Kerala Court April 2009 Judgments

Seena Simon Proprietress, M/S. K.P.P. Flex World and Another Vs. Digis ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT FA.1/09 is filed by the complainant in CC 100/08 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. FA.60/04 is filed by the opposite party which is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.6,53,400/- and cost of Rs.1000/-. The complainant is came up in appeal vide FA.1/2009 pointing out that the amount paid itself is Rs.9,39,400/-. Although machinery was found defective the entire amount paid has not been ordered to be returned. So also the complainant had sought for a compensation of Rs.10 lakh. This aspect has not been considered by the Forum at all. 2. In FA.60/09 the appellant /opposite party that was set exparte in the proceedings before the Forum has sought for getting the matter remitted back to the Forum. It is contended that the counsel engaged failed to appear on the posting date. The appellant had forwarded to the counsel the version prepared by the lawyer at Madras where the company is situated. It is also mentioned that steps are being taken to file complaint b...

Asharaf a Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(2)KLJ268

ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. In this petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C, the petitioner, who is the sole accused in Crime No. 5 7 of 2009 of Elathur Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 354 & 452 I.P.C., seeks anticipatory bail.2. This application for pre-arrest bail has been filed on the assumption that all the aforementioned offences except the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC are bailable offences and that by virtue of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 (Act 25 of 2005) the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC is now non-bailable.3. Both the assumption made by the petitioner are erroneous. The offence punishable under Section 452 IPC is non-bailable, justifying the invocation of Section 438 Cr.P.C. The offence punishable under Section 354 IPC continues to be bailable notwithstanding the amendment of Cr.P.C. No doubt., going by Section 42(f)(viii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act of 2005, (Act 25 of 2005), it wo...

Seleena K.V. (Dr.) Vs. the Manager, Malabar Christian College and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(2)KLJ344

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The important question that arises in this writ petition is whether the Educational Agency is empowered to cancel the panel of names forwarded by the Selection Committee for appointment to the post of Lecturer in the College in question.2. The notification is one for appointment to the post of Lecturer in College, Calicut. A vacancy arose due to retirement of a Selection Grade Lecturer. Ext.Pldated 13,8.2007 is the notification.3. The petitioner was an applicant for the post. She is a Post Graduate in malayalam and has passed the National Eligibility Test and M.Phil, in Malayalam. She is having Doctorate in Malayalam language.4. The procedure for selection is in accordance with the Calicut University (Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of non- teaching staff) First Statutes, 1979. A Selection Committee was constituted as per Clause 4(1) of the said Statute and it comprised of two representatives of the Educational Agency, the Principal, the Head ...

Cit Vs. Chandrasekhar Balagopal

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2009)227CTR(Ker)308

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Revenue is in appeal before us challenging the order of the Tribunal whereunder they have cancelled the income escaping assessment completed on the respondent under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act on the ground that the officer has no jurisdiction to make the assessment. We have heard senior standing counsel appearing for the appellant-Revenue and senior counsel Sri. Aravind P. Dattar appearing for the respondent-assessee.2. During the previous year, relevant for the assessment year 2000-01, the respondent-assessee received an income of Rs. 3.9 crores under restrictive covenant from a Japanese company which took over the business of an Indian company of which respondent was the managing director. The assessee initially treated the receipt from the foreign company as his income and paid advance tax of Rs. 63,94,000. Later, the assessee remitted an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs towards self-assessed tax. The taxes so paid are in addition to the payment of TDS in th...

Anilkumar R. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(2)KLJ402

Harun-Ul-Rashid, J.1. The writ petitioner is a Full Time Menial appointed under the 5th respondent with effect from 1/11/2005 against a sanctioned vacancy. Petitioner seeks to quash Exts.Pl to P4 orders to the extent the said orders refused the approval of appointment. He also seeks for a direction to the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Full Time Menial and for consequential benefits including arrears of salary. Exts.Pl to P4 are the orders respectively issued by the statutory authorities rejecting the proposal for approval of appointment of the petitioner. The reasons stated for rejecting the proposal for approval are that as per G.O.(P) 178/02 Gen. Edn. dated 28/6/2002 the Government ordered that the appointment in newly opened/upgraded schools must be from protected teachers, since the school is a newly upgraded one, the proposal for approval was rejected for non-compliance with the terms of G.O.(P) No. 178/02 Gen. Edn. Dated 28/56/2002.2. In the counter ...