Kerala Court August 2009 Judgments

The Secretary, Kseb Vs. K. Sajumon

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER: The above appeal is directed against the order dated 19th April 2005 of the CDRF, Kottayam in OP.No.246/04. The complaint in the said original petition was filed by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellants as opposite parties claiming compensation of Rs.10,000/- and also for getting the disputed bill dated 13.9.04 (Ext.A1) cancelled. The complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing the disputed bill dated 13.9.04. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version disputing the alleged deficiency in service. They contended that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer under the opposite party/KSEB and that the electricity supply is being given for running a business and so the complainant cannot be considered as a consumer coming within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is further contended that the disputed bill was issued ba...

B.S.T. and P.S.P. Workers Union (C.i.T.U.) Vs. Government of India and ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(2)KLJ913

ORDERS. Siri Jagan, J.1. A very vexing question as to the interpretation of the Companies Act, 1956, the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (WSICA' for short), and the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, ('Securitisation Act' for short) in respect of a claim of workmen of a company in liquidation under Section 529A of the Companies Act, as against a secured creditor who has sold the assets of the company in liquidation In exercise of their powers under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation Act, before the order of winding up arises in this case. The facts necessary for disposal of this case are as follows:2. The Board of Directors of M/s. BST Ltd. (the Company in Jiquidation) made a reference dated 19.11.2003 to the Board of Industrial Finance and Reconstruction ''BIFR' for short) under Section 15 of the SICA which was received by the BIFR on 21.11.2003. The BIFR issued notices to all the secured cred...

State of Kerala and ors. Vs. Lucy Lonappan

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(3)KLJ65

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The point that arises for decision in this appeal is, the validity of G.O (P) No. 437/92/Fin. dated 24.6.1992 (Ext.P7), as per which, the family pension payable in terms of G.O.(P) No. l46/86/Fin. dated 11,2.1986, was ordered to be paid only with effect from the date of submission of a valid application for grant of family pension. In view of the conflicting decisions of different Division Benches on this point, the matter has been referred by a Division Bench to the Full Bench for an authoritative pronouncement2. The brief facts of the case are the following:The appellants herein were respondents in the writ petition. The respondent was the writ petitioner. The respondent/writ petitioner is the widow of late K.J. Lonappan, who Was a constable (PC No. 1792) in the Malabar Special Police, Malappuram. He died on 7.10.1962, while In service. The family pension was payable under Rule 90 of Part III, of the Kerala Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the K.S...

Rajesh P.T. Vs. the District Collector and Chairman and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(3)KLJ129

Thottathil B. Radhakrishan, J.1. The petitioner challenges Ext.P1 decision of a District Single Window Clearance Board.2. The Government of India approved a project for setting of Common Facility Centre for Wood processing cluster at Puzhakkattiri Panchayat in Perinthalmanna Taluk with a project cost of 160.23 lakhs and the State Government grant in -aid would be Rs. 45.78 lakhs. The balance of Rs. 22.89 lakhs, being 10% of the project cost, is to be contributed by the 4th respondent, which is the special purpose vehicle approved by the Government for the purpose. On the basis of the aforesaid, the 4th respondent filed application before the Single Window Clearance Boards and Industrial Township services, Malappuram, after obtaining permission from the Forest Department. The General Manager, District Industries Centre and Convener, Single Window Clearance Board is authorised to issue directions to the aforesaid agencies.3. In challenging the aforesaid decision, the plea taken by the pe...

Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [2010]187TAXMAN185(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee Bank against the order of the Tribunal confirming the order issued by the CIT under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act directing the Assessing Officer to make proportionate disallowance in respect of expenditure incurred on items of income which do not form part of total income under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act. We have heard senior Counsel Sri Sarangan appearing for the appellant.2. The appellant is a Bank, the assessment of which was completed by Assessing Officer for the year 1997-98 without making pro rata disallowance in respect of expenditure incurred on items of income which do not form part of total income as provided under Section 14A of the Act. Assessee filed appeal against the assessment on some other issues and the CIT (Appeals) allowed the appeal in part and remanded the case for revision of assessment by Assessing Officer. In between, the CIT noticed that the Assessing Officer has not taken into ac...

Kseb Rep. by Its Sub Engineer Vs. V. Rahmath

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in CC.108/08 in the file of CDRF, Malappuram. The complaint stands allowed. The appellant/opposite party stood ex parte in the proceedings before the Forum. 2. In the circumstances and considering the nature of the dispute involved we find that reconsideration is required. In the result order of the Forum is set aside on condition that appellant deposit a sum of Rs.2000/- before the Forum. On deposit of the amount the Forum will permit the opposite party to file version and contest the matter. The Forum will issue notice to the complainant The matter will stand posted before the Forum on 18.9.09. Office is directed to forward the copy of this order to the Forum urgently....

The President, Thiruvalla East Co-op. Bank Ltd. Vs. the Joint Registra ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2009(3)KLJ409

Antony Dominic, J.1. The President of Thiruvalla East Co-operative Bank Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank' for short) has filed this writ petition praying to quash Ext.P11 order passed by the 1st respondent, in exercise of his powers under Section 32 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).2. Facts of the case are that election to the Board of Directors of the Bank was held in November 2004 and the Board of Directors, of which the petitioner is the President, assumed office on 06.11.2004. According to the petitioner, soon after they assumed office, the 3rd respondent filed complaint, (produced as Annexure I to LA. No. 12926/07) to the 1st respondent making allegations against the Board of Directors. On the basis of the said complaint, the 1st respondent ordered an enquiry under Section 65 of the Act. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent conducted an enquiry and submitted Ext.P4 report, recommending a detailed enquiry under Sec...

M/S.T.P. Agencies Vs. Mukundan

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT: The appellant is the opposite party in CC.201/08 in the file of CDRF, Kozhikode. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.65432/- and a compensation of Rs.1000/- to the complainant. 2. We find that the appellants stood ex-parte in the proceedings. The order is not a considered one. 3. In the circumstances, the order of the Forum is set aside on condition that the appellant deposit a sum of Rs.5000/- towards costs of the complainant before the Forum. The amount is to be deposited within 45 days from today. The amount can be withdrawn by the complainant. On deposit of the amount, the Forum will issue notice to the complainant and permit the petitioner to file version and adduce evidence. The matter will disposed of by a considered order. 4. The case will stand posted before the Forum on 19.9.09...