. T.K. Mohankumar and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(2)KLJ787

ORDERThottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This revision is by the accused in a case taken cognizance of on the basis of a private complaint alleging offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, The trial coat convicted the accused and sentenced her to undergo rigourous imprisonment, for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 60,000/-. The court of session allowed her appeal on the question of sentence, modified it and sentenced her to pay a fine of Rs. 60,000/-, in default of which, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Out of the fine amount collected, an amount of Rs. 45,000/- was to be paid to the complainant as compensation.2. The allegation against the petitioner was that she and her husband informed the complainant that employment opportunity is available in the Cochin Port Trust that could be obtained for her, for which purpose, an amount of Rs. 45,000/- has to be paid to the accused. Believing those words, the complainant parted with that amount and...

M/S. Malabar Latex Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Alpha Laval (India) Ltd.

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI.M.V.VISWANANTHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above complaint is filed by the Private limited company by name M/s.Malabar Latex Pvt. Ltd., The complaint is filed against the opposite party Alpha Laval (India) Ltd., who sold the machinery (Latex Separator) to the complainant company. Admittedly the aforesaid machinery was purchased for conducting the business of the complainant company. The case of the complainant is that the said machinery developed defects during the warranty period itself and thereby there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in selling the defective machinery to the complainant company. The machinery was purchased for the business purpose of the complainant company. If that be so, the complainant cannot be considered as a consumer coming under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is further to be noted the purchase was effected in the year 2004 ie; after the commencement of the amendment to section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protec...

P.C.Sreenivasan Vs. Raveendran and Another

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER By the order dated 8/4/99 the opposite party in OP.No.825/97 is under directions to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.15,200/- with 12% interest from 18/7/97 with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.1,000/-. It is aggrieved by the said directions that the opposite parties have come up in this appeal calling for the interference of this commission as to the correctness and sustainability of the order of the forum below. 2. The case of the complainants in short is as follows: The complainants entrusted the modification of their house to the opposite party and they have paid a sum of Rs.74,000/- to the opposite party. It is the allegation that the construction was defective and that though the opposite party was requested to rectify the defects it was not done by the opposite party and hence the lawyer notice was issued which was refused by the opposite party. The complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite party to refund an amo...

Ramachandran Nair B. and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(1)KLJ207

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. These writ petitions are filed challenging revenue recovery proceedings for recovery of arrears of abkari dues due from petitioners and two other licencees, namely Mr. Mammen Koshy and Mrs. Mary Sophy Koshy, who are the brother and mother respectively of petitioner in WP(C) No. 29483/06. These two licencees namely Mammen Koshy and Mary Sophy Koshy are dead and it is not known whether there is any proceedings pending against the legal heirs of these two persons. Since the facts are almost identical, we do not intend to consider the details of licence issued and the exact amount due from each and every licence. The total abkari dues from all the licencees including the petitioners as on 31/03/1990 was Rs. 1,18,34,068/- which is for the years 1987-88 to 1989-90. RR proceedings started soon after the default and government notified 42 acres of properties of the defaulters for sale in revenue auction in 1990 itself. However, since there was no bidders for the sa...