Kerala Court December 2009 Judgments

Leela Mathew Vs. the Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd.

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in OP 117/04 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The complaint stands dismissed. It the case of the complainant that herself and her deceased husband was having mediclaim insurance policy with the opposite party/National Insurance Company Ltd. for a sum of Rs.50,000/- each for the period from 1-10- 2002 to 30-09-2003. Prior to the above policy they were having mediclaim policies continuously for the preceding 3 years from the Oriental Insurance Company. On 24-06-2003 her husband felt chest pain and breathing difficulty and was taken to Mary Matha Hospital, Vazhithala and from there he was referred to Holy Family Hospital, Muthalakodam, Thodupuzha. He was admitted therein and thereafter taken to AIMS, Kochi on 27-06-2003 and he was inpatient therein till 09-07-2003. He died at the hospital on the same day. The medical bills amounted to Rs. 56,847.80. The claim was repudiated on the ground that her husband was having pre ...

Ajikumar S/O. Prabhakaran Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Basant, J.1. The petitioner has come to this Court to challenge an order passed under Section 3 of the Kerala Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the `KAAPA') directing his preventive detention. The petitioner has not been arrested. He claims that he is entitled for an opportunity to challenge the order of detention prior to its execution and actual detention.2. The law on the point is well settled. Addl. Secy., Govt. of India v. Alka Subhash Gadia : 1992 Supp (1) SCC 496 has been explained in Deepak Bajaj v. State of Maharashtra : AIR 2009 S.C 628. It is certainly not the law that invariably in every case the detenu has to wait till he is detained to challenge the order. But it is a salutary rule of self restriction imposed by the courts that unless there are compelling and clinching circumstances, the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution will not be invoked in a case of preventive detention before the actual detention takes place. After D...

P.B. Abdul Basheer Vs. Agricultural Income Tax and Commercial and Tahs ...

Court: Kerala

Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge declining to interfere with the orders impugned in the WPC for the reason that appellant has effective alternative remedy under the statute. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellant and Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.2. Appellant is a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, hereinafter called the 'Act' engaged in blasting, crushing and sale of granite chips and jelly popularly known as crushed metal. During the assessment year 2008-09, vide Ext.P1, the assessing officer granted appellant the facility to pay tax at compounded rate which was based on machine capacity at Rs. 1.6 lakhs. However, appellant's case is that on account of objections from neighbours, appellant could not run the unit and consequently he could not remit tax in terms of Ext.P1. When notice for recovery was issued vide Ext.P2 dated 19.2.2009 appellant remitted Rs. 55,000/- in three ...

Unnikrishnan Vs. Manager, C.A.H.S.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT354

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The point that arises for decision in this appeal is whether the claim of the dependent of an employee to get appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme in an Aided School, could be defeated by the Manager, on the ground that the application for the same, though submitted within the prescribed time limit, was not in the prescribed format. The 4th respondent in the Writ Petition is the appellant and the writ petitioners are respondents 1 to 4 herein.2. The skeletal facts, necessary for the disposal of the appeal, are the following:The appellant's father was a Full-time Menial in the first respondent's school. He died in harness on 19.7.2000. Soon thereafter, the appellant's mother submitted Ext.P3 representation dated 22.7.2000, before the first respondent Manager, praying that the appellant may be given employment under the dying-in-harness scheme. A translation of the relevant portion of Ext.P3 representation reads as follows:As you are aware, my husband ...

V.G. Sasidharan Nair and K. Lalitha Sasidharan Vs. the Director Genera ...

Court: Kerala

Basant, J.1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners, a couple, for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce their daughter Anju Lakshmi, a young woman, aged above 22 years (date of birth 01.07.1987), who was employed as a Nurse at Bangalore and who allegedly was missing from 28.11.2009. The petitioners entertained an apprehension that their daughter Anju Lakshmi was being illegally detained and confined by the 3rd respondent, a classmate of the said Anju Lakshmi, in active collusion with his father the 4th respondent.2. This petition was filed on 03.12.09. It was admitted on 04.12.2009. Notice was ordered to the respondents and the case was posted to this date.3. Today when the case is called, the petitioners are present along with their counsel. The 3rd and 4th respondents have appeared before the Court. No counsel has filed vakalat on their behalf. But they are accompanied by Advocate Muralidharan, who, it is submitted, was appearing for them before ...

Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Radhakrishnan and A ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above first appeal is preferred from the order dated 19th February 2009 passed by CDRF, Kottayam in CC No. 179/07. The complaint therein was filed by the respondents herein as complainants against the appellants/opposite parties alleging deficiency in service in taking forcible possession of the vehicle owned by the complainants and in selling the said vehicle without the consent of the complainant. The complainants also alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in demanding a further sum of Rs. 2,64,191/- towards the loan transaction. The opposite parties entered appearance and contented that there was a higher purchase agreement entered into between the complainants and opposite parties and that the opposite parties were having the power and authority to repossess the vehicle on default in making monthly instalments due to the opposite parties under the higher purchase agreement and that they have also empowered to ...

New India Assurance Company Ltd., Kalpetta North Vs. J. Augustin

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Wayanad in the file of OP No. 153/2000 dated 30-06-2004. The appellant is the first opposite party in the above OP who prefers this appeal from the above impugned order. 2. In short, the complainant is the registered owner of the Jeep No. T.N. 43 Z/225. The vehicle was insured with the opposite party with effect from 29-09-1999 to 28-09-2000. On 09-01-2000 while the Jeep was going with passengers, it met with an accident by the hit of the lorry bearing Registration No. T.N. 36/898 which came an excessive speed. Due to the impact of the hit, the jeep was thrown out from the road and it was extensively damaged. The accident was reported to the opposite party and a survey report was prepared by its officials. As per the instruction of the opposite party the jeep was repaired at Friends Auto Workshop at Edakkara in Malappuram District. The opposite party collected all the original bills and vouchers fr...

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M.V. Sreedharan Nair

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/New India Assurance Company in OP 773/01 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from 02-02-2000 and costs of Rs. 6,00/. 2. The case of complainant is that he is the holder of Karshaka Raksha policy of the opposite party. During the period of policy coverage he sustained an accident. As a result of it he is having total and permanent disablement. The claim submitted accompanied by the relevant documents were repudiated. 3. It is the contention of the appellant/opposite party that the complainant is entitled only for Rs. 5,000/- towards hospitalization expenses for grievous injury subject to the production of original bills of treatment. It is contended that the above bills and prescriptions were demanded as per letter dated 14-05-2001 but the same were not produced. It is contended that the complainant has not sustained permane...

Priyan S/O Prakasan and Sunil @ Container Suni Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010CriLJ1138

P. Bhavadasan, J.1. Five persons were arrayed as accused in Crime No. 110/2005 of Ettumanoor Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 417 read with Section 34 IPC. Initially, A1 and A2 alone were available for trial and the other three accused, including the appellants herein, were absconding. Later on, the appellants surrendered before Court and they stood trial. The appellants were found guilty of the offences alleged against them and were sentenced to the punishment mentioned earlier. Death Sentence Reference is filed as per Section Section Cr.P.C.2. The case of the Prosecution, in brief, is as follows:Praveen, a young man, aged about 20 years, at the time of the incident and the elder son of PW1, was employed with the first accused in the case, namely, Shaji, who was then functioning as the Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Kerala Police Department. He was serving at Malappuram, at the relevant time. Praveen was engaged as a Conductor of the bus,...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kuttukkaran Engine Rebuilders

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT793

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. This appeal is filed against the order of the Tribunal holding that the appeal is not maintainable before it for the reason that the tax effect is nil. According to the Tribunal, for filing appeal by the Department before it, tax effect should be above Rs. 2 lakhs. Since this is a case of reduction of loss on account of disallowance in assessments, the Tribunal held that the tax effect is nil. Standing Counsel rightly pointed out that the Tribunal has not correctly understood the scope of tax effect in the case of business concerns which are entitled to carry forward business loss to subsequent year and set off against income computed for that year. We are in agreement with this contention because tax effect need not be for the year of assessment itself, but it can be for subsequent years. When the loss computed is allowed to be carried forward, then the assessee can claim a set off of the same against another year's income which will go to reduce tax liabi...