Kerala Court September 2008 Judgments

Shamna B. Vs. the Manager, Hemambika Sanskrit High School and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(1)KLJ47

Antony Dominic, J.1. The issue raised in these writ petitions being identical, these writ petitions are disposed of by this common judgment.2. The petitioner in W.P.C. No. 6135 of 2008 was appointed as U.P.S.A in the Kallekulangara Hemarnbika Sanskrit High School as per Ext.P1 order issued by the Manager of the school. In so far as W.P.C. No. 5770 of 2008 in concerned, the petitioner therein was also appointed as H.S.A. (English) as per Ext.P1 order of appointment, which was also issued by the Manager. The school is coming under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration) Department and Ext.P2 proceeding was issued by the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E Department, Kozhikode on 25.01.2008 stating that in view of the complaints that were received, he was prima facie satisfied that the regularity and correctness of the matter needs to be enquired into and that the appointment of the petitioners shall be subject to the result of the enquiry proceedings. He called upon the Exec...

Manikuttan T.R. Vs. M.N. Baby and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009ACJ1497; AIR2009Ker36; 2008(3)KLJ663

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Appeals are filed against the common award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha granting compensation to the appellant for the death of his wife and for injuries sustained by him in the very same road accident.2. The appellant, while travelling in a motorbike with his pregnant wife as pillion rider was knocked down by a bus which led to the death of his wife and injury to himself. Separate claims were filed by the appellant, one claiming compensation for the injury sustained by him and another claiming compensation for the death of his wife in the accident. The mother of the deceased got herself impleaded as additional 4th respondent in the claim petition filed by the appellant claiming compensation for the death of his wife. The Tribunal awarded compensation in both the cases and by upholding the claim of the additional 4th respondent, namely, the mother of the deceased, a portion of the compensation was ordered to be paid to her. In the sepa...

Rose Lynd E.T. and anr. Vs. Lekha Alias Lekha Krishnakumar and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(3)KLJ293

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Since we propose to issue some general directions to the State, State of Kerala, represented by Chief Secretary to Government, Secretariat, Trivandrum is made additional respondent. Even though Government Pleader requested for time to get views of Government, we do not think opinion of Government is required in the matter, because the directions being issued by us are essentially to enforce Traffic Regulations to prevent road accidents. We therefore proceed to issue orders.2. The appellants are registered owner and driver respectively of a motorcycle challenging the award passed by the MACT directing appellants to pay 75% of the compensation awarded for the death of the pillion rider of the bike in the accident based on the finding that driver of the motorcycle namely, the second appellant contributed more to the accident on account of his negligence. The accident occurred on 7.45 in the night on the National Highway (NH 47) at a place called Chellakkadu of...

Dharmaratnam Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(1)KLJ390

K.M. Joseph, J.1. These two Writ Petitions being connected, they are disposed of by a common Judgment.2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as follows:Petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 12790/08 are owners of autorickshaws. The first petitioner purchased one autorickshaw in his name and two autorickshaws in his wife's name, the second respondent. The Certificates of Registration are produced as Exts. P1 to P3. The third petitioner, an unemployed youth, purchased an autorickshaw for his own livelihood. All the three petitioners have entered into rental agreements with respondents 5 to 8. Petitioners' autorickshaws are taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 130/ = per day, They are not employees of the petitioners. They are not workers as contemplated under the Kerala. Motor Transport Welfare Fund Act. It is the further case of the petitioners that autorickshaw workers do not stick on the job permanently on a particular vehicle and they migrate to other types of job and some people are going ...

State of Kerala Vs. K.K. Ibrahimkutty

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2009)23VST205(Ker)

ORDERH.L. Dattu, C.J.1. These revision petitions are heard and disposed of by this common order, since the facts and the legal issues involved in these revision petitions are identical.2. In S.T. Revision Case No. 550 of 2004 and S.T. Revision Case No. 74 of 2005, the assessing authority, while completing the assessment in the case of the respondents, for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1997-98, respectively, had assessed the purchase turnover of firewood at 12 per cent, on the ground that the same would fall under item No. 8 of the Fifth Schedule to the Act. The first appellate authority has confirmed the quantification made by the assessing authority. In the second appeal filed by the respondents, the Appellate Tribunal has come to the conclusion, that, the firewood does not fall under entry 8 of the Fifth Schedule and therefore, requires to be classified as residuary item under entry 156 of the First Schedule to the Act and taxable at six per cent. It is the correctness or otherwis...

M/S Marikar (Motors) Limited and Others Vs. Mr. P.R. Balakrishna Pilla ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants in Appeal 399/02 are the opposite parties 2 to 4, the dealers and service providers and in the appeal 425/02 the appellant is the Manufacturer/1st opposite party in OP 403/2000 in the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta. The appellants are under orders to replace the gearbox of the Ambassador Diesel Car purchased by the complainant from the respondents and also to correct the wheel alignment of the above vehicle; and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental agony and a sum of Rs.2000/- as cost of proceedings. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased the Diesel Ambassador Car from the 3rd opposite party dealer on 15.3.2000 for a sum of Rs.3,74,000/- obtaining financial assistance from the SBT and on hypothecating the car to the Bank. The complainant has to pay monthly instalments. At the time of purchase itself the odometer reading was 2600Kms. The vehicle was purchased for plying as tourist car. On plying it...

Parthasaradhi and Sons Parthasaradhi Telecom Associates and Another Vs ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYA BHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parities in OP No.16/02 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.4,905/- as the value of the mobile handset etc and also the cost of Rs.400/-. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased a mobile handset on 30/6/2001 for Rs.2,645 and he paid Rs.1,260/- as the activation charges and Rs.1,000/- as security deposit and Rs.95/- as the plan enrolment fee. The complainant was conducting a business in Oachira which is only 3 kms from Kayamkulam from where he purchased the handset from the 1st opposite party. According to him there was no coverage at Oachira area. He intimated the matter through the 1st opposite party a number of times and also issued a letter to the officers mentioning the same. The manager of the opposite parties come to Oachira and examined the handset; but returned without making any specific comments. As per the letter received on 4/7/01 it is menti...

M/S. Deedi Automobiles, Kaimanam, Thiruvananthpauram Rep. by Its Manag ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in OP.476/99 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.2200/- with future interest at 14.5% and also to pay Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he booked a Bajaj Auto rikshaw with the opposite party on 10.9.98 for a sum of Rs.58265/-. He had remitted the amount for a fare meter also. When the vehicle was delivered the meter was not supplied. The invoice contained the price for the fare meter and the same included in the amount deposited on 10.9.98 and hence he has sought for the price of the meter ie Rs.2200/- and compensation. 3. On the other hand the opposite parties have contended that the price of the vehicle at the time of delivery was Rs. 58755/- and the insurance amount was Rs.1120/- and hence the total amount worked out to Rs.59875/-. The balance amount of Rs.1610/- due from the complainant was collect...

Rajan N. (Formerly Jfcm) Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(1)KLJ1

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Petitioner is challenging Ext.P6 Enquiry report and Ext.P8 order of punishment, whereunder he has been found guilty of various charges framed against him and as a consequence removed from service. Petitioner started his career as an assistant in the High Court in the year 1984 and he was selected as a Magistrate in the year 1991. After serving at various stations, petitioner was appointed as Judicial First Class Magistrate at Nedumkandam in Idukki District. While serving in this station, various complaints were received about petitioner, which led to enquiry by District Judge. Based on the enquiry report by the District Judge, he was placed under suspension on 24/11/2000. The seven charges framed against petitioner are the following.(1) That you Shri. N. Rajan while working as Judicial I Class Magistrate, Nedumkandam, behaved indecently towards some of the students of B.Ed. College, Nedumkandam and by your several conducts have created a bad opinion about y...

Kuriland (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. P.J. Thomas and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009CriLJ763

ORDER1. The question involved in this case is a fairly interesting interplay of- Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'} and Sections 131, 139 and 165 of the Evidence Act - in the context of the protection available to a person under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. Elaborate arguments were addressed by learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri. Santhosh P. Poduval and Sri. John S. Ralph, appearing for the party respondent.2. The petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in C.C. No. 198/00 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur, involving offences under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Prize Chit and Money Circulations Banning Act, 1978 {for short 'the Act'}.3. It is the complainant's case that he is a share holder in the 1st accused company. Accused 2 to 12 are the Directors and 13th accused is the Manager of the 1st accused. Accused 2 to 13 are responsible for the conduct of the business of the company and its day to day affairs. That the accused, ...