Kerala Court February 2009 Judgments

Anil Kumar B.P. and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(2)KLJ38

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.O.P. No. 34203/2002 & W.P. (C) Nos. 5929/08. S935/08, 5950/08, 5998/08. 6045/08. 23362/08 & 30902/081. In all these writ petitions, the challenge is against the order passed by the Government dated 13-02-2008 adopting the principle for fixing seniority between directly recruited Preventive Officers as well as the promotee category in the Excise Department. Once again, the perennial dispute between direct recruits and promotees has arisen for adjudication. The documents and other details are referred to herein as contained in Writ Petition No. 6045/2008.2. Shortly stated, the bare facts necessary for the disposal of the cases are the following: The Special Rules, viz Kerala Excise and Prohibition Subordinate Service Rules was issued as per G.O(P) No. 112/74/TD dated 9-9-1974. The method of appointment prescribed for the category of Excise Preventive Officers is (i) direct recruitment; and (ii) promotion from category (3) viz. Excise Guards, It is provided that ...

Kerala Plantation Workers Federation and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(2)KLJ724

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.1. Constitutional validity of Section 2(k)(ii) of the Plantation Labour Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') fixing the ceiling of the monthly wages as Rs. 750/- so as to make a 'worker' eligible to claim the benefits under the Act has been subjected to challenge in these original petitions; particularly in view of the change in circumstances, when the minimum wages payable to the workers have been increased several times as per the notifications issued by the appropriate Government at different points of time, under the relevant provisions of law.2. The petitioners are the different Trade Unions registered under the Trade Unions Act, representing the major work force in the plantations in the State of Kerala, which come within the purview of the Plantation Labour Act, 1951. It is contended that though the prescription of the ceiling of maximum wages under Section 2(k)(ii) was constitutionally valid at the time of enactment, it has become obsolete ...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Leelamma and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2009Ker134

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Union of India represented by the General Manager, Southern Railway, who is the respondent in OA. No. 31/2006 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Emakulam Bench, is the appellant. The Tribunal allowed compensation of a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs together with Interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to the applicants, who are wife and children of one Sri. K. A. Poulose, who succumbed to the injuries sustained in an 'untoward incident' which took place on 24-6-2005 at Trichy Railway Station.2. The applicants before the Tribunal contended that the deceased was a passenger in Train No. 6177-A from Chennai to Trichy and when he tried to alight from the compartment at Trichy Station, the train moved with a jerk, thereby loosing his grip from the handle of the door and falling down between the train and platform. He succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. According to the applicants the deceased had purchased ticket to travel in the train, but the same was lost.3. The appellan...

Kottayam District Co-operative Hospital Vs. Regional Provident Fund Co ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2009)IVLLJ763Ker

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.1. The prayer in the Original Petition is to quash Exhibits P-1 to P-3 and Exhibit P-5, whereby the question of coverage under the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was answered against the petitioner. The petitioner has also sought for a declaration that the petitioner-Society will not come within the purview of the above Act and for consequential reliefs.2. The petitioner (Kottayam District Co-operative Hospital Society Ltd.) is a Society registered under the relevant provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, which is running a C.T. Scan Unit, a Neethi Medical Store and a Clinical and Pathological Lab. It is the specific case of the petitioner that no treatment is being offered to any patient; that the petitioner is not at all a 'Hospital' and hence, that the petitioner will not come within the' purview of coverage under the Act and the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (h...

State of Kerala Vs. A.K.P. Metals and Alloys

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2010)28VST131(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The revision is filed by the State against the order of the Tribunal passed pursuant to remand by this Court in the earlier round of litigation between the same parties. The respondent is engaged in purchase of scrap, recovery of metal therefrom in their refinery in sheet, round, etc., forms and also converting some of the items to utensils and selling the same. The items purchased are scrap of aluminium, bronze, etc., which after manufacture are sold in sheets, circles, rounds and as utensils. The respondent claimed exemption on the sale of metal in various forms and on sale of utensils on the ground that such sales are second sales because scrap metal purchased by them from out of which products are made have suffered tax in the State. In the first round of litigation this Court felt that the Tribunal has not taken into account the relevance of entry 121 of the First Schedule which provided for separate rate of tax on metal scrap other than those covered ...

D. Cleetus Vs. P. Ramakrishnan

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT: The appellant is the complainant in CC.105/2008 filed by him allegedly against the former counsel engaged by him. The CC was dismissed, as the complainant was continuously absent (as mentioned in the order). The complainant/party appeared in person. According to him the copy of the version filed in the Forum was not sent to him. He has sought for condoning his absence before the Forum. The counsel for the respondent has contended that there is no merit at all in the appeal and that the case is a fabricated and false one and that if any in case the matter is remitted back there should be an order to consider the preliminary objection as to the maintainability. In the circumstances and considering the fact that the appellant is a layman and party himself the order of the Forum dismissing the complaint for default is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Forum. The Forum is directed to hear the preliminary objection of the opposite party a...

Kitex Garments Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(1)KLJ753

S. Siri Jagan, J.1. The petitioner is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting garments. For the purpose of its business, the petitioner maintains a factory under the Factories Act. According to the petitioner, the factory employs about 1000 workers of which about 750 are female workers. The petitioner's buildings were assessed to building tax under the Kerala Building Tax Act. The petitioner claimed exemption from tax on the ground that the buildings are principally used as a factory. The petitioner was granted exemption as factory only in respect of a part of the buildings. Certain other buildings allegedly used as canteen, toilets, shelter and washing room were not exempted as part of the factory on the ground that the same are not part of the factory buildings. The mater was referred to the Government as required under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, pursuant to which Ext. P4 order has been passed by the Government refusing exemption in respect of a building s...

Panoli Surendran Vs. P.M. Mammootty

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(2)KLJ136

ORDERC.K. Abdul Rehim, J.1. The tenant is in revision against the concurrent findings of the rent control court and the appellate authority ordering eviction on the ground of bonafide need urged by the landlord under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The rent control petition was filed invoking grounds under Section 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Act. The courts below concurrently found that the landlord was not successful in establishing the ground under Section 11(4)(iii). But the Rent Control court found that the bonafide need projected by the landlord for starting his own business in footwears is well established. The appellate authority confirmed the findings.2. Heard Sri R. Surendran, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner at length. The main contention is against the findings of the courts below with respect to the first proviso to Section 11(3). We have the opportunity to peruse copy of the rent control petition, the objections file...

Joseph Kurian and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(2)KLJ270

K. Surendra Mohan, J.1. Substantial questions of grave import concerning protection of forests, arise for determination in the above writ petition. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, quashing Ext.P6 proceedings of the fifth respondent and -Ext.P7 letter of the third-respondent, as violative of the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. As per the impugned proceedings, the petitioner has been declined permission to irrigate his plantation by taking water from the Periyar river through the Reserve Forest Land.2. According to the petitioner, he along with his brothers are the owners of 70 acres of land comprised in survey Nos. 426/1-2, 407/1, 407/2, 429 and 430 (re-survey Nos. 104/4, 103/3, 114/7, 97/4, 97/7, 112/8 and block No. 23) of Malayattoor Village. The property lies along the northern side of Periyar river and is separated by a strip of forest land of about 150 mtrs width (Axattukada...

K.C. Rajendran Vs. S. Rani

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in OP453/2004 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.27440/- and Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as cost to the complainant. It is the contention of the appellant that he did not get a proper chance to counter the evidence adduced by the complainant. 2. Of course the Forum has noted that opposite party was absent continuously and was set exparte. 3. All the same considering the facts that the matter has been decided exparte, we are inclined to set aside the order and remand back the matter to the Forum on condition that the opposite party remit the entire amounts ordered to be paid in the Forum on or before 30.3.09. The amount of cost ordered can be permitted to be withdrawn by the complainant. 4. The matter will stand posted before the Forum on 8.4.09. 5. The Forum will issue notice to the complainant and permit the parties to adduce further evidence if they so ...