Kerala Court May 2010 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
M/S T.P.Agencies, Mavoor Road, Calicut Vs. T.Sugesh
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-27-2010
JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/dealer in CC.361/09 in the file of CDRF, Kozhikode. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards compensation and cost of Rs.1000/-. 2. The case of the complainant is that he purchased first quality floor tiles from the opposite partys showroom for a sum of Rs.37599/-. Tiles after laying in his newly constructed house was found to have varied in colour. The complainant had approached the opposite party several times and also sent notice. 3. The opposite party/appellant stood ex parte at the Forum. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1; Exts.A1 to A6. 5. The Forum has relied on the testimony of PW1 and ordered only a compensation of Rs.15000/- and cost of Rs.1000/-. 6. The explanation by the appellant for his non appearance before the Forum is that on receiving the notice he had contacted the complainant and requested him to implead the manufacturer who would settle all ...
Vijayakumari Vs. Shylaja D/O Sathyabhama and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-26-2010
1. The controversy in these Writ Petitions is about the custody of a child. The child is aged one year only. Vijayalakhsmi, the respondent in W.P(C) No. 14531 of 2010 and the petitioner in W.P(Crl) No. 180 of 2010, is the mother of the child. Shylaja, the petitioner in W.P(C) No. 14531 of 2010 and the 1st respondent in W.P(Crl) No. 180 of 2010, is the sister in law, ie. the sister of the father of the child. The 4th respondent in W.P(Crl.) No. 180 of 2010 is the father of the child. The father of the child is employed abroad. The child is now in the custody of Shylaja, paternal aunt of the child. O.P Nos. 359 of 2010 and 1328 of 2009 are pending before the Family Court, Nedumangad in respect of the custody of the child. Various interim orders have been passed. There have been applications for review of the orders and review of the reviewed orders.2. We have heard both sides. We are satisfied that these Writ Petitions can now be disposed of by issuing specific directions regarding the c...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hotel Meriya
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-26-2010
P.S. Gopinathan, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the Department under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'IT Act') against the assessee. The assessee M/s. Hotel Meriya, Pala is running a bar attached hotel and was subjected to assessment with PAN.FV.4140. On 28.6.2001 a search was conducted under Section 132 of the IT Act. During the search, though no material was disclosed to show that there was suppression of business, it was revealed that there was suppression of sale outcome. Cash book was seen recorded upto 25.6.2001. Cash book showed a cash balance of Rs. 21,31,523/-. But, the physical balance was only Rs. 34,552/-. On interrogation of the Managing Partner and the employees it was revealed that only 80% of the actual sales turnover in respect of liquors are recorded in the cash book. Consequently, the respondent was served notice to file return under Section 158BC of IT Act. In response to the notice, a return was filed on 4.1.2002 as Sl. No. 866. ...
Riyas Nettur Veettil Puthiyapurayil and N. Ummerkutty Vs. Najeeb S/O. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-26-2010
R. Basant, J.1. The petitioners are a husband and his father. The 1st petitioner/husband is aged 38 years. He is employed abroad. The 2nd petitioner is the father of the 1st petitioner. He is aged 64 years. He resides in India.2. The wife Reshma (4th respondent) and children of the 1st petitioner were living with the 2nd petitioner. The wife and the children were allegedly found missing from 05/03/2010. A complaint was made. The Chokli police registered a crime. The 4th respondent Reshma (wife) and two children - five years and two years, were traced by the police. They were produced before the learned Magistrate. On 13/03/2010, when they were produced before the learned Magistrate, the 4th respondent Reshma stated that she is not under illegal confinement or detention. The allegation of the petitioner was that she was being illegally detained and confined by the other party respondents. In the wake of the statement by Reshma, an adult major married woman with children, the learned Mag...
Riyas Nettur Veettil Puthiyapurayil and N. Ummerkutty Vs. Najeeb S/O U ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-26-2010
R. Basant, J.1. The petitioners are a husband and his father. The 1st petitioner/husband is aged 38 years. He is employed abroad. The 2nd petitioner is the father of the 1st petitioner. He is aged 64 years. He resides in India.2. The wife Reshma (4th respondent) and children of the 1st petitioner were living with the 2nd petitioner. The wife and the children were allegedly found missing from 05/03/2010. A complaint was made. The Chokli police registered a crime. The 4th respondent Reshma (wife) and two children - five years and two years, were traced by the police. They were produced before the learned Magistrate. On 13/03/2010, when they were produced before the learned Magistrate, the 4th respondent Reshma stated that she is not under illegal confinement or detention. The allegation of the petitioner was that she was being illegally detained and confined by the other party respondents. In the wake of the statement by Reshma, an adult major married woman with children, the learned Mag...
Vamalochana Vs. Ajayakumar and V. Salimkumar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-26-2010
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The Execution first appeal is filed with a petition to condone an enormous period of delay of more than six years. The plea in support of the application for condonation of delay is that the appeal was wrongly presented before the District Court, that it was entertained, but ultimately returned for presentation before the proper court. With this, we examined whether the appellant/petitioner has a prima facie case for admission of the execution first appeal.2. The 1st respondent sued the 2nd respondent on a strength of an agreement for sale. The title held out by the 2nd respondent was on the basis of a gift to him by his mother. The appellant is the 2nd respondent's mother.3. When the decree was put in execution, the appellant filed an application invoking Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the gift deed shown to have been executed by her in favour of her son, the defendant/judgment debtor. In support, another son of the appel...
Shron Peter S/O. Lonan Peter Vs. the Commissioner of Police,
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-26-2010
R. Basant, J.1. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce Sruthi, a young woman aged 20 years (date of birth: 23/11/1989), who, the petitioner apprehended, is being illegally detained and confined by the 4th respondent, her father. According to the petitioner, he and Sruthi are class mates. Both have studied for B.Com degree. Final examinations are offer. They had occasion to meet each other and be intimate. They had decided to get married. Once they had tried to elope, they were taken to the police station. There, it was recorded that after the petitioner (date of birth: 26/6/1989) attains the age of 21 years, they shall be free to decide on their future. But, according to him, Sruthi, who was taken from the police station by her parents, was subsequently being detained, confined and subjected to torture and ill treatment by her father. She was about to be given in marriage to some other person agains...
Moideen Hajee, Manager Vs. Food Inspector,
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-26-2010
ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. The petitioner herein is the third accused in C.C. No. 480/2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Erattupetta. He is the Manager and Nominee of the fourth accused Firm. The offences alleged against him are those punishable under Section 7(1) read with 16 1a(i) and read with Section 2(ia)(m) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The article of food involved is gingelly oil.2. The case is now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Erattupetta as C.C. No. 480/2009. The petitioner has not appeared before that court in response to the summons issued against him. He has filed this application to quash all proceedings in the above.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that, since the prosecution was launched on 4.8.09, i.e.; after April 2009, which was the expiry date of the gingelly oil, the petitioner could not effectively exercise his right under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration A...
Ashik Mehtab S/O. M.K.C. Kulliati and Salih S/O. Soopy Vs. Balakrishna ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-26-2010
ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. The petitioners who are two of the accused in Crime No. 359 of 2004 of Perambra Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 308 read with Section 149 I.P.C. seek to quash all further proceedings in the said case. The case against the first petitioner is now pending before the Assistant Sessions Court, Quilandy as L.P. No. 7 of 2008 and the case of the 2nd petitioner is pending before the said Court as S.C. No. 174 of 2009.2. Admittedly, non-bailable warrants of arrest are pending against the petitioners. According to the petitioners the co-accused in the case have been acquitted after trial in S.C. 129 of 2006 on the file of the same court as per Annexure - 1 judgment dated 29-10-2008. The petitioners would have it that the matter has been settled between the petitioners and the de facto complainant as is represented by his Counsel. If the offences do not involve any money dispute personally between the parties the offences cannot be...
Union of India (Uoi) Represnted by Secretary and ors. Vs. M.K. Vincent ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-26-2010
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the Central Board of Excise and Customs and as also the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent on the notice.2. The short issue arising for decision is whether this Court, under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, should interfere with the interpretation given by the Central Administrative Tribunal to O.M. No. 36034/6/90- Estt. (SCT) dated 2.4.1992 extracted at paragraph 9 of the impugned order of the Tribunal. The O.M. relates to age relaxation as admissible to Ex-servicemen for securing another higher civil appointment.3. The respondent, an Ex-serviceman was appointed in the Central Excise Department in Group-D post. Later, he aspired for being appointed to Group-C post by promotion. Group-C and Group-D are brought within the canopy of the O.M. dated 2.4.1992 as is clearly discernible from a plain reading of the portion of the O.M. quoted in paragraph 9 of the impugned order. Not only t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »