Kerala Court December 2010 Judgments

M.J.George. Vs. State of KeralA.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker467

1. The only question raised in the RP is the request of the State for reduction in interest in line with the other judgments of this Court. Government Pleader has produced orders dated 13.8.2004 in R.P.Nos. 478, 487 and 489 of 2004 wherein this Court has reduced interest from 12% to 7%. Following the said order we allow the review petition by modifying the judgment in the O.P. by limiting the respondent's eligibility for interest from 12% to 7%....

C.Gopinathan Nair. Vs. State of KeralA.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker971

1. The petitioners were Directors of a company incorporated, M/s. Malanad Cements and Allied Products (Pvt.) Ltd. According to them they resigned from directorship of the company with effect from 1.2.2004 and thereafter that they have no connection at all with the activities of the company. Ext.P1 is the statutory intimation filed in the prescribed form before the Registrar of Companies with respect to change of Directors. It is stated that the transfer of shares of the company was duly intimated to the 2nd respondent, who is the assessing authority under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act) as well as under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (KGST Act). But the petitioners were issued with Ext.P3 to P5 notices under Section 19C of the KGST Act and 26(a) of the KVAT Act, proposing assessment against them. Ext.P6 to P8 are the objections filed by the petitioners to the above said notices. Subsequently, fresh notices were issued by the 2nd respondent as per Ext.P9 to P11 proposi...

Smt. Beena George. Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker467

1. Aggrieved by Ext.P1 and P2 orders of assessments, the petitioner had preferred statutory appeals before the 2nd respondent, as evidenced from Ext.P3 and P4. Along with the appeals the petitioner had also filed stay petitions, as evidenced from Ext.P5 and P6. It is submitted that the appeals as well as the stay petitions are pending consideration and disposal before the 2nd respondent. Grievance of the petitioner is that without considering pendency of the appeals coercive steps of recovery has now been initiated pursuant to Ext.P7 revenue recovery notice issued under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968. 2. Considering pendency of the statutory appeals I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the appellate authority to expedite the matter. 3. The 2nd respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 and P6 stay petitions after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month ...

Arun Gopi. Vs. Director of Ayurvedic Medical.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker971

1. According to the petitioner, in the Medical Entrance Examination 2010, he secured Rank No.6324. He did not succeed in getting any admission, and apparently for that reason, he joined a college in Bangalore for BAMS Course. 2. Subsequently when Ext.P4 was issued announcing spot admissions, petitioner applied. However, when he appeared for the selection process, for the reason that certificates were submitted in the college where he was admitted, he could not produce the original certificates. It is stated that for want of the originals, he was not permitted to participate in the selection process and therefore this writ petition has been filed seeking appropriate orders directing that he should be granted admission. 3. Learned Government Pleader, who has obtained instructions in the matter submits that it was a condition of Ext.P4 notification that the candidates should produce the originals of their certificates as also the entrance data sheet, which indicate the rank of the candida...

VipIn C.P. Vs. State of KeralA.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker971

1. Petitioners are the accused and respondents 3 to 7 the de facto complainant and the injured in C.C.167/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Tirur taken cognizance for the offences under sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323 and 324 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure A2 final report. Petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings pending before the learned Magistrate contending that entire disputes with respondents 3 to 7 were amicably settled and consequent to the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. Respondents 3 to 7 appeared through a counsel and filed separate affidavit stating that they have settled entire disputes with the petitioners and consequent to the settlement, they have no grievance against the petitioners and therefore they have no objection for quashing the proceedings. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, respondents 3 to 7 and le...

Joy Joseph. Vs. Assistant Executive Engineer.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker143

1. Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P3, an order issued by the 1st respondent alleging that the petitioner has encroached into the road puramboke and made certain constructions. It is stated that such construction should be demolished and removed within two days. Based on Ext.P4, Ext.P3 dated 17/12/2010 was issued. It is apprehending that coercive action based on Exts.P3 and P4 will be initiated that the writ petition was filed. 2. Although on receipt of Ext.P4, he filed Ext.P5 reply, without considering the said reply or hearing him, he was issued Ext.P3. It is in the above circumstances, the writ petition was filed. Now that obviously the communications were issued without issuing notice to the petitioner or conducting any measurement after putting him on notice, coercive action if any taken on the basis of Exts.P3 and P4 will be in violation of the principles of natural justice. 3. In that view of the matter, I direct that Ext.P3 dated 17/12/2010 will be treated as a notice and the pe...

K.V.Joy. Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker143

1. Petitioners are the owners of 2.22.390 acres of land situated in Block No.41 of the Thiruvaniyur Village, which they acquired under different sale deeds. According to the petitioners, earth has been removed from the neighbouring lands, as a result of which, their property stands on the higher level. It is stated that due to absence of lateral support, there is risk of land sliding causing extensive damage to residential houses and other properties in the neighbourhood and that mainly to avoid any such untoward incident, they made an application to the 1st respondent seeking permission for the removal of the earth from the property and to bring to a lower level. 2. The application was considered and the 1st respondent passed Ext.P1 order allowing the request of the petitioners, subject however to the condition that no objection should be obtained from the 4th respondent Panchayath. Thereupon, the petitioners applied to the 4th respondent and the Panchayath passed Ext.P3 order. In Ext...

Prijith Prathapan, Manager. Vs. Hari.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker729

1. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: "i) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 5th respondent to consider Ext.P2 petition and take appropriate action thereon.ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 5th respondent to afford adequate and sufficient police protection to the petitioner and the staff and workers of the petitioner's hotel and bar, including free ingress and egress for the smooth conduct of the business therein. iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 5th respondent to afford adequate and sufficient police protection to the property of Sidhartha Bar and Hotel." 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is the Manager of Sidhartha Bar and Hotel run by a company. It is stated that the hotel is frequented by a large number of customers at the restaurant a...

The Manager, Ksb School. Vs.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker729

1. The petitioner is the Manager of KSB School, Karippode, Palakkad. According to him, during the academic year 2006-2007, a vacancy of Full Time Sanskrit Teacher arose on the retirement of one Mrs.Thylambal. It is stated that Thylambal was working as Full Time Sanskrit Teacher on the basis of Group C diversion. The petitioner appointed Sheebamol as Full Time Sanskrit Teacher in the vacancy of Thylambal. The Assistant Educational Officer approved the appointment of Sheebamol only as a Part Time Sanskrit Teacher. Challenging that order, the petitioner filed appeal before the Deputy Director of Education, who dismissed the appeal as per Exhibit P3 order dated 30.3.2007. On further appeal to the Director of Public Instruction by the Manager, that appeal was also dismissed as per Exhibit P4 order dated 18.3.2008. The petitioner challenged Exhibit P4 order in Exhibit P5 revision before the Government under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules. Exhibit P5 is pending disposa...

K.E.James, Idukkutharayil Vs. the United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:PRESIDENT Appellant is the complainant in CC.136/06 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The complaint stands dismissed. The case of the complainant is that the elephant by name Aravindakshan purchased by him for a sum of Rs.4.lakhs on 26/5/2003 died on 27/6/2003 due to acute Cardio Pulmonary failure. The elephant was covered by the policy of opposite party for a sum of Rs.3.lakhs. Postmortem was done by the Veterinary Surgeon on 28/6/2003. The claim was repudiated. The opposite party has contended that the condition of the policy that the opposite party ought to have been intimated immediately as to the death of the elephant has been violated. Clauses 4 and 6 of the conditions of the policy contains the above stipulation. It is alleged that the elephant was poisoned by the complainant. 2. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavits of the respective sides and Exts.A1 to A6 and B1 to B14. 3. The Forum has upheld the contentions of the opposite partie...