Kerala Court November 2009 Judgments

Thomas Vs. Benny Thomas

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT666

ORDERP.S. Gopinathan, J.1. The revision petitioner is the complainant in Crl.M.P. No. 901/2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrat-I, Ettumanoor. The revision petitioner filed the above complaint before the Trial Court on 17.3.2009 against the first respondent herein alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Magistrate after perusing the allegations in the complaint arrived a conclusion that the cause of action for filing the complaint arose on 15.2.2009 and the complaint should have been filed on or before 15.3.2009. Since the complaint was filed on 17.3.2009 it is beyond the statutory period. Consequently the complaint was dismissed under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above order, this Revision Petition was preferred.3. The Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the Public Prosecutor was heard. The crux of the case is that, in discharge of ...

Reeba Varkey Vs. Kuruvilla Jacob and the State Election Commissioner

Court: Kerala

S.R. Bannurmath, C.J.1. Challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge confirming the disqualification of the writ petitioner affirming the order of the Election Commission, the present appeal is filed. The petitioner was elected as Councilor of the Kottayam Municipality with the membership of Indian National Congress. Respondent No. 1 herein filed O.P.41 of 2007 in the year 2007 before the Kerala State Election Commission seeking declaration that the appellant is disqualified to continue as Councilor since she has committed defection. It was contented that after the election to the Municipality, the Parliamentary Party of the Congress, the District Parliamentary Board of Congress had made arrangements and entered into an understanding in the matter of the office of the chairperson, taking into account the views expressed by the elected Councilors about sharing of offices of the Municipality for specific period and the first term was allotted to the appellant and she was elected ...

State of Kerala Vs. Hashim

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT95

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.1. All these appeals are preferred by the Government. The cases pertain to acquisition of land in Nagaram Village of Kozhikode City pursuant to Section 4(1) notification published on 26.11.1993. The purpose of the acquisition was straightening of the curve of Muthalakkulam junction and related purposes. LAA. Nos. 1774/08, 2382/08, 1925/08 and 1640/08 arise out of a common judgment of the reference court in LAR. Nos. 194/2000, 198/2000,214/2000,215/2000,218/2000 and 48/98. LAA. Nos. 397/09 and 266/09 arise out of a common judgment in LAR. Nos. 308/98, 246/98 and 212/2000. The land acquisition officer awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 41,851/- per cent. The reference court in the first instance on the basis of the evidence which came on record re-fixed the land value at Rs. 2 lakhs per cent. The Government preferred appeals and this Court set aside the judgment under appeal and remanded the LAR's to the Reference Court taking the view that one of the judgments wh...

Kurian Nicholas Vs. the Director, ‘anert’ and Others

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 30th April, 2003 passed by CDRF, Malappuram in OP. No. 255/2001. The complainant in the said original petition was filed by the appellant herein against the respondents/opposite parties alleging deficiency in service in the sale, supply and after sale service of the Solar Water Pumping System. The complainant alleged defect in the Solar Water Pumping System and that the opposite parties failed to rectify the defects in the said system. Hence the compliant was filed for getting the defective Solar Modules (12 in numbers) replaced. In the alternative to pay the present market value of the Solar Modules with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and costs. 2. The opposite parties 1 and 2 entered appearance before the Forum below and filed joint written version denying the alleged deficiency in service on their part. They contended that the first opposite party is a government agency engaged in propagating t...

Kutaguptan Vs. Canara Bank

Court: Kerala

Reported in: II(2010)BC264,2010(1)KLT361

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Petitioner being the guarantor for a loan, his property was mortgaged to the creditor bank. That item, which is a schedule to the recovery certificate issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in terms of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, for short, the 'RDB Act', is sold in enforcement of that certificate. He challenges that sale contending that the final order in the original application was issued by the Tribunal on 27.2.2004 and a period of three years and seven months from the end of the financial year in which that order was/issued, had elapsed before the sale was held on 21.11.2007 and therefore, the said sale is void being violative of Rule 68B of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961, for short, the 'IT Act'. The argument on his behalf is that Rule 68B of the Second Schedule stipulates an outer time limit of three years, for the sale, from the end of the financial year in which the order giving rise...

Vinod Nair S/O Vasudevan Nair Vs. the Sub Inspector of Police and ors.

Court: Kerala

Kurian Joseph, J.1. These writ petitions are filed at the instance of service providers/infra-structure service providers, who have been issued license by the Department of Telecommunications for the erection of mobile towers and for their operation. It is also seen that the local authority concerned had issued building permit for the construction of the tower. In some of the cases, it appears, after the issuance of the building permit, the local authority concerned itself had issued a stop memo. Some of the people at the locality entertained an apprehension with regard to the hazards to their health and they physically obstructed the petitioners from taking up the construction of the tower though the same was permitted by the local authority concerned and though they had the license. When the writ petitions came up before this Court, it is seen that this Court had issued a direction to the Police to render necessary police protection for the construction of the tower, in case there is...

Santhosh S/O. Kunjukunju Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

ORDERBhavadasan, J.1. The accused, who was tried for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was found guilty. He was accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default of payment of which to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of four years. The fine amount if realised was directed to be paid to the parents of the deceased as compensation.2. The prosecution unfolds the story thus:On 3.12.2001 in the evening, the deceased along with P.W. 1 after their supper had gone to the house of P.W.4 to attend a Bhajan. After the Bhajan, they were on their way to the house of one Janaki Chechi ('Chechi' in Malayalam means elder sister). On the way, they happened to meet the accused. Subhash, the deceased seems to have enquired with the accused whether things were going well. The prosecution case is that hearing that enquiry, the accused ran into the house of Yesodharan and came back with a knif...

Jose Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment)

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT816

P.R. Raman, J.1. The challenge made in this batch of Writ Petitions/Writ Appeal is against the amendment brought out to Section 6(1)(f) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 as amended by the Kerala Finance Act, 2006 (Act 22/2006). Though the amended Act was passed and assent of the Governor was obtained on 24.10.2006, it was given retrospective effect from 1.7.2006. As per Section 6(1)(f) of the Act thus amended, the rate of tax in the case of transfer of goods involved in the execution of works contract, where the transfer is not in the form of goods, but in some other form, tax payable is increased to 12.5% as against the 4% as it stood prior to the amendment. Prior to the amendment, where the goods incorporated in the works contract are separately ascertainable, the tax was levied at the rates applicable to the goods and where the goods incorporated in the works contract are not separately ascertainable, at the rate of 12.5 % at all points of sale. Though the grounds urged in the...

P. Sarada, Sewing Teacher Vs. the Secretary to Government,

Court: Kerala

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. Writ petitioner is the appellant. She was appointed as Sewing Teacher in the fourth respondent's School in a retirement vacancy on 1.6.1989. Since her appointment was not approved, she was not paid salary. Petitioner submits, the Assistant Educational Officer has filed Ext.P1 report before the Director of Public Instruction stating that there was sufficient student strength from 1989-90 to 1999-2000 justifying the sanction of a Sewing Teacher. The said officer has also reported that no other specialist teacher is working there. Based on Ext.P1, the petitioner sought the following reliefs:i. to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner on the basis of Ext.P1 report by which it can be seen that out of the total roll strength more than 90% students are attending sewing classes.2. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit. In the said cou...

The Assistant Education Officer, Vs. K.N. Lakshmi W/O V.R. Gopalan

Court: Kerala

Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The respondents in the Writ Petition are the appellants. The respondent herein was the writ petitioner. The brief facts of the case are the following:The respondent was appointed as a P.D. Teacher from 13.6.1975 to 31.3.1976. Thereafter, she was appointed on a regular basis on 1.6.1976. She was an untrained P.D. Teacher. Therefore, she was deputed for Teachers' Training Course from 1.2.1977 to 31.12.1978. She passed the Teachers' Training Course on 30.8.1979. When her salary was fixed, the apprentice period, i.e. from 13.6.1975 to 31.3.1976 was also reckoned. The same was against Ext. P2 circular issued by the Government on 11.7.1984. This was realised only in 2001. Immediately, she was served with Ext. P3 show cause notice dated 3.11.2001 proposing to re-fix her salary excluding her apprentice service period from 13.6.1975 to 31.3.1976. Thereafter, by Ext. P4 order dated 7.9.2002, the proposal under Ext. P3 was affirmed. In the light of Exts. P3 and P4, the Ass...