Kerala Court June 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.
Moon Timber Suppliers Vs. Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-02-2010
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved of Ext.P3 notice dated 25.5.2010, whereby the petitioner has been directed to satisfy a further sum of Rs. 7,21,082/- towards the tax payable within 24 hours; lest penal action under 67 should be initiated.2. The petitioner, who is doing business in Plywood, Veneer, Packing Case and Timber, is a registered dealer under the KVAT Act, as borne by Ext.P1 certificate. The petitioner had filed return in respect of April 2010 belatedly, as borne by Ext.P2 acknowledgment issued by the concerned respondent. While so, the petitioner was served with Ext.P3 notice dated 25.5.2010 stating that the 2nd proviso to Section 12(1) of the KVAT Act was amended through the Finance Bill 2010 and as per the said amendment, the dealers in Plywood, Packing Case and Veneers were excluded from taking special rebate for the goods purchased under Section 6(2) and consumed or resold in the month itself.3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the lapse on ...
G. Janardhanan S/O Gopalan Nadar Vs. Director of Indian Systems of Med ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-02-2010
Antony Dominic, J.1. The petitioner is a Pharmacy Attender, aspiring promotion to the post of Pharmacist Grade-II. The Special Rules were amended with effect from 19/11/2008 and the grievance of the petitioner is that in respect of vacancies, which are available prior to 19/11/2008 also, applying the Special Rules as amended, vacancies are proposed to be filled up. It is with this grievance, this writ petition is filed.2. Amendment to the Special Rules was made only on 19/11/2008. If any vacancy was available prior to that date, those vacancies will have to be ascertained and filled up on the basis of the Special Rules as it prevailed on that date, namely, the unamended Rules. Therefore, if prior to 19/11/2008 vacancies were available and the petitioner is eligible in terms of the unamended Rules, certainly the claim of the petitioner is liable to be considered.3. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for promo...
Ssd Oils Mills Company Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner,
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-02-2010
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.1. The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of Ext.P4 order, whereby the petitioner has been directed to satisfy 30% of the disputed liability and to furnish sufficient security for the balance amount, so as to avail the benefit of interim stay during the pendency of the statutory appeal in respect of the assessment year '2006-07'. The very same order also directs the petitioner to satisfy the liability as specified therein in respect of the assessment year '2007-08' with regard to which the petitioner does not have any challenge or grievance as projected in the Writ Petition.2. The respondents have filed a statement seeking to sustain the course and events pursued by the respondent, giving facts and figures with regard to the extent of liability involved, thus seeking to sustain the impugned order.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the initial liability of the petitioner has been substantially brought down as reveal...
V.K. Sheeja, Special Village Officer Vs. the Commissioner of Land Reve ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-02-2010
Antony Dominic, J.1. Ext.P4 is the provisional seniority list of UDC/SVO for the period from 01/11/1998 to 30/06/2004. The petitioner complains that despite her entitlement to be included in the provisional seniority list, her name was not included. It is stated that although, she has filed Ext.P5 objections seeking inclusion in Ext.P4, orders have not been passed thereon. It is stated that while the matter is pending as above, as per Ext.P6, promotions are being effected on the basis of Ext.P4. It is stated that she claimed promotion by filing Ext.P8 before the 1st respondent and Ext.P8 is also not considered. It is in these circumstances this writ petition has been filed.2. Going by the submissions made the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is evident that the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the higher post was allegedly overlooked for the reason that her name was not included in Ext.P4 provisional seniority list. Therefore, at the first instance what is required is tha...
Abide C.H Vs. North Malabar GramIn Bank,
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-02-2010
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.1. The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved of the steps taken by the respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act, seeking to realize the amount stated as due from the borrowers of a loan availed from the Bank, from whom the petitioner had purchased the property, without knowing the security interest created over the said property. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, the third and fourth respondents herein had secured a loan from the second respondent Bank, creating security interest over the property and the petitioner was a bonafide purchaser.2. The learned Counsel for the Bank, with reference to the contents of the statement, submits that the Writ Petition is not maintainable, as the petitioner is a total stranger as far as the Bank is concerned and the action being pursued by the Bank is only against the 3rd and 4th respondents/borrowers and the property over which security interest was created, which hence is perfectly in tune with ...
Mathen Mathew Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-02-2010
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.1. The petitioner availed two loans from the respondent Bank for purchasing of two tipper lorries bearing No. KL.29/6964 and KL 29/3170. But the EMI of Rs. 20,970/- and Rs. 23,000/- in respect of the vehicles could not be effected on time, under which circumstances, the Bank proceed with further steps for realisation of the due amount, invoking the provisions under the SARFAESI Act, which forms the subject matter of challenge in this Writ Petition.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had approached the Bank for statement of accounts; but in vain. It is stated that the some Civil Suits are pending before the Munsiff's Court, Harippad and it is without any regard to the pendency of the said proceedings, that the Bank took steps for re-possession of the vehicles with the assistance of the District Magistrate, Alappuzha, as borne by Exts.P3 and P3(a) orders passed under Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act.3. The learned Counsel for t...
Beena D/O Kuriakkose Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Represented by Pay a ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-02-2010
Antony Dominic, J.1. Petitioner's husband, Shri. Moncy Joseph, was a Constable in the Delhi Police from 15/02/1989 onwards. While in service he expired on 08/11/1997, as a result of which, family pension and DCRG were sanctioned to the petitioner. While receiving those benefits, she got remarried, rendering her ineligible for continued payment of pension. However, according to the petitioner, despite her ineligibility, her minor daughter is entitled to be paid family pension and that she has not been paid her dues. It is with this grievance, the writ petition is filed.2. In the statement filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent, it is stated thus:Accordingly the petitioner was intimated as per letter dated 15/01/2004 that after remarriage she is not entitled for family pension but her daughter Elizabeth Maria Joseph is eligible for family pension. She was also requested to submit the papers of her daughters which contains the photographs of her daughter identification mark, bank account u...
A.R.S. Vadhyar Vs. the Kerala State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-02-2010
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to assess compensation payable to the petitioner under Section 10(d) of Indian Telegraph Act, consequent to the installation of tower and drawal of 110 KV electric lines through the petitioner's property comprised in survey Nos. 547/1, 547/2 and 547/4 of Ollur village and to disburse the compensation as expeditiously as possible2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, despite satisfying all the requirements by furnishing the relevant documents, the respondents have not chosen to disburse the compensation to the petitioner so far, stating some or other untenable reason, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this Writ Petition.3. The respondents are stated as insisting for, production of 'up to date' possession certificate. The possession was very much there, when the electric lines were drawn and thereafter, the pet...
Jayaprakasan S/O. Bahuleyan Vs. the District Collector,
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-02-2010
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for the following reliefs:i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to provide reasonable time to the petitioner to liquidate the liability covered by Exts. P3 and P4 and to keep in abeyance the recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner in the interest of justice. Seek and this toii) pass any such or further orders as the petitioner may Hon'ble Court deem fit to grant.2. When the matter came up for consideration on 31.3.2010, coercive steps were intercepted on condition that the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on or before the 20th of April, 2010 and another Rs. 10,000/- on or before the 20th of May, 2010.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the condition has been complied with and the remaining liability will come nearly Rs. 26,737/-. The learned Counsel further submits that the petitioner does not intend to press any of the grounds r...
Malabar Finance Corporation (Asf) Vs. Devassia K.P, S/O Poulose and Ot ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jun-02-2010
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT Appellant is the 1st opposite party/Finance Company in CC.89/08 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad. The appellants are under orders to issue clearance certificate with respect to the amount financed. The Forum has directed that in case the 1st opposite party fails to do so the 3rd opposite party, RTO, Wayanad is to cancel the hire purchase endorsement in the RC book. The opposite parties 1 and 2 ie, the Finance Company and the intermediary is directed to pay Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost. The dispute is with respect to the finance advanced for the purchase of a Mahindra Jeep. As per the hire purchase agreement entered into allegedly through the 2nd opposite party the 1st opposite party has advanced a sum of Rs.1,05,000/-. As per the agreement the hire charges are calculated at Rs.50,200/-. As per the agreement the above amount ie Rs.1,55,200/- is to be repaid in 32 instalments starting from 8/2/2004. 20 instalments are to be repaid ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »