Kerala Court November 2009 Judgments

Santhosh @ Malayattoor Santhosh Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

P. Bhavadasan, J.1. The accused was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 449, 332, 333 and 302 IPC. He was found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 332 and 333 but was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 449. He was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 and rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 332. No separate sentence was awarded for the offence punishable under Section 333. It was also ordered that he will be entitled to set off in case of commutation of sentence, as per law. The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows:2. On 04.12.2003 in the night, the accused met PW1 Santha, who was a lady of easy virtue and took her along with him to the terrace of a two storeyed building. He removed his clothes and placed himself on the top of the lady.3. The Railway Protection Force had registered a crime as Crime No. 81/03 for the offence punishable under...

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. the Pharmaceutical Corporation (im)

Court: Kerala

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The question raised in the connected appeals filed by the revenue against the very same respondent is whether the Tribunal was justified in ordering payment of interest under Section 244A to the respondent for the excess assessed tax paid under Section 140A of the I.T. Act for the years 1997-98 and 1998-99. Even though senior counsel for the revenue advanced extensive arguments canvassing for the proposition that excess self-assessed tax paid under Section 140A over the assessed tax will not entitle the assessee for interest from the date of payment, we find that the issue is squarely covered against the revenue by a single Judge judgment by one of us (Ramachandran Nair, J.) in WPC No. 26052 of 2004 dated 5.12.2008. After hearing both sides and after going through the said judgment we do not find any ground to deviate from the findings rendered in the judgment. We therefore follow the said judgment and dismiss the appeal. Registry will attach a copy of the ...

Rakhi Vs. Accountant General

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT50

Antony Dominic, J.1. The claim in this Writ Petition is for family pension.2. Sri. V.K. Raghavan, working as Villageman in Mattoor Village Office expired on 9th October, 1995. It is stated that he had initially married Smt. K.C. Pennamma. According to the petitioner, in that wedlock there were no issues and therefore, he contracted a second marriage with Smt. Ammini. In the second wedlock, apart from the petitioner, a son was also born.3. On the death of Sri. Raghavan, only 50% of the family pension was paid to Smt. K.C. Pennamma. Thereupon, Smt. Pennamma and the petitioner's mother Smt. Ammini, the 2nd wife of the deceased, together filed Original Petition No. 2273 of 2003 before this Court contending that the first wife should be given the entire family pension. This Court considered the matter and by Ext.P1 judgment held that since the second marriage was not legal, Smt. Pennamma should get full family pension. Accordingly payment was made.4. While so, Smt. Pennamma expired on 16.07...

Madhavan @ Rajan Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

P. Bhavadasan, J.1. Five persons were prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 449, 302, 397 and 411 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. Among them, Accused Nos. 1 to 4 were found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 449, 397 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC and they were convicted for the said offences. Accused No. 5 was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC and he was convicted for the same. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each, in default of payment of which, they have to suffer simple imprisonment for three months each. They were also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each, and in default of payment of which, they have to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each for the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC. They were again sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine o...

The Asst.Engineer, Electrical Section Office, Kollam and Others Vs. Na ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI.S.CHANDRAMONAN NAIR,MEMBER This appeal is preferred against the order dated 28th February 2005 in OP.475/03 of the CDRF, Kollam wherein and whereby the opposite parties are under directions to cancel Ext.P3 bill dated 5.11.03 and pay compensation of Rs.2000/- and cost of Rs.500/-. 2. The complainants had approached the Forum below alleging that the bill issued for Rs.17356/- dated 5.11.03 was against the principle of natural justice and also against legal basis. It is his case that he was served with a bill for Rs.7883/- alleged to be the additional bill for the period from 5/98 to 3/99 in the month of June 1999 and he had paid that amount. It is also his case that he was regularly paying the bills for the past period of 26 months from 3/96 to 4/98 the bill was issued to him without any basis and that the said bill was illegal, unsustainable and hence liable to be quashed. 3. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that the impugned bill was issued cons...

Assistant Executive Engineer, Water Works Sub Division, Kerala Water A ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The opposite parties in OP 328/05 of CDRF, Thrissur are under directions to see that water reaches the petitioners house in full time and pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and costs of Rs. 1,000/- to the petitioner within one month from the date of order. It is aggrieved by the said directions that the present appeal is filed by the opposite parties calling for the interference of this Commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below. 2. The complainants case, in brief, is that he is a consumer with Consumer No. A-64 and that he depends solely upon the water supplied by the opposite parties. It is submitted by him that the water supply is only occasional and insufficient and due to non-availability of water, the complainant and his family are leading a deplorable life and living is made difficult. A lawyer notice was issued which was also of no use and hence the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite partie...

The Asst.Engineer,electrical Section, Kollam and Another Vs. S. Hireni ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 8th December 2004 passed by CDRF, Kollam in OP.154/04. The respondent in this appeal was the complainant in the said OP.No.154/04. The said complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing electricity bill dated 6.3.04 for Rs.32376/-. The complainant alleged that she is not liable to pay the aforesaid amount as her electricity connection to her premises was disconnected with effect from 28.6.02 and that she closed her industrial unit with effect from 1.1.02. The opposite parties therein entered appearance and filed written version contending that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under Section 2 (i) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, that the complainant availed the electricity connection on 29.10.2000 under LT IV tariff with a connected load of 23330 watts and that the said electricity connection was availed for running industrial u...

M/S Shriram Investment Ltd., Mylore, Chennai and Another Vs. Anil Kuma ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred against the order dated 15th September, 2004 of the CDRF, Kasaragod in OP.No. 118/04. The complaint in the said original petition was filed by the respondent herein against the appellants/opposite parties claiming refund of Rs. 64,000/- which was paid by the complainant to the opposite parties for getting the vehicle bearing Reg. No/ KL 14 C/5290. The complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not refunding the aforesaid amount in the event it was found difficult for the opposite parties to sell the vehicle to the complainant under a higher purchase agreement. The complainant has also claimed compensation, interest and costs. The opposite parties entered appearance by filing written version contending that the amount of Rs. 64,000/- was received from the complainant on behalf of one Thimmanna Rai who had entered into a higher purchase agreement with the opposite parties. Thus, t...

Pathu Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

A.K. Basheer, J.1. Appellants claim that they are the legal heirs of the original claimant in L.A.R. No. 175 of 1994 which was admittedly closed by the Reference Court way back in December, 1995 for non prosecution by the claimant.2. After about seven years, the appellants filed an application before the Reference Court as I.A. No. 3464 of 2002 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 2435 days in filing the application for restoration of the reference case. The said application was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge by his order dated December 3, 2003, a copy of which is available on record as Ext. P1. The learned Subordinate Judge found that no proper explanation had been offered for the inordinate delay and that there was total laches and negligence on the part of the appellants. Therefore the application for condonation was dismissed.3. The above order was challenged by the appellants before the learned Single Judge praying for invoking the jurisdiction...

State of Kerala Vs. Devika Asokan and Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Kerala

S.R. Bannurmath, C.J.1. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 4th June, 2009 in W.P.(C) No. 7313 of 2004, especially the direction issued to the District Collector to make payment of the compensation with interest at the rate of 12% per annum personally, the first respondent in the writ petition has filed the present writ appeal.2. The writ petitioner claims to be the wife of the deceased Asokan who was murdered in Middle East, and in this regard eligible compensation was paid by the Insurance Company for the death of her husband. This amount was received by the Consulate General of India to the tune of Rs. 45145/- which is stated to be forwarded to the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram for payment to the legal heirs of the deceased.3. According to the writ petitioner, she and her children are the only legal heirs of the deceased, and alleging that inspite of having received the money, the District Collector has not taken any steps to trace the legal...