Kerala Court August 2008 Judgments

Santhosh Kumar and Others Vs. N. Vijayan @ Vijayan Pillai and Another

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties 1 to 3 the then office bearers of the 4th opposite party All the opposite parties are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.87,000/- with 12% interest from 4.6.06 and also to pay compensation of Rs.2000/- and cost of Rs.1000/-. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he remitted a sum of Rs.87,000/-in the Investment Scheme of the opposite parties, in various instalments. It is his complaint that the amounts were not returned with interest on the due date. 3. The opposite parties were ex parte in the proceedings before the Forum. It is their case herein that the counsel did not inform them of the posting dates. The complainant had filed proof affidavit and Ext.A1 to A4 series of documents were marked. 4. It is the case of the appellants herein that they are not the office bearers right now and that the office bearers at the time of the filing the complaint were not impleaded. Their grievance is confined to the ...

Secretary, Kollam Development Authority and Another Vs. M. Shamsudeen

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/Kollam Development Authority in OP No.280/03 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The appellant is under orders to return the title deeds entrusted with the appellant as the loan availed by the complainant on 30/7/90 of a sum of Rs.25,000/- was repaid. The loan amount was to be repaid in 120 instalments of Rs.375/- each. He defaulted. On 13/11/2001 the complainant received a notice to pay an amount of Rs.27,000/- with penal interest. According to the complainant he remitted the above amount including penal interest of Rs.375/-. On 10/3/03 he applied for getting the documents returned. The request was rejected. 2. The opposite party/appellant has stated that the amount of loan is given from the Housing Loan Scheme implemented availing loan from HUDCO on Government guarantee. It is mentioned that the complainant committed default and did not pay any amount for 5 years ie, from 3/96 to 5/02. The liability has to be calcu...

Faizal C.M. Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ774

ORDERC.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Petitioners in the connected Sales Tax Revisions were dealers in Coffee, engaged in purchase and sale of coffee beans during 1998-99. Before the introduction of finance bill 1998, coffee beans was taxable at the point of first purchase in the State. However, in the finance bill introduced for the financial year 1998-99, the point of levy of sales tax on coffee beans purchased within the State was proposed to be changed from the point of first purchase to the point of last purchase in the State. Along with the finance bill declaration was also issued by the Government under Section 4 of Provisional Collection of Revenue Act 1985. Consequent upon the declaration published along with the finance bill the provisions of the bill came into force from first April 1998.2. Therefore, by virtue of the change in the incidence of tax from the point of first purchase to the point of last purchase, petitioners were not liable for payment of sales tax on first purcha...

Thripoonithura Municipality Vs. Ansal Buildwell Ltd. and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ355

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.1. The Thripunithura Municipality challenges Ext.P6 order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions allowing an appeal filed by the 1st respondent-builder against the Municipality's order declining building permit for the construction of an additional floor over a four storied building already permitted to be construed under Ext.P2 dated 27.6.2007. Ext.P 1 is true copy of the certificate from the Fire Department issued in favour of the 1st respondent in respect of the four storied building permitted under Ext.P2. Ext.P3 is copy of the revised plan submitted by the 1st respondent to the Municipality proposing to add one more floor to the building under construction on the strength of Ext.P2. The Municipality points out that the building is proposed to be construed by the 1st respondent on a plot has got access from public road through a 5.5 meter wide road and that the building does not abut any public road. That being the position, the Municipal...

Jacob N.P. Vs. Oriental Structural Engineers and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ404

ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J.1. The petitioner, a civil contractor who was awarded with Annexure 1 contract by the first respondent for supply of tippers and JCBs as per agreed rates at the project sites between Angamaly and Thodupuzha of the Kerala State Transport Project Fact III falling under the original contract awarded by the Government in favour of the first respondent has filed this application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking appointment of a neutral and impartial arbitrator for resolving the dispute between him on the one hand and the respondents on the other. Annexure 1 is the contract executed between the petitioner and the second respondent on behalf of the first respondent. Clause 9.03 of Annexure 1 is highlighted and the same is extracted below:Settlement of Disputes: Any dispute arising out of this sub contract work shall be settled amicably through the CPM of OSEPL within the terms of this work order. In case of failure to settle amicably? ...

K. Narayanan Nambiar Vs. A.M. Mathew and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009CriLJ30

ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Does the provisions for set off in Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure apply to a sentence imposed for default in payment of compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C as enabled by the dictum in Hari Kishan & State of Haryana v. Sukhbir Singh : 1989CriLJ116 and Suganthi Suresh v. Jagdeeshan : 2002CriLJ1003 Do the words 'not being imprisonment in default of payment of fine' introduced in Section 428 Cr.P.C. by Act 45 of 1978 w.e.f 16.12.1978 take in a sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of compensation? Are deemed fines -not fines stricto senso also included in the sweep of the expression 'fine' in the portion introduced by amendment in 1978? These are the interesting questions that are thrown up for consideration.2. To the crucially relevant facts first. The petitioner faced indictment in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He was found guilty, convicted and sentenced on 29.06.1996. Durin...

Karthikeyan P.T. Vs. State Election Commissioner and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ341

Antony Dominic, J.1. The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P6, an order passed by the 1st respondent rejecting Ext.Pl application made by the petitioner praying for disqualifying the 3rd respondent, an elected member from Ward No. 9 of Chottanikkara Grama Panchayat.The ground urged in Ext.P1 is that the 3rd respondent had filed a false statement of assets and liabilities, inviting disqualification as provided under Section 35(q) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. The basis of this claim is that when he filed the statement of assets and liabilities as required under Section 159 of the Act, the 3rd respondent did not disclose his liability to pay the compensation awarded by the MACT, Kottayam, in MVOP 308/1987, which was confirmed by this Court in Ext.P2 judgment in MFA 256/1990.2. Admittedly the 3rd respondent was elected in the election held in 2005 and by then he had incurred the liability under the aforesaid award. Thereafter, he had filed a statement of his assets and lia...

New India Assurance Co.,thrissur, Rep. by Its Deputy Manager, Regional ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. M.V. VISWANANTHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER No representation for the appellant. LCR received on the last hearing date also there was no representation for the appellant. Appellant is called absent. Hence this appeal is dismissed for default....

Santosh Madhavan Alias Amrutha Chaithanya Vs. Circle Inspector of Poli ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008CriLJ4254

ORDERK. Hema, J.1. This is the second application for bail filed by petitioner.2. The alleged offences are under Sections 342, 366-A, 376 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is the first accused in the crime. The 2nd accused is his driver. According to prosecution, second accused allegedly procured the victim aged about 14 years and brought her to petitioner's residential flat, knowing that she would be subjected to sexual intercourse by petitioner. From there, petitioner allegedly committed rape on her. This was repeated on other days also. She gave a statement to the police after the accused was arrested and a crime was registered against the accused.3. The petitioner was taken into custody on 13-5-2008 by the police, and he was remanded to judicial custody. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has undergone detention for a period of more than 90 days now and investigation is, admittedly, over and charge sheet is also filed. Therefore, petitioner's...

Thanuja Sunderdas T. and ors. Vs. Suryamkandi Sisirkumar Raj and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ497

ORDERT.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioners herein are the tenants in a petition for eviction filed under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (herein after referred to as 'the Act'). The Rent Control Court allowed eviction of the premises - a non-residential building - under Section 11(3) of the Act. The appeal filed by the revision petitioners herein before the Appellate Authority having been dismissed, they have approached this Court by filing this revision petition under Section 20 of the Act.2. The respondents herein who are the landlords, sought eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act on the ground that their father Rajarathnam wants to start a stationery business and for the said purpose they are in need of the petition schedule building. It was contended that for starting the said business, the petitioners or their father have no other buildings in their possession. The tenants mainly contended that there are no other buildi...