Kerala Court November 2009 Judgments

Sudheer C.B. S/O Balakrishnan Vs. State of Kerala,

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT25

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The point that arises for decision in this case is whether a Specialist Teacher (Drawing) can claim stepping up of his salary as equal to that of a P.D. Teacher, who, admittedly entered service after the entry of the Specialist Teacher. Incidentally, the point whether an executive order issued by the Government could be modified by a Government letter or circular, also arises for consideration in this appeal.2. The brief facts of the case are the following:The appellant/writ petitioner joined the Department of General Education, as Drawing Teacher, on 10.01.1984. He was given the first higher grade promotion on 10.01.1994. While he was working in that grade, pay revision was introduced with effect from 01.01.1998 as per G.O.(P) No. 3000/98/Fin. dated 25.11.1998. When the pay revision was implemented, the appellant found that a P.D. Teacher, who entered service on 04.12.1985, was drawing higher pay than him. Therefore, he submitted Ext.P1 claim in the prescrib...

N.J.Thomas and Others Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Rep. by Its Gen ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER Complaint filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 claiming compensation of Rs.15,49,512/- alleging negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the respondents 1 to 3 (opposite parties 1 to 3). 2. The case of the complainants is as follows:- The first complainant is the husband and complainants 2 and 3 are the daughters of Mrs. Rosey Thomas. Domestic gas connection was given to the house of first complainant in the name of his wife Mrs. Rosey Thomas. The aforesaid gas connection was given by respondents 1 to 3 through the third respondent with Consumer No.7926. The Complainants and Mrs. Rosey Thomas were residing at Kadalikad in Muvattupuzha Taluk. The complainants and Mrs.Rosey Thomas were handling the gas connection with great care and all possible caution. The first respondent is the company engaged in manufacture and distribution of liquid petroleum gas. The second respondent is the person responsible for the affair...

The Sub Divisional Officer, Department of Tele Communications, B.S.N.L ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is directed against the order dated 28th April 2004 of the CDRF, Kozhikode in OP No. 200/03. The complaint therein was filed by the respondent against the appellants/opposite parties alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in causing delay and also overlooking the seniority of the complainant in giving the new telephone connection. The complainant claimed refund of Rs. 7,000/- which he paid as additional amount to convert his application under Non-OYT General category into OYT General category and also for compensation of Rs. 10,000/-, on the ground of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 2. Opposite parties entered appearance and contended that there was no deficiency in service on their part in giving the new telephone connection to the complainant; that the opposite parties were at liberty to give connection by overlooking the seniority on consideration of the technical feasibi...

Mather Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Noor Mohammed Noorisha Vs. Government of ...

Court: Kerala

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. In this batch of Writ Petitions, the petitioners, who are builders, are challenging the transitional steps taken by the Government after the extension of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules to the Thrikkakara Grama Panchayat and other Grama Panchayats in the State and also the instructions issued by the Government to the Local Bodies as to how the constructions progressing on the strength of NOC obtained from the Panchayats concerned, at the time of extension of Building Rules, should be dealt with. Though several reliefsare sought, the main reliefs pressed before us in these Writ Petitions are the following:(i) declare that Rule 3(iii) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules which deals with the applicability of Building Rules to Grama Panchayats, being a rule framed under the Municipality Act, cannot have any application to the Panchayats and therefore, the said sub-rule is ultra vires. (ii) to set aside the provision, providing for collection of permi...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hotel Samrat

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [2010]323ITR353(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The question raised in the connected appeals filed by the Revenue is whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing the miscellaneous petition to recall the earlier order and dismiss the appeals filed by the Revenue. The respondent-assessee was engaged in the business of running a bar hotel as a partnership firm. During the survey conducted various records were recovered including the price list maintained by the bar hotel for retail sale of liquor. Statements were recorded from the managing partner, the hotel manager and also a supplier. The Assessing Officer found from the recovered materials and the statements that the gross profit conceded was incorrect and the gross profit received by the assessee was 60 per cent. for the year 1997-98, 70 per cent. for the year 1998-99 and 75 per cent. for the year 1999-2000. Assessments were accordingly completed on an estimation basis under Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. On appeal, the Commissioner of Incom...

The Kerala State Electricity Board, Rep.by Its Secretary, Vaidhuthi Bh ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 4.11.2004 passed by CDRF, Alappuzha in OP.A.139/2002 . The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing P2 bill for Rs.7554/-. The aforesaid bill was issued alleging unauthorized connection from the domestic connection given to the complainant. The case of the complainant is that there was no unauthorized drawing of electricity line; but she had only drawn a line for providing a 40 watts bulb to her pathway. The opposite parties relied on Ext.B3 site mahasar prepared by 2nd opposite party, Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section North, Alappuzha and also the testimony of the 2nd opposite party as RW1. On an appreciation of the evidence on record the Forum below allowed the complaint by quashing P1 and P2 Notice and bill for Rs.7554/-. Hence the present appeal by the opposite parties therein. 2. We heard both sides. The lea...

The Chavassery Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. and ors. Vs. Income Tax ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2010)231CTR(Ker)404

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Appellants in the writ appeals and petitioners in the writ petitions are societies registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act engaged in banking. Various IT authorities have issued notices to the appellants/ petitioners under Section 133(6) of the IT Act, 1961, (hereinafter called the 'Act') calling for particulars of cash transactions above Rs. 1 lakh with details of account holder/deposit holder in the format prepared by the authority issuing the notices. The societies challenged the validity of the notices before this Court by filing writ petitions. Two learned Single Judges have written separate judgments upholding the validity of the notices issued under Section 133(6) of the Act, against which writ appeals are filed. In the connected writ petitions, the societies are challenging similar notices issued to them under the same provision of the Act.2. We have heard various counsel appearing for the appellants/petitioners and standing counsel a...

Akbar Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT714

ORDERP.S. Gopinathan, J.1. The revision petitioner is the de facto complainant in C.C. No. 201/2006 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kollam. Respondents 2 to 11 are being prosecuted by the first respondent for offence under Section 120B IPC and other provisions. The evidence on the side of the prosecution was closed. The respondents 2 to 11 were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and thereafter the prosecution and the accused were being heard. Amidst the hearing, the Deputy Director of Prosecution, Kollam, who is conducting the prosecution filed a petition as C.M.P. No. 9443/2009 seeking an order to alter charge. In the affidavit accompanying the petition it was stated that during the course of hearing it was argued that the charge was not specific and it had prejudiced the accused and the charge framed is not in accordance with the final report submitted by the police and that the beginning and end of the commission of offence under Secti...

Govindankutty Menon Vs. Shaji

Court: Kerala

Reported in: II(2010)BC310,2010(1)KLT43

S.S. Satheesachandran, J.1. The Writ Petition is filed seeking mainly the following reliefs:1. To call for the entire records leading to Exhibit P2 and issue an order of certiorari quashing the same.2. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Principal Munsiffs Court, Ernakulam to entertain the execution petition filed by the petitioner to execute the Ext.P1 award.3. Petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Complaint was referred to the Lok Adalat where it was settled by the parties culminating in passing of an award. The respondent under the settlement agreed to pay the cheque amount of Rs. 5500/- in five equal monthly instalments of Rs. 1100/-. The respondents committed default in making the instalment payment. Petitioner, thereupon, filed an execution petition before the Munsiff Court seeking the execution of the award passed in the Lok Adalat...

Muzhayan Ravi @ Raveendran Asari Vs. the State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The appellant is the accused in Sessions Case No. 1497 of 2004 on the files of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track III, Thiruvananthapuram. The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows:The deceased Vasantha was the daughter of PW.1 and the mother of PW.2. After the death of her husband, Vasantha fell in love with the appellant and was staying with him. Because of the alleged incessant man-handling by him, she found it difficult to continue to stay with him and therefore, she returned to her parental house. It was about three days before 7.1.2004, the date on which she was murdered. Infuriated by her conduct, the appellant came to the house of PW.1 and tried to persuade her to go with him and when she did not oblige, he went away and thereafter came back about 9.45 p.m. The house of PW.1 was, in fact, a hut made of cudjan leaves. The accused broke open into the house and tried to catch hold of Vasantha, who was sleeping in the kitchen. On seeing him, she r...