Kerala Court November 2009 Judgments

P.C. Thomas Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2010)231CTR(Ker)306

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Heard Sri V.V. Asokan, counsel appearing for the appellant and the standing counsel appearing for the respondent.2. The appellant is a reputed professor engaged in coaching students mainly for medical and engineering entrance examinations. Along with training students locally in the State, he has developed educational material in the form of 'CDs' and in book form which are exported to students abroad. The appellant claimed benefit of deduction under Section 80O of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). However, the ITO disallowed the claim for the reason that the deduction under Section 80O of the Act is admissible only in respect of income received from foreign enterprises in consideration of use outside India of any patent, invention, design, registered trade mark and the consideration here is not for any such use. The disallowance is confirmed in two level appeals and it is against the order of the Tribunal, the appellant has approached this Court with...

Subaida Ashraf Vs. District General Manager

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT193

Thomas P. Joseph, J.1. The substantial question of law framed for a decision is whether Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph (Amendment) Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act') which provides for arbitration of disputes concerning telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arising between the Telegraph Authority and the person for whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is or has been provided, ousted jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain a challenge to the validity of bills issued by the Telegraph Authority concerning the telephone apparatus thus provided2. Short facts are: Appellant is a subscriber of telephone No. 832031 under the Edakkad Telephone Exchange, she having obtained it on transfer from Alakkal Vijayan with effect from 27.1.1995. She was issued with bills dated 1.4.1995,1.6.1995,1.8.1995 1.10.1995 and 1.12.1995 and a revised bill in respect of last of those bills, admittedly concerning the said telephone connection given to the appellant. She instituted the suit in the c...

M/S Metarock (Pvt)ltd., Kollam, Repd. by Its Managing Director, Venodl ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER Complaint filed under Sec.17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 claiming compensation of Rs.20.lakhs on the ground of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties in effecting sale and service of the machineries purchased by the complainant from the opposite parties. The facts of the case are as follows:- Complainant is a private limited Company having its office at Thattamala, Kollam. The complainant company installed a metal crusher unit manufactured by the opposite party. The machineries namely Jaw crusher, Vibrating screen and Ref. feeder are supplied and erected by the opposite party based on the orders placed by the complainant. Opposite party supplied the general lay out of the machineries and drawings which were prepared by the opposite party at its registered office in Baroda. The order for the machineries was placed on 19..11..1998. Advance payment of Rs.11,70,785/- was made by 2 cheques. The 2nd ...

K.P. Namboodiri's Ayurvedics Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT686

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The connected revision cases are filed, one by the manufacturer and other by the dealer raising same question i.e., about the classification and the rate of tax on tooth powder marketed under the name 'Danthadhavanachoornam'. Overruling the claim of the petitioners that the item is a medicament, the Kerala VAT Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam held that the item is rightly assessed as tooth powder (medicated or not) falling under Entry No. 92 of Notification S.R.O. No. 82/06 issued under Section 6(1)(d) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short 'the KVAT Act'). It is against this order of the Tribunal, the petitioners have filed these revisions for a declaration by this Court that the item is a medicament and not tooth powder as held by the Tribunal.2. We have heard counsel appearing for both the petitioners in both the revision cases and the Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.3. Since the name of the product is in Sanskrit, we have referr...

Rajan Kudumbathil Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Kerala

A.K. Basheer, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by an Advocate practicing in this Court. He highlights the problems now being allegedly faced by migrant labourers who come to this State in search of job opportunities. We do not deem it necessary to refer to the various aspects of this social issue as highlighted by the petitioner in the writ petition at this stage in view of the order that we propose to pass. The reliefs sought for in the writ petition may be noticed;i) issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to take an assessment of the migrant labourers in various parts of the State and to prepare a comprehensive scheme for making rehabilitation and welfare of such labourers and their family members in accordance with Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979 and the Rules made there under; ii) issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to implement the provisions contained in Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Reg...

AshA. P. D/O K. Ponnamma Vs. State of Kerala Rep. by Secretary and ors ...

Court: Kerala

K.M. Joseph, J.1. Several important and interesting questions arise for our consideration in this batch of Writ Petitions coming up by reference by a learned Single Judge, Justice T. R. Ramachandran Nair. What is the effect of the founding fathers providing for seven years experience as an Advocate to be eligible for appointment as a District Judge in Article 233(2) Does the acceptance of the Report of the Shetty Commission by the Apex Court in the decision in All India Judges' Association and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. : (2002) 4 SCC 247 (hereinafter referred to as the All India Judges case) amount to declaration of law What is the impact of the amendment in the Kerala Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) prescribing the qualification of minimum age as thirty five and the maximum age as forty five for appointment as a District Judge on the rights of the writ petitioners, who had applied for selection and passed the written test prior to the a...

T. Mani S/O Sreedharan Vs. the Kerala Finance Corporation and ors.

Court: Kerala

A.K. Basheer, J.1. This litigation has had many twists and turns and in the process, the revenue sale which took place in the year 2005 has been hanging fire for the last more than four years. Resultantly, the auction purchaser has not been able to enjoy the property even though he had deposited the sale prise immediately after the sale.2. It is the case of the Kerala Financial Corporation, from which the appellant had borrowed some money years ago, that the appellant has managed to create all sorts of hurdles all the way ever since recovery proceedings were initiated against him. If we just take a glance at the chequered history of this protracted litigation it can be seen that in the year 2005 the appellant had filed W.P. (C) No. 34808 of 2005 challenging the revenue sale. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court, giving liberty to the appellant to pay off the entire liability under the One Time Settlement Scheme which was in vogue at that time. The appellant did not make use ...

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. George Varghese

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/National Insurance Company in CC 183/05 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 1,20,741 with interest at 9% from the date of repudiation till realization and also to pay costs of Rs. 1,000/-. 2. The case of the complainant, who was an Assistant Administrative Officer in the opposite party company is as follows: On 01-01-1990 the opposite party introduced a compulsory scheme of group medi claim policy to its employees. The coverage was Rs. 70,000/-. 1/3rd of the premium is to be paid by the assured and 2/3rd by the employer. The policy was renewed from time to time. On 05- 03-2000 the petitioner had a myocardial infraction and was admitted at Caritas Hospital. The treatment expenses were reimbursed. From 01-04-2000 the petitioner enhanced the assured sum to Rs. 2,00,000/-. The opposite party was fully aware of the illness. Again the sum assured was enhanced to Rs. 3,00...

M/S Kvr Motors, Calicut and Others Vs. Shinob and Others

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU PRESIDENT First Appeal No : 167/08 The appellant is the opposite party dealer in CC.20/2006 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 99000/- to the complainant with interest at 10% and also to pay sum of Rs.2000/- as cost. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased RE LPG Four Stroke Autorikshaw of Bajaj Company on 8.7.05 paying Rs.1,05,840/- for availing loan etc. It is his case that even before getting permit the vehicle showed some engine problems. It is alleged that the vehicle was taken to the opposite party at Calicut three times and to the opposite parties office at Kottakal. Even after repairs it was found that the vehicle could not be plied properly . He has claimed for either replacing the vehicle or returning the price of the vehicle and for a compensation of Rs.16,000/- 3. It is the case of the opposite parties that complaints were rectified whenever vehicle was brought to the opposite party. It i...

Krishnat Madhukar Kadam Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

P. Bhavadasan, J.1. Four persons were sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 302and 392 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. Among them accused Nos. 2 and 3 had absconded and were not available for trial. Accused Nos. 1 and 4 alone stood trial. They were found guilty of the offences alleged against them. They were therefore convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- each, in default of payment of which they have to suffer simple imprisonment for six more months for the offence punishable under Section 302IPC. They were also directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 392 IPC, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. The substantive sentences were to run concurrently. Set off as per law was also allowed.2. The first accused has preferred Crl. Appeal No. 64 of 2006 a...