Kerala Court June 2009 Judgments

Rubfila International Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(3)KLJ443

C.K. Abdul Rehim, J.1. The petitioner is a Public Limited Company engaged in manufacture of the heat resistant Latex Rubber Threads. Petitioner is an approved exporter of the said product. Petitioner is challenging validity of Ext. P1 notification in this writ petition. Ext. P1 is issued by the Union of India, fixing the rate of cess on the Rubber produced in India and procured for export production by the Export Oriented Units and procured for export production by the Export Oriented Units (EOUs), Units in the Special Economical Zone (SEZ) and Units in the Export Processing Zone (EPZs) at 'zero paise' per Kg. According to the petitioner through Ext.P1 an exemption from payment of 'Rubber Cess' is granted to certain industries based on the locality where such industries are set up, and such an exemption is granted in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Further, it is issued by the Central Government without there being any power derived under the Rubber Act, 1947. If ...

The Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority Vs. Sunny Pau ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT Thee appellant is the opposite party/Water Authority in CC.80/07 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The bill issued b y the appellant for a sum of Rs. 1,94,510/- stands cancelled. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he had demolished the building in August 1995; and the building assessment was cancelled by the Corporation also in 1995. After clearing the water charges a request was made to the appellant on 22.8.95 for disconnection of the water connection. The same was disconnected and dismantled. A new building was constructed in the place and a new water connection obtained on 23.2.99. The complainant was making payment of water charges regularly. But on 29.12.2006 the appellant has issued a bill for Rs.1,94,510/- with respect to the arrears of the old water connection. The same was sought to be set aside. 3. It is the contention of the opposite party/appellant that building was demolished without disconnecting the water connection. Although...

Prakasan V.J. Vs. Vasudevan and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(2)KLJ679

ORDERS.S. Satheesachandran, J.1. Challenge in the revision to against the concurrent verdict of guilt rendered against the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 417 of the I.P.C. He was prosecuted on a complaint filed by the first respondent (hereinafter referred to as the complainant'). The accused had pleaded not guilty to the offence. Negativing his plea of not guilty, after trial, the learned Magistrate found him guilty of the offence under Section 417 I.P.C., and convicting him thereunder he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. In appeal preferred by the accused, the teamed Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and upheld the sentence without any modification. Against the concurrent finding of guilt and conviction and sentence imposed, the accused has preferred this revision impeaching its legality, propriety and correctness.2. Short facts involved in the revision can be summed up thus: The case of the complainant is that towards dis...

Johnson P. Anto and anr. Vs. Kseb

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(2)KLJ782

ORDERS.S. Satheesachandran, J.1. The respondents in C.R.P. No. 700/2006 who were the claimants before the court below seeking enhanced compensation from the Kerala State Electricity Board for the trees cut and removed from their property/towards the drawing of an electric line, have filed the present petition,-purporting it to be cross objections, to claim additional compensation which was not allowed under the impugned order passed by the court below. The Registry raised an objection on the maintainability of entertaining cross objections in a revision and on the request of the counsel the matter has been placed for consideration before the Court.2. I heard the counsel for the petitioners/respondents in the C.R.P. No. 700/2006 filed by the KSEB challenging the compensation awarded to the claimants before the court below. The learned Counsel relying on a decision rendered with respect to the ambit of revisional power covered by Section 20 of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control)...

Cinzac Technical Services Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2009)25VST165(Ker)

ORDERC.N. Ramachandran Nair, J1. The question raised in the revision filed by the assessee pertains to disallowance of exemption claimed under Section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act 1956, in respect of sale of a boiler to an industry in Kerala. The assessing officer noticed that the LR contained the ultimate consumer's name and address. Consequently the petitioner's case that it is a sale arranged in transit and made through endorsement of title to goods was rejected. In the two level appeals the finding of the officer is confirmed.2. Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the appearance of address of the consumer or even identification of the consumer by the original consignor, which is the manufacturer in this case, does not justify local assessment in Kerala. According to the counsel the transaction should be treated as inter-State sale from outside Kerala by the original consignor and therefore even after denial of exemption claimed under Section 6(2) of the CST Act...

Smt. Ayishumma and ors. Vs. T. Hassan and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2010Ker13

ORDERP.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.1. Whether the concerned Magistrate is entitled to decide the merits of the contentions as to the claim for exclusion of the property under Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act, while entertaining an application for assistance to take physical possession, invoking the power under Section 14 of the Act, is the subject matter of challenge.2. The only grievance projected in the present Writ Petition is against Exts. P7 and P8 proceedings, in connection with the application preferred under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri, whereby an Advocate Com- , missioner has been appointed to take over possession of the secured asset, pursuant to the application filed by the Bank in this regard. The case of the petitioner is that, the property herein is an 'agricultural land', which is not liable to be proceeded against, by virtue of the exclusion stipulated under Section 31(i) of the Act.3. The respondent Bank, while disputing t...

The Manager, St. Joseph's Model High School and Anr. Vs. Varghese K.T. ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(2)KLJ721

K. Baiakrishnan Nair, J.1. The point that arises for decision in this case is the validity of termination of a teacher by the Manager of a recognised, but unaided school. The appellants are respondents 3 and 4 in the writ petition. They are respectively the Manager and Headmaster of St. Joseph's Model High School, Kuriachira, Thrissur.2. The brief facts of the case are the following:-The first respondent herein was appointed as a probationary teacher in the first appellant's school by Ext.Pl order dated 5.8.1997 for the period from 5.8.1997 to 31.3.1998, According to the first respondent, even after the term in Ext.Pl, he continued in service. While so, he was issued with Ext.P2 certificate dated 10.8.1998 to enable him to apply for appointment elsewhere. According to him, he continued in the said school till he was terminated from service during the academic year 1999-2000. It was done to accommodate another person in his place. Aggrieved first respondent/petitioner, therefore, prefer...

Nishana Mol N. Vs. Alappuzha Municipality and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2009Ker203; 2009(2)KLJ789

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. In view of the directions of the Apex court in Seema v. Ashwani Kumar 2006 (1) KLT 791, the Government of Kerala issued the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008, hereinafter referred to as the 'Common Rules', The question raised in this writ petition is as to whether both the parties to the marriage have to be present in person before the authority for registration of a marriage under the Common Rules.2. The marriage of the petitioner was solemnized on 8.3.2009, The couple submitted the memorandum for registration of their marriage, in Form No. 1 prescribed under the Common Rules before the Local Registrar, an officer so appointed in terms of Rule 5 of the common Rules. The petitioner says that the certificate of marriage issued by the religious authority concerned, as document in proof of the marriage, and other relevant materials were produced along with the memorandum. The husband of the petitioner returned to a foreign country wher...

Dr. C. Vijayalakshmi Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(2)KLJ736

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.1. Whether the 'Teaching Experience' prescribed for Lecturers with Post Graduation, for granting grade promotion as Readers under the Directorate of Ayurveda Medical Education,, is the 'Post qualification experience' or whether 'total experience'- also accounting the experience obtained prior to acquisition of the Post Graduate qualification/is the issue involved herein, Since the Government/Department took the stand that it can only be the 'Post qualification experience' as held in Rabi v. State of Kerala 2007 (4) KLT 335 and hence that the petitioner is not eligible to have the benefit granted by the 3rd respondent with effect from the date of acquisition of the Post Graduate qualification, the amount already paid has been stated as excess payment and is sought to be recovered, which is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.2. The petitioner joined service as 'Tutor' in the Ayurveda Medical Maternity Hospital, Poojappura on 17.04.1990 and completed th...

K. Moidu Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009CriLJ4045; 2009(2)KLJ744

ORDERR. Basant, J.1. What is the Correct procedure to be followed, by a Sessions Court after closing fee evidence of the prosecution under Section 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.PC.') and before proceeding to hear arguments under Section 234 Cr.P.C? What is the effect of non-compliance with the mandate of Sections 232 and 233 Cr.P.C? Are the procedural stipulations mandatory? As soon as an omission/infraction of these provisions occurs, does it ipso facto vitiate the proceedings obliging the superior courts to set aside the verdict and concede acquittal to the accused or remand the case to the Sessions Court to recommence proceedings from that vitiated stage? Is proof of prejudice or possibility thereof in the facts of the given case to be insisted before such verdicts are set aside? These are the questions that arise for consideration before us in this Crl.R.P.2. The Assistant Sessions Judge in a prosecution under Section 306 IPC rendered a verdict of g...