Kerala Court January 2010 Judgments

Padmakumary Vs. Lekshmikutty Amma

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT554

S.S. Satheesachandran, J.1. The Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:i) Set aside Ext.P2 order passed by the Sub Judge's Court, Attingal.ii) Direct the court below to refund the Stamp Duty remitted by the petitioners in their 2/3 share within the time limit fixed by this Hon'ble Court, in the light of Article 42 of Kerala Stamp Act.iii) Grant such other relief that this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.2. Challenge raised in the Writ Petition is against Ext.P2 order passed by the learned Sub Judge dismissing an application moved by the petitioners for refund of the court fee, which, according to them, was paid by mistake in respect of the share alloted to them under a compromise decree passed in a suit for partition. The parties entered into a compromise by which petitioners were provided 2/3 of the plaint property and the defendant 1/3 share in that property. Previously compromise petition filed by the parties as indicated above was re...

Joshi Vs. Benny Kurian

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT711

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Writ Appeal is filed by respondents 4 to 6 in the W.P.C. who were joint licensees of TS 37 in Group VII of Kaduthuruthy Excise Range, challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge holding that appellants are not entitled to retain the toddy shop licence and carry on business in the building to which they have shifted under Ext. P2 orders of the Deputy Commissioner of Excise which is confirmed by the Excise Commissioner vide Ext.P 10, We have heard senior counsel Sri. C.C. Thomas appearing for the appellants-licensees, counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3, who are the petitioners in the W.P.C, and Government Pleader appearing for the departmental authorities.2. Admittedly, toddy shop No. 37 was in existence in the area Madhuraveli, where it is presently located for the last over 50 years. During the financial year 2008-09, toddy shop was located in a building which was required for it's owner for construction of a house for his son. Therefore the ...

The K.S.E.B, Rep. by Its Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram and Others Vs. ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUDGMENT SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 30th June 2005 passed by CDRF, Kottayam in O.P.295/04. Appellants were the opposite parties and the respondent was the complainant in the said O.P.295/04 which was filled alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing Ext. A5 Electricity bill dated 06.12.04 for Rs.13,100/-. The opposite parties denied the alleged deficiency of service. They contended that the impugned bill for Rs.13,100/- was issued based on average consumption of energy as provided under clause 31( C ) of the conditions of supply of electrical energy. 2. We heard both sides. 3. Admittedly the meter was found defective. At the instance of the respondent/complainant (consumer) the matter was referred to the Electrical Inspector who submitted report dated 21.06.2003 stating that the meter was defective. It can be seen that the Electrical Inspector reported the fact regarding the defective natu...

The Proprietor, Cheruvathur Petroleum Agency Vs. Abdul Majeed

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in CC.43/06 in the file of CDRF Kasargode. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.13000/- and cost of Rs.2000/-. 2. The case of the complainant is that his Maruti Swift car taken to the petrol pump of the opposite party and that they filled it with diesel instead of petrol. The vehicle stopped on the way and had to be taken to the authorized service station by towing and pay a sum of Rs.5500/- as repairing charges, Rs.2000/- for towing the car and another Rs.1000/- for fueling the car. A sum of Rs. 30,000 is claimed as damages. 3. The opposite party/appellant had filed version totally denying the allegations. It is suggested that vehicle might have stopped on the way due to mechanical defect. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of Ext.A1 to A5 and the proof affidavits of the complainant and the opposite party. 5. The Forum has relied on the documents produced ie, Ext.A1 cash memo issued by the opposit...

Thrissur Corporation, Represented by Its Secretary Vs. Sudhan and Othe ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the 3rd opposite party in CC 454/2007 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The appellant is under orders to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 12%. 2. The complainant is an occupier of the room owned by the appellant for the monthly license fee of Rs.1551/- from 19.4.2006. As against the assurance of the opposite parties it was found that there is no power supply. It was learnt that the previous owner left with the arrears of Rs.11,130/- to the electricity Board. He is not in a position to get new electricity supply without clearing the arrears. 3. The 1st and 2nd opposite party/KSEB had contended that the electricity connection was disconnected and dismantled as the previous occupier did not pay electricity charges. As per rules for giving fresh connection the previous arrears has to be paid. 4. The appellant/3rd opposite party has filed version contenting that as per the terms and conditions of quotation not...

Sunilkumar and Another Vs. Ravindran and Another

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT Appellants are the opposite parties in CC.199/2006 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.16,353/- etc. to the complainant. 2. The matter relates to the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the appellants in not returning the amount paid by the complainant after the vehicle that belonged to the appellants were taken by the complainant allegedly giving Rs.25000/- as rent advance and Rs.1000/- as rental per day. The case is that on the first day itself the vehicle hit on a wall and that the appellants repaired the vehicle and got the amount reimbursed by the Insurance Company but did not return the amount paid by the complainant as advance. It is contended that the complainant is the uncle of the 1st appellant which is allegedly suppressed by the complainant. The document produced which is the photocopy of the alleged agreement is denied by the appellants and it is contented the same is a fabricated...

Jacob Alex Vs. the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Kseb, Adoor ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated:13th October 2008 passed by CDRF, Pathanamthitta in CC.180/06. The appellant was the complainant and the respondents 1 to 3 were the opposite parties 1 to 3 in the said complaint in CC:180/06 which was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing A1 penal bill for Rs.33,750/- and also to get the aforesaid amount refunded. It was the case of the complainant that he remitted the aforesaid amount covered by A1 bill as he was threatened by disconnection of the electricity supply. The opposite parties entered appearance and contended that A1 bill was issued under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and that the inspection conducted by the officials of the KSEB detected unauthorized use of electricity and thereby A1 penal bill was issued. Thus, the opposite parties denied the alleged deficiency of service. 2. Before the Forum below the complainant was exam...

The Secretary, K.S.E. Board, Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram and ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUDGMENT SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER It is aggrieved by the directions contained in the order dated 30-11-2005 in OP No. 80/2001 of CDRF, Pathanamthitta that the opposite parties have preferred this appeal contending that the order of the Forum below is illegal, unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. By the impugned order the opposite parties are under directions not to disconnect the electric connection of the complainants premises in respect of consumer No. 4235 and to pay compensation of Rs. 3,000/- and costs of Rs. 1,000/- The complainants are further directed to refund Rs. 6,911/- to the complainant on application by the complainant. 2. The complainant has approached the Forum alleging that she was served with two additional bills amounting to Rs, 2,852/- for the period from 3/00 to 9/00 and for Rs. 1,422/- for the period from 9/00 to12/00. The complainant alleged deficiency of service in issuing such bills as she was remitting the monthly charges without fail. The c...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kerala Chemicals and Proteins Ltd.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [2010]323ITR584(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The question raised is whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee is not liable to pay interest under Section 234D on excess refund granted while sending intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act for the assessment year 1999-2000. We have heard senior counsel appearing for the appellant-Revenue and senior counsel Sri Joseph Markose appearing for the respondent-assessee.2. During the previous year relevant for the assessment year 1999-2000 the assessee had remitted substantial amount of advance tax. However, in the return filed the assessee claimed refund of over Rs. 47 lakhs which was granted after processing the return and while sending intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act. This was done on June 28, 2000. However, the assessce's case was taken up for regular assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act and the Assessing Officer completed the assessment on January 22, 2004, wherein it was found that refund granted while sending int...

Sugunan Vs. Kunnamkulam Municipality

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT430

Antony Dominic, J.1. In this Writ Petition, the challenge is against Ext.P 11, an order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions.2. Petitioner states that he is a resident of the 1st respondent Municipality. Ext.P8 is a notice issued by the respondent Municipality inviting bids for private sector participation in the implementation, construction, operation and maintenance of E.K. Nayanar Memorial Bus Terminal Complex at Kunnamkulam, Thrissur. It is stated in Ext.P8 that the project will be implemented on a Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) basis by the party selected from amongst those bidding on the basis of Ext.P8. Although several persons purchased tender documents and participated in the pre-bid meetings, finally bid was received only from the 3rd respondent herein, M/s. Ganga Constructions. The bid was considered and by Ext.P9 resolution, the Municipality resolved to accept the offer made by the 3rd respondent with a concession period of 17 years and 11 months...