Kerala Court October 2009 Judgments

Narayanan Namboodiri Vs. Saraswathy Thaliyakkattil Mohanan and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2010Ker42

R. Basant, J.1. Respondents 1 and 2 had initiated proceedings for maintenance before the Family Court against the 3rd respondent herein, their husband/father. It is unnecessary to advert to the details and sequence of events in that litigation. Suffice it to say that the Family Court ultimately allowed the said claim in O. P. No. 761/99 directing payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- and 750/- per mensem respectively to respondents 1 and 2 creating a charge on the property. Respondents 1 and 2 sought to put that order into execution and filed E. P. No. 42/2000. In E. P. No. 42/2000, the appellant herein filed E. A. No. 113/2001 under Order 21, Rule 58 contending that the property is not liable to be proceeded with in execution, as he has right, title and interest over the property to the exclusion of the 3rd respondent.2. When that E. A. came up for consideration before the Family Court, the Family Court by the impugned order held that the claim petition is not maintainable...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mangalam Publications

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2010)228CTR(Ker)220

C.N. Ramachandran. J.1. The question raised in the connected appeals filed by the Department for the asst. yrs. 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93 is whether the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the assessments completed under Section 147 of the IT Act as time-barred for the reason that the reassessments were not completed within four years from the end of the relevant assessment year in terms of the proviso to Section 147 of the Act. We have heard senior standing counsel Sri. P.K.R. Menon appearing for the appellants and Sri. P. Balakrishnan appearing for the respondent2. The assessee is engaged in publication of newspaper, periodicals, etc. Assessee did not maintain any books of accounts and the returns for all the assessment years were filed without being accompanied by balance sheet and statement of accounts. From the extracts pertaining to the income returned by the assessee it is seen that even advertisement receipts are returned by the assessee on estimation basis obviously showin...

Jose Francis and Etc. Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2010Ker39

ORDERS. Siri Jagan, J.1. In W.P. (C) No. 10122/2009 the petitioner is aggrieved by re-classification of their electricity connection for the purpose of payment of electricity charges from LTIV to LT VIIA tariff. The petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 10896/2009 is aggrieved by similar re-classification from LT VIA to LT VIIA. According to the petitioners, under Regulation 7 of the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2005, a consumer has a right to approach the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum against tariff classification. But they are prevented from approaching the Forum in view of Ext.P6 order (in W.P.(C) No. 10122/09 which is Ext. P9 in the other writ petition) of the Electricity Board, by which, the Electricity Board directed the Forum not to entertain any appeal regarding change of tariff and also to forward orders issued by the Forum to the office of the Chief Engineer (Commercial and Tariff) and to ...

A.V.Mohanan Pillai Vs. the Chairman and Managing Director Ksrtc

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in CC 61/08 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The complaint stands dismissed. 2. It is the case of the complainant that was a passenger in the KSRTC bus No.TP 818 on 17/10/06. He had obtained coupon on payment of Rs.2/- and was allotted seat No.16. He boarded the bus at 5.20 pm from Thiruvananthapuram. The destination of the above was Thrissur. After travelling for about 6 kms and when the bus reached at Kesavadasapuram the bus stopped. The crew told that the above bus could not be plied further on account of mechanical breakdown. He along with other passengers had to wait for about 2 hours and was made to board another bus that came from Thampanoor Depot. with full of passengers. He was sickly and had to travel in the bus standing till he reached Kayamkulam. Evidently fitness of the bus was not examined at the Thampanoor Depot. although it was a long distance bus. It was on account of his illness that he took troub...

Ashok Kumar Vs. T.P. Jayaprakash

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 9th December 2005 passed by CDRF, Alappuzha in OP.No.A.214/04. The complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in demanding and levying the electricity bi-monthly charges at the rate of Rs.256/-. It is the definite case of the complainant that the meter was not faulty and that the opposite party failed to issue the bills for the electricity charges based on the meter readings recorded by the energy meter. The opposite party entered appearance and contended that the energy meter installed at the premises of the complainant was faulty and so the meter reader issued the bills from February 2003 onwards on the basis of average energy consumption. Thus, the opposite party justified his connection in issuing the bi-monthly bill at the rate of Rs.256/-. Before the Forum below, both parties have not adduced any evidence in support of their respective proceedings. At the instan...

The Kse Board Rep. by Its Secretary, Trivandrum and Another Vs. V.A. V ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is directed against the order dated 28th January 2005 of the CDRF, Kottayam in OP.382/03. The complaint in the said original petition was filed by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellants/opposite parties for getting the disputed A1 bill for Rs.1,12,305/-cancelled. The complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing the impugned A1 bill based on the inspection conducted by Anti Power Theft Squad of KSEB. The opposite parties entered appearance and contended that there was no deficiency in service on their part in issuing A1; that the disputed bill was issued for the non recording of one phase of power meter and so the disputed bill can be treated as one issued for short assessment of the energy consumed by the complainant/consumer. 2. Before the Forum below the complainant filed proof affidavit and A1 to A11 documents were also marked. The opposite parties have also filed...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Popular Vehicles and Services Ltd.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2010)228CTR(Ker)346

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Respondent-assessee is a limited company mainly engaged in servicing and sales of Maruti vehicles as dealer of the manufacturing company. Besides carrying on business, the company is a partner in several partnerships which are controlled by the same group. In the course of assessment under the IT Act for the year 2004-05, the AO noticed that assessee borrowed massive amounts from banks and advanced the same to sister concerns namely, the partnership firms in which it was a partner, without collecting any interest. The AO after verifying the interest bearing borrowals from banks and the interest-free advances made from the beginning to the end of the relevant previous year, found that the interest expenses attributable for the interest-free loans advanced to the firms of which it was a partner work out to Rs. 31,21,599. The AO held that the diversion of borrowed funds by the respondent to other firms is not for business purpose and so much so, the interest p...

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. C.V. Ramachandran Nair

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT: The appellant is the opposite party in OP.No.8/02 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of the complaint and Rs.300/- as costs. 2. The case of the complainant is that the Bajaj Tembo Maxi Cab owned by him was insured with the opposite party with the declared value of Rs.1,30,000/-.The vehicle was stolen on 14.2.2000. The appellant paid only Rs.70,000/-. He has sought for the balance amount that he is entitled as per the declared value. 3. It is contended by the opposite parties/appellants that the amount was received in full and final settlement of the claim. It is further submitted that the surveyor appointed had assessed the market value of the stolen vehicle and the same was paid. It is contended that as the amount has been received full and final settlement the complainant is not entitled to claim more. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the ...

The Secretary K.S.E.B., Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram and Others Vs. K.J. ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is directed against order dated 31st May 2004 of the CDRF, Kottayam in OP.251/03. The complaint therein was filed by the respondent herein against the appellants as opposite parties to get the A1 demand notice for Rs.30519/- cancelled. The complainant alleged the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing the impugned demand notice. The opposite parties entered appearance and contended that the impugned demand notice was issued based on the inspection conducted by the Anti Power Theft Squad on 4.2.2003 and that in the said inspection unauthorized connected load of 15KW was detected and that one phase of the three phase meter was not recording the actual consumption of energy. Thus, the opposite parties justified their action in issuing A1 demand notice for Rs.30519/-. 2. Before the Forum below A1 to A5 and B1 to B7 documents were produced and marked. The complainant has also filed affidavit in lieu of exa...