Kerala Court December 2009 Judgments

State of Kerala Vs. Western India Cosmetic and Health Products Ltd.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT786

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. A Division Bench, after doubting the correctness of the judgment of this Court in P.K. Damodaran's case 2003 (2) KLT SN 93 (C. No. 121) : 138 STC 442, has referred this case for decision by Full Bench on the scope of interest payable under Section 23(3A) of the K.G.S.T. Act, hereinafter called the 'Act'. We have heard Special Government Pleader for the revision petitioner and various counsel appearing for the respondent-assessees.2. The question raised is whether short payment of tax by the dealers along with monthly returns either on account of non-inclusion of turnover or failure to return turnover at the full rate of tax attracts interest under Section 23(3A) of the Act, In S.T. Rev. 107 of 2009 the respondent is a dealer in paper who paid tax on the turnover of paper at 4% as against 8% payable under the Act. The respondent-dealer in the other case has failed to include turnover in the return which led to levy of interest under Section 23(3A) of the Act...

Varkey Jacob L/H of Late Smt. Lucy Kochuvareed Vs. Deputy Commissioner ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2010)229CTR(Ker)366

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.1. Whether the 'self-assessed tax' paid by the assessee on 30th March, 1989 in respect of the asst. yrs. 1979-80 to 1984-85, on the basis of the returns filed later on 11th Oct., 1989, (i.e., before the issuance of notice under Section 148 of the IT Act, but sought to be treated as valid returns filed in response to the above notice) has to be refunded to the assessee, on setting aside the assessment order passed by the assessing authority under Section 143(3) of the Act, is the issue involved herein.2. The sequence of events reveals that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, late Lucy Kochuvareed was a co-owner of the 'Vellanikkara and Thattil Rubber Estate', which was acquired by the Government of Kerala on 15th March, 1974. Challenging the inadequacy of compensation awarded, the matter was taken up before the Reference Court and also before this Court, whereby the compensation was enhanced, granting interest at the rates stipulated under the amende...

M/S Focus Motors Ltd., (Formerly Benz Motors Ltd.) and Another Vs. G. ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties 1 and 2 in OP No.324/04 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The appellants are under orders to supply to the complainant a defect free new tyre or pay its price Rs. 4,350/- and compensation of Rs. 1,000/-. 2. The case of the complainant is that she purchased a Tata 709E vehicle on payment of Rs. 5,05,528/- on 29-06-2002 for carrying students of the complainants to school. It is her case that after 500 kms of running one of the back tyres got cracked. The opposite parties refused to replace the same. It was intimated that the 3rd opposite party M/s CEAT Tyres had imported the tyre and that there is no manufacturing defect. A complaint was filed as OP No. 471/03 before the CDRF which was dismissed for default. The restoration petition was dismissed on 26-07-2004 hence the present complaint filed. 3. The opposite parties had contended that the complaint is barred by limitation. It has also contended that expert evid...

Smt. Santhakumari M.A. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The writ petitioner is the appellant. She approached this Court mainly challenging Ext.P8 order of the 8th respondent, as per which, her claim for promotion to the post of Headmistress of the 5th respondent's school, in preference to the 6th respondent, has been rejected. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The appellant joined the school on inter-management transfer on 2.6.1977. It is the admitted position that 6th respondent has joined the said school earlier and therefore, she is senior to the appellant. But, the appellant claimed promotion, relying on her past service in the school, from which she was transferred, from 2.6.1975 to 2.6.1977. She had also another stint of service from 9.1.1974 to 20.3.1975 in that school. The seniority of a teacher in a school is governed by Rule 37(1) of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules. The said rule reads as follows:37. (1) Seniority of a teacher in any grade in any unit shall be decided with reference to th...

Sulaiman Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT264

ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. These Bail Applications are filed by Sulaiman, who is accused No. 5 in O.R. No. 2 of 2009 of Pariyaram Forest Range and accused No. 3 in O.R. No. 9 of 2009 of Vellikulangara Forest Range, for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The offence alleged against the accused is under Section 2(f)(i) and Section 27(1)(e)(iii) and (iv) of the Kerala Forest Act.2. The gist of the prosecution case in O.R. No. 2 of 2009 is the following: On 17.1.2009, when the Forest officials were inspecting Kumbidanmudi ANR Beat forest, they saw the stumps and branches of three sandalwood trees. A mahazar was prepared. O.R. No. 2 of 2009 of Pariyaram Forest Range was registered in respect of the same. On 24.7.2009, Prathapan and Karunakaran (accused Nos. 1 and 2) were found in the forest area with weapons for cutting trees. They tried to escape on seeing the forest officials. They were taken into custody. Prathapan and Karunakaran were involved in O.R. N...

Velayudhan Vs. R.T.O.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT565

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.1. Whether the tax payable in respect of the motor vehicle, a stage carriage, is to be fixed on the basis of the 'seating capacity' or on the basis of the 'actual seats' provided therein (particularly when the vehicle was initially registered in some other State with lesser number of seats; whereas on re-registration in Kerala, the vehicle is found to have the actual 'seating capacity' to a higher extent, in view of the relevant rules) is the issue involved in this Writ Petition.2. The stage carriage bearing No. KL 14/C 9292 was originally registered in the State of Karnataka, in the name of one B.K. Viswanath of Prasad Motors; from whom, the same was purchased by the wife of the petitioner on 11.12.2001. But when the vehicle was brought over to Kerala and sought to be re-registered here, the registering authority in Kanhangad refused to re-register the vehicle which forced her to approach this Court by filing O.P. No. 14994/2002, leading to the judgment repor...

Neena Vs. Public Service Commission

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT258

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. A mistake in mentioning the category code by the petitioner in the application is a fatal one or not, is the question that arises for decision in this Writ Petition.2. The petitioner is a Post Graduate in English with B.Ed. qualification. The Public Service Commission invited applications for filling up the post of H. S. A. English in all 14 districts and petitioner was an applicant from Kozhikode District.3. By Ext.P1, she was invited to participate in the written test. Therein, her category code was noted as 83/2006 By-Ext.P2 memo she was informed that her application stands rejected, as instead of category 83/2006 it is mentioned wrongly as 84/2006 in her application. Ext.P3 is the copy of the notification published by the Public Service Commission. Category 83 is for direct recruitment from open market and 84 is for appointment by transfer.4. The petitioner's contentions are many fold. It is submitted that a mistake, if at all in the category is immater...

Santhamma Vs. District Magistrate

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT172

R. Basant, J.1. The petitioner has come to this Court for issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus to cause the production of and direct the release of her husband Victor, S/o. Youhanan who is under detention by Ext.Pl order passed by the first respondent under Section 3 of the Kerala Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KAAPA'). The said order was issued on 28.10.2009. The detenu was taken into custody in execution of that order on 6.11.2009. The order of approval under Section 3(3) of the KAAPA has already been passed by the Government. The order of confirmation under Section 10(4) of the KAAPA has not been passed so far. The detenu has been classified as a known goonda. Reliance is placed on five cases. The following are the five cases relied upon:-------------------------------------------------------------------------Sl. Crime No. Date of Offences Stage RemarksNo. offence alleged of thepro-ceedings -------------------------------------------------...

G 4 S Security Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Satheesh Kumar

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT463

S. Siri Jagan, J.1. The petitioner in these two Writ Petitions is the common management in C.P. Nos. 52 of 2003 and 6 of 2004 before the Labour Court, Ernakulam. They are challenging the common order passed by the Labour Court in those two claim petitions, which is produced as Ext. P3 in both the Writ Petitions. The facts necessary for the disposal of these writ petitions may be summarized as under.2. Respondents 1 to 6 in W.P.(C) No. 10079/2009 and respondents 1 to 4 in the other were workmen employed by the petitioner. According to the workmen, in retaliation of their raising claim for minimum wages, they were terminated from service on false allegations. They filed the claim petitions before the Labour Court for recovery of the difference between minimum wages payable to them and the actual wages paid, difference in subsistence allowance payable to them calculated on the basis of minimum wages and overtime wages for overtime work done by them. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner...

T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd. Vs. K.C. Cherian and Another

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the second opposite party in CC No. 24/06 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The appellant along with the first opposite party is under orders to refund Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant with interest at 18% and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and also costs of Rs. 5,000/-. 2. It is the case of the complainant that on 25-10-1995 he booked Pengcot 309 car through the second opposite party, the authorized dealer of the first opposite party. He paid a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as advance infavour of the first opposite party. It was promised that the car will be delivered within 6 months from the date of booking. The car was not delivered even after the expiry of the above period. The complainant cancelled the order on 08-07-1997. But the advance amount paid has not been returned so far. 3. The first opposite party stood exparte. 4. The second opposite party has contended that he has no liability and that as per the terms and conditions ...