Kerala Court June 2010 Judgments

The Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Kseb Kollam and Others Vs ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite party/KSEB in CC28/07 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The appellants are under orders to revise the impugned bill ie; Ext.P2 excluding the surcharge. The appellants are also under orders to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation. 2. The dispute is with respect to the assessment of surcharge amounting to Rs.48,403/-. In the bill issued, the surcharge related to the period from 1/96 till the date of issuance of Ext.P2 bill which was issued on 8.1.07. 3. We find that on issuance of the back assessment bill on the basis of the inspection of APTS the matter was challenged by filing a suit before the Munsiff Court, Kollam. The District Court, Kollam in appeal directed the complainant to file an application before the Electrical Inspector and directed the appellants to issue bill on the basis of the assessment by the Electrical Inspector. Ext.P2 bill was issued on the basis of the assessment by the Electrical Inspector. The surcha...

Shipna Jose Vs. Registrar

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLJ978

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioner herein seeks for a direction to the respondents herein to consider Ext.P9 application to correct the name of the petitioner as Shipna Jose, place of birth as Mercy Hospital, Manickamangalam, Kerala, the name of the father as Marottikudy Paily Jose and name of mother as Ambika Jose.2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondents.3. Before her marriage, the petitioner, along with her parents was residing in Kalady Grama Panchayat. She was born at Mercy Hospital, Manickamangalam. Her father's name is Marottikudy Paily Jose (M.P. Jose) and mother's name is Ambika Jose. Ext.P1 is the copy of the Secondary School Leaving Certificate wherein the name of the petitioner is shown as Shipna Jose, the name of father is shown as M.P. Jose and mother's name is shown as Ambika Jose. She completed her pre-degree from M.G. University in the year 2001. Ext.P2 is the certificate issued by the University, wherein also her name...

Shyamaprasad M. S/O. Madhavan Vs. State of Kerala, the Director Genera ...

Court: Kerala

Antony Dominic, J.1. Petitioner is a Deputy Superintendent of Police. According to him, in Ext.P1 select list of Dy.S.Ps' fit for promotion as Superintendent of Police (Non IPS), he was included at Sl. No. 43. It is stated that in order to sabotage his chances of promotion, disciplinary proceedings were got initiated, and by Ext.P2, an Enquiry was ordered, which was followed by Ext.P2(a) appointing an enquiry officer. It is stated that, thereafter, yet another disciplinary proceedings were initiated by Ext.P3, where also by Ext.P3(a), an enquiry officer was appointed. It is stated that till the time when the writ petition was filed, there was no appreciable progress in the disciplinary proceedings, as a result of which, he has already been overlooked in the matter of promotion to the higher post of Superintendent of Police (Non IPS). It was in these circumstances, he has filed this writ petition challenging the proceedings and also for a direction to consider his candidature for promot...

N.P. Vinodkumar and ors. Vs. the Malabar Devaswom Board, the Temple Co ...

Court: Kerala

Antony Dominic, J.1. Heard both sides.Exts.P1 to P3 are the orders issued by the 4th respondent appointing the petitioners as Junior Accountant, Attender, Mat Boy, Room Boy and Receptionist in the services of the 4th respondent. Apparently, in pursuance to Ext.P5, the first respondent has issued Ext.P4 proceedings to the 4th respondent directing termination of the service of the petitioners. On the basis of Ext.P4 when the 4th respondent initiated further steps for impelemnting the said order this writ petition has been filed.2. Although several contentions have been raised on the merits of the order itself, still having regard to the fact that Ext.P4 order was issued without putting the petitioners on notice or giving them an opportunity to file objections or hearing them, I do not think it is necessary for this Court to enter into the controversy at least at this stage.3. In the circumstances I dispose of this writ petition directing that Ext.P4 shall be treated as notices, requiring...

P.P. Abdul Nazar S/O. Ahammed Koya Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board,

Court: Kerala

P.R. Ramachandra Menon J.1. The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of Ext.P3 demand notice, alleging theft of electricity, stated as detected in Ext.P2 mahazar, pursuant to the inspection conducted by the Special Squard headed by an Assistant Engineer on 20.05.2010. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, the liability fixed upon the petitioner is not correct or sustainable in the eye of law. More so, since the authority concerned has not chosen to pass any provisional order, giving an opportunity to file the statement of objections, which in turn has virtually nullified the right of appeal, submits the learned Counsel. Reliance is also placed on to the facts and figures reflected from Ext.P1 series of bills issued for the prior periods, showing only a much lesser liability.2. The learned Standing counsel submits that the facts and circumstances leading to the inspection and the contents of Ext.P2 mahazar are not much disputed with reference to an...

C. Job, Job Traders Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and

Court: Kerala

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.1. The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of the condition imposed in Ext.P6 interim order passed by the appellate authority, whereby the petitioner has been directed to satisfy 30% of the amount due and furnish security bond for the balance amount before the assessing authority on or before 31.5.2010, so as to avail the benefit of interim stay during the pendency of appeal.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, the case projected by the petitioner against Ext.P1 impugned assessment order has not been properly looked into by the second respondent while passing Ext.P6 interim order. It is also contended that the instructions laid down by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes vide Ext.P2 dated 16.11.2002 were also not taken into consideration, whereby the defect noted is liable to be treated as 'technical' one or rather non significant or undue weight should not have been given to such aspects/circumstances. It is also contented that, the ground t...

Asha K.S. Vs. State of Kerala Rep. by the Director and the Principal, ...

Court: Kerala

Antony Dominic, J.1. Petitioner is a Post Graduate in Physics with B.Ed. She was appointed under Rule 9(a)(1) of the Rules as a Non Vocational Lecturer. From the pleadings, it would appear that she rendered almost 10 years of service and the last order extending her the period of appointment is Ext.P1.2. She claimed regularization by filing OP No. 11968/02 and during its pendency, her services were dispensed with from 31/3/2003. In the meanwhile, Government issued Ext.P2 order dated 26/8/02 directing continuance of persons like the petitioner in deserving and exceptional cases. Ext.P2 to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:Government have examined the matter in detail and are pleased to order that the services of the provisional employees continuing in service asper the Circular No. 9516/Adv.Cl/02/P&ARD; dated 9.3.95 and Government letter No. 9516/Adv.Cl/92/P&ARD; dt 17.3.98 will not be regularised. It is also ordered that each case of the provisional employees continuing in serv...

C.K. Satheesh S/O. Kesavan Nair Vs. Canara Bank and

Court: Kerala

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.1. The petitioner had availed a housing loan of Rs. 2 lakhs from the respondent Bank in the year, 2002, creating security interest over the property in question. It is stated that, due to some unforeseen circumstances petitioner could not effect the installments as scheduled, which made the Bank to proceed against the petitioner under the SARFAESI Act, declaring the account as 'NPA'. The petitioner is challenging the steps taken by the Bank on many a ground.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by filing this Writ petition because of the threat to take physical possession of the premises, adding that the petitioner would clear the entire 'overdue' amount, provided some breathing time is given in this regard3. The learned Counsel appearing for the Bank submits that, a total sum of Rs.1.66 lakhs is due in respect of the defaulted installments and unless and until the 'overdue' amoun...

Hdfc Bank Ltd. Vs. the Intelligence Officer and

Court: Kerala

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.1. The petitioner is challenging the sustainability of the condition imposed by the appellate authority as per Ext.P4 order, whereby the petitioner has been directed to satisfy 50 % of the disputed liability and to furnish sufficient security bond for the balance amount, so as to avail the benefit of interim stay during the period of appeal. True, the time to satisfy the condition was extended subsequently, on an application preferred by the petitioner, as borne by Ext.P5 order dated 19.5.2010.2. The case of the petitioner is that, sale of the vehicles concerned, which have been hypothicated with the Bank, in connection with the advance arranged in favour of the persons concerned, are liable to be sold in auction for realizing the amount due to the financier. Such an instance will not attract the tax liability; especially when such vehicles have already suffered tax at the first instance of sale and not taxable any further, submits the learned Counsel for the ...

Sachidanandan.G. Vs. Coco-cola India Ltd., and Others

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT No representation. Dismissed....