Kerala Court December 2009 Judgments

Jiji Vijayan Vs. Public Service Commission

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT845

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioners who are applicants to the post of Lecturer in various subjects in the Collegiate Education Department, are aggrieved by the fixation of the date 1.1.2007 in Ext.P1 notification for calculation of age for enabling the candidates to submit application to the post in question. Accordingly, they are seeking for a direction to accept the applications by calculating their age with reference to 1.1.2008. The circumstances leading to the filing of the Writ Petition are the following:2. All the petitioners are Post Graduates having passed M.A. (Economics) Degree Examination in May, 2007. Ext.Pl notification is dated 12.12.2007. As per Ext.Pl, the candidates should have completed 22 years of age and should not exceed 35 years of age on 1.1.2007. All the petitioners are having U.G.C. and N.E.T. qualifications also. Exts.P2 to P17 are produced in support of the acquisition of qualifications by the petitioners. The petitioners undertook the examination f...

Surendran Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT204

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner, in the first among the captioned matters, filed an application for FL-3 license in terms of the Foreign Liquor Rules. The Circle Inspector of Excise reported to the Assistant Excise Commissioner that the site is an unobjectionable one, though there is a thycavu (niskarapally), which is not a place where Juma prayers are being offered. Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner forwarded the application with the recommendation that the licence could be granted as applied for. However, the Deputy Commissioner of Excise reported to the Joint Commissioner that though not mentioned in the petition by the President of the Karamana Juma-ath, a hostel housing the students of the Ayurveda College is at a distance of 140 metres from the proposed site for the Bar and the distance from the Hotel to the main gate of the Panchakarma Hospital is 230 metres and that the main gate of the Panchakarma Hospital is generally used by the public. The Joint Commi...

Derrick Joy Vs. Director, Technical Education

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT485

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The petitioners, students of a Government Polytechnic College, face Ext.P2 order imposing removal from certain semesters. Petitioners 1 and 7 are barred from attending classes for 4 semesters spreading through the academic years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011. The other petitioners are barred for 2 semesters spreading over the academic year 2009-2010, All of them, except two, are also barred from appearing in the examinations, while two are permitted to appear in the supplementary examinations. Petitioners challenge it.2. The plea of the petitioners is that the allegations against them, of having indulged in ragging a deaf and dump student, is unfounded and there is no provision in the college calender to dismiss a student from the college. They plead that the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1998, hereinafter referred to as the 'Kerala Act', does not contain any provision authorising dismissal but provides for only suspension of students against whom accus...

Jikku Paul, Student Vs. the M.G. University Overruled

Court: Kerala

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The petitioners in these Writ Petitions are Diploma holders in different branches of Engineering. They obtained admission to B.Tech course in the concerned subjects in different Self Financing Colleges. For admission to Degree courses in Engineering in Government/Private Engineering Colleges, the Government are conducting an Entrance Test. As per the prospectus issued by the State Government, apart from the essential academic qualification (Diploma in the concerned subject with 60% marks), the candidates should secure 20% marks in the Entrance Test, for being eligible to be admitted to any Engineering course. In the case of the petitioners, they have failed to secure 20% marks in the Entrance Test. But, they were admitted to B.Tech course. The University did not approve their admission and declined to accept their applications for the semester examination concerned. In that context, these Writ Petitions were filed. Pursuant to the interim orders of this Court...

Sangeetha Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT612

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. These Writ Petitions are at the instance of the petitioners who are having approved service as HSST (Junior) in various subjects in different schools. The main prayer in the Writ Petitions is to grant a declaration that they are entitled to Full Time scale of pay and other ancillary benefits admissible to the post of HSST, granted by Ext.P3 Government Order to their counter parts appointed as HSST (Part time).2. The petitioners herein have been appointed in various schools prior to the introduction of the statutory rules in Chap. XXXII K.E.R. i.e., on 12.11.2001. They have been appointed as HSST Part time/Junior in aided higher secondary schools by direct recruitment, during the years 1999, 2000 and 2001 and the orders of appointment have been produced in these Writ Petitions.3. It is their case that the Government as per GO.(Ms.) No. 162/98/G.Edn. dated 13.5.1998, produced as Ext.P4 in W.P.(C) No. 12790/2005, prescribed the method of filling up of the post...

Sam Zacharias Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT473

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. In exercise of powers under Section 80B of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', read with Rule 182B of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, for short, 'the Rules', the Government issued Ext.P1 Government Order dated 1st March, 2006 reconstituting the Co-operative Service Examination Board, hereinafter referred to as the 'Board', with the petitioners as members. On 6th June, 2007, the Government issued a similar notification reconstituting the Board with respondents 3 to 5 as members. That was done pursuant to the amendment to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 182B of the Rules effected as per Ext.P3 Government Order dated 1st June, 2007 incorporating a proviso to the following effect:Provided that the person designated as the Chairman shall be a post graduate with a minimum approved teaching experience of 15 years in any Government or other approved colleges. Of the other two members one shall be a woman with ...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Little Flower Kuries and Enterprises Lt ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT470

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The question raised in the connected appeals filed by the revenue against the same assessee is whether the assessee, which is mainly engaged in chitty business, is liable to be assessed under the Interest Tax Act, 1974 (for short 'the Act') on the interest received in the hire purchase business, lending etc. Even though assessments were sustained in first appeal, the Tribunal held that the respondent is not assessable under the Interest Tax Act, against which these appeals are filed.2. We have heard Senior Standing Counsel Sri. P.K.R. Menon appearing for the revenue and Sri. P. Balakrishnan, appearing for the respondent/assessee.3. The respondent is assessable to interest tax under the Act only if it falls within the definition of credit institution as defined under Section 2(5-A) of the Act. Since the appellants do not have a case that the respondent is a credit institution within the meaning of Clauses (i), (ii) or (iii) of Section 2(5-A), the question to...

Rajamma Joseph Vs. Binu Prasad

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT572

ORDERK. Surendra Mohan, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S.320/2003 of the Sub-Court, Kottayam has preferred the above appeal challenging an order dated 20.3.2009 passed by the Sub-Court dismissing I.A. No. 3441/2003. The petition was filed seeking permission of the Court to institute the suit as an indigent person. The Court has dismissed the petition finding that the appellant/petitioner was possessed of sufficient means to pay the requisite court fee. The said order is under challenge in this appeal.2. The appellant had filed the suit for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 7,67,625/- with future interest from the respondents/defendants. According to the appellant, the defendants had borrowed an amount of Rs. 7.5 lakhs from her and had executed a demand promissory note for the said amount in her favour, on 16.3.2003. Thereafter, the defendants paid the interest without default till July 2003. However, the principal amount was not paid. Therefore, the appellant demanded payment of the said amoun...

O. Ranjini Vs. M/S M.K.S. Menon

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in OP No. 598/03 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The complaint stands dismissed. 2. It is the case of the complainant that she had filed OP No. 544/94 in the CDRF, Kannur against Canara Bank, Thalipprampa. The above OP was dismissed on 20-12-1995 with a direction to the complainant to approach the Civil Court. She filed Appeal No. 384/95 before the State Commission, which was also dismissed. The matter was taken up before the National Commission as RP No. 604/98 which also ended in dismissal. An advocate at Ernakulam introduced the opposite party as a suitable lawyer and directed the petitioner to approach him. He also sent a letter to the petitioner for the above purpose. The petitioner contacted the opposite party through telephone as well as through letters and the opposite party agreed to take up the matter before the Supreme Court. All connected papers were sent with vakalath through advocate Mohan Kumar, a ...

Secretary, K.S.E.B. and Others Vs. A.K. Abdul Khadar

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/KSEB in CC.65/06 in the file of CDRF, Kasargode. The bill issued by the appellant for a sum of Rs.18007/- stands set aside. The appellant is also directed Rs.2000/- towards the cost of the proceedings. 2. The case of the complainant is that he is running a wood industry as SSI unit and that he has been issued a back assessment bill dated 10.5.06 for Rs.18007/- for the period from May 2004 to December 2004 he has sought for cancellation of the same . According to him the appellant is not entitled to claim the above amount. 3. In the version filed by the opposite parties/appellants it is mentioned that the meter was faulty and the same was changed in September 2004 and again the meter became faulty and it was replaced on October 2004. The average energy consumption for the period subsequent to replacement of the meter was 1647 unit per month. Hence back assessment bill was issued. 4. The evidence adduced consisted...