Kerala Court August 2008 Judgments

Hymavathi K.V. Vs. Spl. Dy. Tahsildar and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [2008(119)FLR279]; 2008(3)KLJ451; (2009)ILLJ726Ker

H.L. Dattu, C.J.1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 17043/2005 dated 7.3.2006. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition and thereby has confirmed the demand notices issued by the respondent, inter alia demanding the petitioner to make contributions towards the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1985.2. The only issue which falls for our consideration and decision is, whether the establishment which is covered under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund Act is exigible for levy and payment of contributions under the provisions of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act; 1985?3. The factual matrix of the case is simple. The petitioner's establishment is covered under the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. This factual position is not in dispute, since petitioner has produced the relevant certificates and ...

Simon T.A. Vs. the Tahsildar and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2008Ker245; 2008(3)KLJ209; 2008(3)KLT826

H.L. Dattu, C.J.1. The vires of Section 5(4) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as Act, 1975, is called in question by the petitioners in these Original Petitions, on the ground, that, the sub-section is, arbitrary, excessive and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.2. The facts in O.P. No. 2411 of 1999 may be noticed for the purpose of disposal of these Original Petitions. The petitioner had completed the construction of a non-residential building in Survey No. 333, in Kumaranelloor Village, Wadakkumcherry. It had only a ground floor. After completion of the construction of the building, the revenue authorities had assigned Building Nos. VII/1060 to 1067. The competent authority under the Act has assessed the building and has levied tax in a sum of Rs. 12,000/- on a plinth area of 245.77 sq.mts. under Section 9(3) of the Act by an order passed on 27.8.1993. Subsequently, petitioner has made major improvement of the buil...

P.R.Vijayan Pillai Vs. the General Manager, Alappuzha District Co-oper ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant has sought for setting aside the order of the Forum dismissing the complaint for default and also dismissing the application to review. 2.It is the case of the complainant that he could not prosecute the matter as he was in New Delhi for official duties. It is submitted that the matter relates to the refusal of the opposite party to close the existing loan by remitting the amounts due. 3.The Forum has observed that the complainant is continuously absent and there is no representation. All the same, in view of the fact that the matter has not been considered on merits the order of the Forum is setaside on condition that the petitioner/complainant has to pay to the opposite party a sum of Rs.2000/- towards the cost incurred or remit the same before the Forum which can be withdrawn by the opposite party within one month from today. On deposit of cost or filing memo or having paid the cost to the opposite party, the Forum will issue no...

The Assistant Executive Engineer, K.S.E.Board and Another Vs. Thundiss ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in OP:139/01 in the file of CDRF, Malappuram sought for setting aside the order of the Forum contending that the same is not a considered order. 2. We find that the order is not a speaking one. It is a one sentence order. In the circumstances the order of the Forum is set aside. The Forum is directed to consider the matter afresh after issuing notice to the complainant. The matter will stand posted before the Forum on 30..9..2008. The office is directed to transmit the order to the Forum urgently....

The Secretary, K.S.E.B., Pattom, Trivandrum and Another Vs. A.J. Georg ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR: MEMBER By the order dated.9.7.04 in OP.No.352/03 of CDRF, Kottayam the opposite parties are under orders to cancel Ext.A1 bill amounting to Rs.3,97,223/- and to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- along with cost of Rs.750/-. It was also directed to issue fresh bill for the period from 10.04.03 without any sur-charge and it is aggrieved by the said order of the Forum that the present appeal is filed by the opposite parties calling for the interference of this Commission. 2. The case of the complainant before the Forum was that he is a consumer of the opposite party and he is running a small scale industry for earning livelihood. He was remitting electricity charges regularly and the multiplication factor of the meter installed in the premises is 20. During April-May 2003 the complainants meter was replaced and later on 15.11.03 the Assistant Engineer of the opposite parties inspected the premises. It is alleged that on 17th November 2003 invoice was served on h...

Calicut City Service Co-op. Bank Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ112

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Two among the captioned writ petitions are filed by a service co-operative Bank, hereinafter, the 'Bank' for short and the other one, by its President.2. Four service co-operative banks filed O.P. No. 20817/02, raising the issue that the Bank is not entitled to be registered. The plea was that there was a probable overlapping of the areas of operation. Pending that writ petition, registration was granted to the Bank and accordingly, by judgment dated 19.10.2004, this Court disposed of O.P. No. 20817/02, recording that such order having been passed, the petitioners therein have to pursue the statutory remedy under Section 83 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, hereinafter, 'the Act', for short. Accordingly, it was ordered that if the petitioners therein pursue such remedy before the appellate authority within a period of one month from the date of the judgment, viz., 19.10.2004, the same shall be treated to have been filed in time and approp...

Mr. Reju Thomas Vs. the National Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2009Ker5

ORDERM. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. Whether a Consumer Redressal Forum has power to restore a complaint which was dismissed for default, and if not, whether a petition under Article 226 or 227 of Constitution of India would lie, challenging the order dismissing an application filed for restoration of the complaint.2. Petitioner filed a complaint before District Consumer Redressal Forum, Ernakulam, numbered as O.P.487 of 2003. It was dismissed for default on 18.5.2004. Petitioner filed I.A. 414 of 2004 (Ext.P2) to restore the complaint. In Ext.P2 petition, petitioner contended that he was ready to proceed with the complaint and had filed an affidavit in lieu of chief examination and on 18.5.2004 he was ready to give evidence and was instructed by his counsel to answer the roll call and inform the Forum that he is ready to give evidence but unfortunately due to his inexperience, he missed the roll call and only after arrival of the counsel at 12 a.m. when enquiries were made, it was realise...

Asst.Executive Engineer, Electrical Section, Kerala State Electricity ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER This appeal is directed against the order dated.26.11.04 in OP.No.434/04, which is passed by the CDRF, Thrissur by a common order in OP.No.434/04, OP.No.1053/04 and OP.No.1079/04, directing the electricity board to keep in abeyance all steps taken for the recovery of arrears, disconnection steps and steps for dismantling and other coercive steps awaiting the list from the Agricultural Officers concerned and payment by the State through the concerned Agricultural Officers, to restore the disconnected supply etc. 2. The case of the complainant is that he is an agriculturist and is eligible for the exemption from payment of electricity charges. The version of the complainant is that he submitted application to the Agricultural Officer for getting his name included in the list of eligible agriculturists. But he received electricity bill on 11.2.04 for Rs.10,079/- as arrears from March 1997 to December 2003 and he remitted Rs.1329/- towards first instalme...

K.P.Narasimhan and Others Vs. N.C.Balan, Pharmacist and Others

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties 1 to 3 in OP:202/99 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The opposite parties 8 in number including the appellants have been made jointly and severally liable for an amount of Rs.12,141/- with interest at 16% from 15..2..1998 till realization and to pay Rs.1000/- as cost. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he deposited Rs.10,000/- with the 6th opposite party/M/S Synergy Financial Exchange Limited. The deposit matured on 15..2..1998. The fixed deposit receipt was surrendered with the 8th opposite party/M/S Bajaj Capital Investment Centre Limited, but the amount remains unpaid. The complainant approached the Company Law Board but nothing could be heard from them also. 3. The opposite parties 1 to 3 had denied any liability. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P10. 5. We find that no personal liability against the appellants have been alleged in the complaint. It i...

The Manager Geo Gas, Thodupuzha Vs. V.R. Sankara Pillai

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/gas agency, under orders to pay compensation of Rs.2000/- and Rs.2000/- as cost. 2. It is seen that the complainant had filed an OP earlier wide CC.212/05 and the Forum directed the appellant to provide the gas cylinder refilled. Despite the direction the appellant did not comply with the order and refilled cylinder was given only as per priority. It is the contention of the appellant that as per orders of the Indian Oil Corporation, gas cylinders can be given only on the basis of priority. 3. We find that the attitude of the appellant appears to be impudent that despite the order of the Forum he has declined the facility to the complainant. We find that the compensation ordered is rather on the lower side. There are no ground to entertain the appeal. The appeal is dismissed in limine....