Kerala Court October 2009 Judgments

Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, Sakthikulangara ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER By the order dated 29-12-2006 in OP No. 163/2005, the CDRF, Kollam quashed the bill for Rs. 1,570/- issued by the opposite parties with a further direction to pay Rs. 1,000/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- as costs. It is aggrieved by the said directions that this appeal has been preferred by the opposite parties. 2. The complainant had approached the Forum alleging that the bill for Rs. 1,570/- issued by the first opposite party was unsustainable and hence he had prayed for the cancellation of the bill along with compensation and costs. It was the further case of the complainant that he was never a defaulter in paying the electricity charges and that on changing the meter which was in the premises of the complainant, the opposite parties issued the impugned bill stating that the said amount was towards the value of the meter that was damaged and that the MRT seal was also found broken. The complainant says that he was not aware of any damage if an...

The Managing Director, Indus Motors, Thiruvananthapuram and Another Vs ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN: MEMBER The appellants are the opposite parties in CC.No.331.08 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/-as price difference of Model change along with Rs.15,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,500/- as costs to the complainant. 2. The appellants who are the opposite parties entered appearance before the Forum but did not file version and they have not adduced any evidence. 3. Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties submitted that the counsel who conducted the case before the Forum was laid up due to Typhoid and so he could not properly entrust anybody to represent the matter before the Forum. On a consideration of the order of the Forum and statement of facts in the appeal memorandum we find that a considered order is required in the matter. 4. In the circumstances, the order of the Forum is set aside on condition that the appellants/opposite parties deposit a sum of Rs.5000/- before...

M/S National Insurance Company Ltd. Ernakulam. Vs. N.M. Kuriakose

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI .K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC. 41/07 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The appellants are under orders to reconsider the claim of the complainant and allow to the extent admissible and also to pay cost of Rs.1000/-. 2. The case of the complainant is that his daughter who is covered by the mediclaim policy was admitted at Kolencherry Medical College Hospital as in patient from 6.3.06 to 11.3.06 for right breast abscess. The treatment charges amounted to Rs.8,500/-. The claim was repudiated on the ground that the treatments with respect to pregnancy illnesses are excluded. 3. The opposite parties have filed separate versions admitting the policy coverage but contending that clause 4.12 of Ext.B1 policy provides for exclusion of treatments expenses arising from or traceable to pregnancy, childbirth, including caesarean section. It is the contention that the assured was a lactating mother and she had normal delivery on 2.12.05. The absce...

T.P. Sudheesh Babu Vs. Sherly P.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2010Ker37

R. Basant, J.1. Are the provisions of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 applicable when the proceedings before the Family Court is under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act for declaration of nullity of marriage? This is the short question of law which is canvassed before us.2. The vital facts first. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 13-5-05. The spouses lived together for some time; but, thereafter started separate residence. The petitioner filed O.P. No. 148/06 under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act for a declaration that his marriage with the respondent is null and void. During the pendency of that petition the respondent filed I.A. No. 628/06 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act claiming monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/-.3. The said application was resisted. The learned Judge of the Family Court by Ext.P3 order directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 2,000/- per m...

The Secretary, Kseb, Pattom, Trivandrum and Another Vs. K.J. Kurian

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is directed against the order dated 16.8.04 of the CDRF, Kottayam in OP.390/03. The complaint therein was filed to get A1 penal bill dated 10.12.03 for Rs.49,372/- cancelled. The complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing A1 bill and A2 notice dated 11.12.03. The opposite party entered appearance and contended that the A1 bill was issued based on the inspection conducted by the Anti Power Theft Squad of KSEB. The opposite parties also relied on B2 mahazar and B3 report submitted by the Asst. Engineer of Anti Theft Squad of KSEB. Thus, the opposite parties justified their action in issuing A1 bill for Rs.49372/-. 2. Before the Forum below A1 and A2, B1 and B2 documents were marked on the side of the parties. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below allowed the complaint and thereby cancelled the impugned bill dated 10.12.03 for Rs.49372/-. The opposite parties are a...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Biju Varghese

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2010)228CTR(Ker)225

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The related appeals filed by the Revenue pertain to the income-tax assessments of the respondent-assessees who were partners of M/s Mangalam Publications, a firm which is engaged in the business of publication of periodicals. The assessments involved are for the years 1988-89 to 1993-94. It is the admitted fact that the partnership firm of which respondent-assessees were partners, did not maintain any books of accounts and therefore, the original assessments of the firm itself was completed on estimation basis. Following the said assessments of the firm, income was assessed in the hands of the partners. However, the Department later found that the firm had furnished balance sheet for the period ended 31st Dec, 1985 and 31st March, 1993 before the bank which disclosed massive credit balance in the current and capital accounts of the partners. Based on this and other information, the assessments of the firm were reopened and reassessments were completed under...

infoparks Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2009)227CTR(Ker)486; [2010]186TAXMAN328(Ker)

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.1. Whether the refusal on the part of the respondents/Departmental authorities to issue exemption certificate under Section 197 of the IT Act ('Act' in short) to the petitioners, in view of the amendment brought about by incorporating a 'proviso' to Section 2(15) of the Act w.e.f. 1st April, 2009 is justified; forms the common issue involved in both these cases.2. The petitioners are State Government owned societies registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act (Act XII of 1955), allegedly with the main object of setting up of Information Technology Parks in Kerala, among other goals. Pursuant to the said objective, the petitioners acquired lands and constructed buildings which have been let out to various information technology companies for rent. Petitioners' institutions were got registered as a charitable trust under Section 12A of the Act and exemption was obtained under Section 11 of the IT Act in r...

Muhammed Davood and anr. Vs. Hafsath and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2010Ker21

R. Basant, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order passed by the Family Court directing the appellants to pay a total amount of Rs. 5,70,000/- along with interest to the respondents herein/claimants. Claimant No. 1 is the divorced wife of the first appellant. Second appellant is the mother of the first appellant. Second claimant is the father of the first claimant.2. On fundamental facts, there is no dispute. The marriage took place on 26-8-1998. On the wife's application, the marriage was dissolved by order dated 27-12-2004. The parties had commenced separate residence even earlier with effect from 10-8-2001. The O.P. was filed before the Family Court, Manjeri on 31-1-2005. The Family Court, Manjeri was established in the year 2000.3. Prior to the filing of the present O.P. a suit was filed by the claimants against the appellants herein praying for identical reliefs. That suit was filed on 1-11-2001. The suit was pending before the Subordinate Judge, Tirur for a long period of t...

M/S Indian Overseas Bank, Rep. by Its Senior Manager Vs. Dr. P.C. Shaj ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in CC.34/06 in the file of CDRF, Kozhikode. The appellant is under orders to refund Rs.1,63520/- with 9% interest from 17.1.06 and also to pay a compensation of Rs.5000/- and cost of Rs.500/-. The dispute is with respect to the enhanced pre-closure charges claimed by the opposite party/bank. As per Ext.A2 terms and conditions with respect to the loan involved dated 22.3.04 the interest was 14% and pre closure charges at 1%. Subsequently, as per Ext.A1 the revised terms and conditions dated 20.12.04 the interest was revised at 12% and the pre-closure charges remained the same ie;1%. The loan was taken over by the SBI in August 2005. The appellant is relying on Ext.B2 letter dated 28.1.05 wherein the Deputy General Manager has written to the complaint that the reduction of the interest from 14% to 12% is subject to a lock in period of one year for the interest rate and pre paid charge of 2% in case of pre- closu...

A.S. Ginto Vs. P.V.K. Unni Nair

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in CC No.140/06 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad . Respondent is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh as compensation and also cost of Rs.1000/- with interest at 9% if the amount is not paid within one month. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he was not served the notice. According to him as he is a person who is engaged in plantation of rubber plants for others he used to be outside and there was nobody at his office and hence the notice happened to be returned unclaimed. He did not receive the copy of the judgment also. The appellant was declared as ex-parte in the proceedings of the Forum below. He has stated that he has initiated proceedings under Section 138 of N.I. Act as the cheque issued by the complainant for a sum of Rs.50,000/- has bounced. 3. Respondent/complainant although served with notice did not enter appearance. It appears that the matter requires a considered order. 4. In the circumsta...