Kerala Court November 2009 Judgments

John Arthur Henshaw Vs. Sulochana

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT10

S.S. Satheesachandran, J.1. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 16 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Attingal. Suit was one for money, which on reference to the Lok Adalat constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act was settled between the parties. Compromise of the parties was recorded and an award was passed by the Lok Adalat. Ext.P1 is the copy of the award passed by the Lok Adalat. Lok Adalat declined refund of the 1/10th court fee, which alone was paid in. the suit, in the award, expressing a view that it cannot be refunded. Plaintiff, through his power of attorney holder, moved an application before the Sub Court for refund of the 1/10th court fee paid on the plaint. Ext.P2 is the copy of that application. That application was rejected by the learned Sub Judge vide Ext.P3 order holding that no refund had been ordered under the award passed by the Lok Adalat. Challenge in the Writ Petition is against Ext.P3 order passed by the learned Sub Judge.2. I heard the lear...

Devendra Prasad @ Devendra Pratap Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

P. Bhavadasan, J.1. An uncle and a nephew were sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The uncle absconded and the nephew namely, Devendra Prasad @ Devendra Prathap alone stood trial. He was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. He was therefore convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of which, he had to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. If the fine amount is paid, it shall be paid over to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation. The court below acquitted him of the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC.2. The deceased, namely, Bijay Kumar Misra was working as Work Supervisor of M/s. P.K. Steels, Kozhikode. P.W.1 was working as the Safety Supervisor. On 9.2.2003 his shift was from 5 p.m. till 10.30 in the next day. On 10.2.2003 while P.W.1 along with Sri. Sreedharan had gone for a stroll in the factory premises a...

Sunny Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT365

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Writ Appeals are filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge holding that Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal has no powers to entertain the claim of the appellant that he is an indigent person eligible to file appeal under Order XLIV of C.P.C. without payment of court fee. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellants and Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.2. Counsel for the appellants has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Smt. Darshana Devi : 1979 KLT 269 (SC) : AIR 1979 SC 855 and contended that Order XXXIII as well as Order XLIV giving powers to civil court to permit filing of suits and appeals by parties as indigent persons without payment of court fee, apply to Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. On going through the judgment above referred, we find that it is rendered in the context of a claim petition filed under the M.V. Act before the M.A.C.T. without payment of court fee. Supreme Court held that s...

Aroma Binding Unit Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(252)ELT36(Ker),2010(1)KLT92

ORDERC.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The question raised is whether notebook produced and sold by the petitioner out of paper locally purchased qualifies for second sale exemption. The assessing officer as well as the first appellate authority and the Tribunal held that even though paper is used for making notebook, notebook is a different product and so much so first sale of the same attracts tax under Entry 106(ii) of the First Schedule to the KGST Act. It is seen from the assessment that petitioner is granted set- off of tax paid on the local purchase of paper out of which notebooks are manufactured and sold by the petitioner in terms of Explanation to Entry 106(ii) of the First Schedule to the Act. We have heard counsel appearing for the petitioner and Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.2. Counsel for the petitioner has relied on Annexure III letter by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes stating that even though the scheme of Entry 106(ii) of the First Schedule is to lev...

Speed and Safe Courier Service (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central E ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [2010]26STT139

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Connected appeals are filed by a courier service agency challenging the orders of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal upholding the levy of service tax on the appellant for rendering franchisee service falling under Sub-clause (47) of Section 65 read with Section 65(105)(zze) of the Finance Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred for short, 'The Act').2. We have heard the counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri Abraham Thomas, Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent.3. Admittedly, the appellant is engaged in rendering courier service which involves collection of letters, parcels, articles etc. from customers and then delivery of the same to the addressees. In this business, the appellant has engaged several agents who are named as Franchisees in the agreement between the appellant and them whereunder these agents collect articles from customers along with service charges at the tariff prescribed by the appellant. We are told that these ag...

Prakash Automobiles Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [2010]322ITR435(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Heard Counsel for the appellant and standing Counsel for the respondent. We do not find any of the questions raised is a question of law, much less any substantial question of law. Assessments involved are for the assessment years 1994-95 to 1997-98. Even though assessee is an automobile dealer and obviously registered under the KGST Act, the assessee maintained the stand for several years that it is not in the habit of keeping books of account. Income-tax returns were filed for all these years on estimation basis by the assessee. Since the assessee has no case that it had maintained books of account, it had no right to challenge the assessment based on estimation basis. In the absence of books of account the Assessing Officer is free to conduct enquiry and estimate income on a rational basis under Section 144 of the Income-tax Act. In this case, instead of collecting information, the Assessing Officer adopted the turnover fixed for the year 1988-89 at Rs. ...

P. Suresh and Another Vs. the Managing Director, National Isurance Co. ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellants are the complainants in OP.340/04 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The OP stands dismissed. 2. The case of the complainants is that the first complainant is the son of the second complainant. The R.C owner was the second complainant and the same was transferred in the name of the first complainant on 11.04.03. The insurance policy stood in the name of the second complainant. The vehicle met with an accident on 6.09.03. The opposite party/National Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that the policy stands in the name of the second complainant and the RC has been transferred in the name of the first complainant. It is the case of the opposite parties that both complainants would not be entitled for the own damage claim. 3. The evidence adduced consisted of Exts.P1 to P6. 4. The Forum has relied on the decision of M/s Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd; (1996) 1 SCC 221. 5. The counsel...

Post Master, Irinjalakkuda Vs. C.V. John

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTIE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/postal authorities in CC.490/08 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The matter has been decided ex-parte. The appellant is under orders to return double of the amount deposited and also to pay Rs.1000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as costs. 2. It is the case of the complainant that the notice received was misplaced. In the circumstances, the order of the Forum is set aside on condition that the appellant/opposite party pay a sum of Rs.1500/- towards costs to the complainant or deposit the same before the Forum which can be withdrawn by the complainant. On payment of the amount, the Forum will issue notice to the complainant, permit the opposite party to contest the matter and dispose of the case on merits. 3. The case stands posted before the Forum on 21.12.09. The office is directed to forward the copy of this order to the Forum urgently....

The Kerala State Electricity Board, Rep. by Its Secretary, Pattom, Thi ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER By the order dated 11-02-2005 in OP 177/04 the CDRF, Kottayam has directed the opposite parties to cancel Ext.A1 bill and pay compensation of Rs. 3,000/- and costs of Rs. 750/-. The opposite parties are also under directions to refund the amount paid by the complainant under Ext.A1 bill. It is against there directions that the opposite parties have come up in appeal calling for the interference of this Commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below. 2. The complainants case before the Forum is that he is running a mat manufacturing unit at Development Plot, Athirampuzha solely for earning his livelyood. He has been given a connection by the opposite parties under Consumer No. 5890 and that on 26-08-2003 at 03.30 pm the opposite parties 2 to 4 conducted an inspection in the unit and that on the next day a bill for Rs. 56,347/- was issued to him. According to the complainant the supply was also disconnected and the bill was ...

The Principal General Manager, Bsnl Bhavan, Ernakulam and Another Vs. ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA: MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by CDRF, Ernakulam in the file of CC.389/06. The appellants are the opposite parties who prefers this appeal from the order passed by the Forum below. This is a dispute between the BSNL consumer and the Principal General Manager, BSNL, Ernakulam and the Accounts Officer, TRA unit, Thodupuzha. The consumer complainant challenged the illegal disconnection and alleged that it was a disconnection and had the amount paid it deficiency in service according to provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. The opposite parties/respondent appeared on notice issued by the Forum below and filed their written version before the Forum below. According to the BSNL/opposite parties the complainant did not remit the bill for call charges in time and so the disconnection was made and they denied that they have not committed any deficiency in service on their part. The Forum below conducted a trial and the complainant produced 2 docum...