Kerala Court June 2010 Judgments

K.S. Mathew Vs. the Regional Transport Authority and

Court: Kerala

K. Surendra Mohan, J.1. The petitioner is a stage carriage operator conducting services on the route Kumaly-Ernakulam South with a stage carriage vehicle bearing registration No. KL-06/E 2399 on the strength of a regular permit that is valid up to 27.6.2011. As the petitioner's route is a long distance route covering 180 Kms, after the amendments made to the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, the petitioner's service can be operated only as a super fast service as per Rule 2(uc) of the Rules. Therefore, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application in the prescribed form seeking conversion of his service from a limited stop ordinary service to a super fast service. However, as per Ext.P3 proceedings, the Regional Transport Authority, Idukki has adjourned the matter, though the same was considered on 5.3.2010. According to the petitioner, the delay in passing final orders on his request for conversion is causing serious prejudice to him. Therefore, he seeks appropriate directions for an early d...

Poulose S/O. Varkey Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Kerala

P.Q. Barkath Ali, J.1. In this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act the claimant in OP(MV) 916/1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakkuda, challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal, dated, September 18, 2003 awarding a compensation of Rs. 3,70,000/- for the loss caused to the claimant on account of the death of his son George as a result of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident.2. The facts leading to this appeal in brief are these:The deceased George was aged 29 and was a Bus Conductor at the time of the accident. Initially the claim petition was filed by him claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him, but during the pendency of the OP he died. Therefore the present appellant, who is the father of the deceased, was impleaded as his legal heir. On May 27, 1999 at 9.15 a.m. the deceased was travelling in the bus bearing KRR 7806 as Bus Conductor. The bus was proceeding along Karalam - Vellikulangara public road a...

Nabeesa W/O. Late Kunjali Hassan Vs. the Fast Track Adalath Team No. V ...

Court: Kerala

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.1. The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of Ext. P3 stated as finalised by the first respondent/Fast Track Team under Section 17D of the KGST Act.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the course and proceedings pursued by the first respondent are per se wrong and illegal, being contrary to the relevant provisions of law and binding judicial precedents. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the impugned order passed by the first respondent was in the name of a person who was no more, which by itself makes the same null and void in all respects.3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.4. It is evident from Ext. P3 order passed by the first respondent that the notice issued to the assessee was returned with the postal endorsement that the 'addressee expired'. This was a notice with regard to the production of documents. In the next paragraph of the said order it is stated that pre-assessment notice ...

K.N. Madhusoodhanan Vs. K.N. Radhakrishnan

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN MEMBER The appellant is the opposite party in C.C.No.15/2007 of CDRF, Wayanad. The appellant is under orders to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.35,000/- and compensation of Rs.10,000/- along with costs of Rs.2,000/-. 2. The case of the complainant is that he entrusted the construction of doors and windows for his new house being constructed house to the opposite party. The assurance given by the opposite party at the time of entrusting the work was that the doors and windows would be fitted to the gap, left after erecting the wall lintel and roof works. When the complainant fitted the doors and windows in the gap provided, it appeared that the frame of the doors found to be not in same length and some of them were not tallying with the measurement given. The defective work of the opposite party caused heavy loss to the complainant and he will have to spend about Rs.20,000 for the construction of doors and windows afresh. He has also sought for a sum of Rs....

T. Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Kerala,

Court: Kerala

Antony Dominic, J.1. The petitioner is Assistant Registrar of Fisheries, aspiring promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar of Fisheries. Vacancy in the higher post arose on 31/03/2010. Departmental Promotion Committee was convened on 29/03/2010. Complaining that though his case was considered, for no valid reason his junior is going to be promoted, this writ petition was filed.2. On behalf of the 1st respondent a statement has been filed. It is stated that though the name of the petitioner along with three others were considered by the DPC, it was decided not to recommend the name of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar of Fisheries on the ground that the Deputy Director of Fisheries, Kozhikkode vide Annexure R1(a) letter reported that disciplinary proceedings are initiated against the petitioner on allegation of financial irregularities. It is stated that the proceedings are pending and it is because of the pendency of the proceedings, his junior Smt. K.K. Sul...

Whirlpool of India Ltd. Vs. the State of Kerala,

Court: Kerala

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.1. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the correctness and sustainability of Ext. P3 notice of detention issued under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act, doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit to the extent as specified therein.2. The petitioner is a dealer in Home Appliances. It is stated that in connection with promotional exercise, various items including Reebok Shoes, Reebok sun glasses, watches etc., which are to be given to the prospective customers as complementary items, were also being procured by the Company, which is being pursued strictly in conformity with the relevant provisions of law. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the only reason for detention stated in Ext.P3 is doubting whether the said items are included in the Registration Certificate of the Company dealing with Home Appliances. It is based on the said suspicion that security deposit has been demanded, which however cannot be factually corre...

P.E. James S/O. P.M Eanos Vs. State of Kerala,

Court: Kerala

Antony Dominic, J.1. Petitioner retired as Assistant Executive Engineer from the 3rdrespondent Municipality on 31.3.2007. His grievance is regarding the inordinate delay in payment of DCRG and other terminal benefits.2. Municipality had filed a statement detailing its financial constraints and submitting that, in any case the payments will be made within 10 months. On the other hand counsel for the petitioner, explaining his financial difficulties seeks an order for immediate payment.3. Although it is true that pursuant to the interim order of this Court, Municipality has already paid Rs. 1 lakh to the petitioner. Municipality admits that the balance amount is still due. The amount claimed being terminal benefits, Municipality cannot avoid payment of the dues. At the same time this Court cannot forget the financial constrains of the Municipality also. In order to reconcile the conflicting claims, it is directed that the amount due to the petitioner shall be paid within six months from ...

N.V. Sebastian, Ist Grade Draftsman and ors. Vs. State of Kerala,

Court: Kerala

Antony Dominic, J.1. Petitioners 1 to 5 in this writ petition are First Grade Draftsman in the Public Works Department and the 6th petitioner is working in LSGD on deployment. Consequent on the implementation of the 8th pay revision commission report, the petitioners were given time bound higher grade fixation in the scale of pay as applicable to the promotion post of Assistant Engineer. Subsequently, that was cancelled by the authorities taking the view that the provisions contained in the table to the pay fixation order provided that 20% of the posts will be placed in the higher grade of Rs. 9190-15510/-. It is challenging the cancellation of the time bound higher grades in the scale of pay as applicable to Assistant Engineer, namely Rs. 11070-18450/-, and for quashing the orders fixing the pay in the higher grade of Rs. 9190-15510/-, this writ petition is filed.2. It is now brought to my notice that this very issue came up for consideration before this Court in WP(C) No. 23518/08, w...

K.N.Ramachandran Nair. Vs. Chief Conservator of Forests.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker146

1. Petitioner is a Deputy Ranger in the Forest Department. While working at Tattekkad Forest Station, by Ext.P1 order dated 18.9.2008 he was placed under suspension pending disciplinary action. Subsequently, Ext.P2 memo of charges was issued to the petitioner in June, 2009 and Ext.P3 is his explanation. Immediately thereafter he was reinstated in service by Ext.P4 dated 17.7.2009 without prejudice to the continuance of the disciplinary proceedings already initiated against him. 2. Petitioner submits that, since there has not been any progress in the matter and that in the meanwhile by Ext.P5 order dated 4.12.2009, certain Officers have been promoted to the post of Range Officer and that he has been denied promotion on account of the pendency of the disciplinary action. Petitioner contends that, the promotions by Ext.P5 being only temporary, pendency of disciplinary action should not have been taken as a reason to deny promotion to him. It is also his contention that even for regular pr...

M/S Sakthan Thampuran College and Jauram Education Centre (P) Ltd., Vs ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in CC.95/09 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad. The appellant is under orders to refund a sum of Rs.6000/- to the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party/Educational institution contrary to the advertisement published did not include the retired heads of department or professors as members of the faculty and further the classes were over crowded and the same were run in very much congested space. The opposite party at first agreed to refund the fee but later retreated. Complainant has sought for refund of Rs.11236/- with interest at 18% and Rs.10,000/- as cost. 2. The opposite party has denied all the allegations. 3. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavit of the respective parties and Exts.A1 to A4 and B1 and B2. 4. The opposite party/appellant has sought for an opportunity to produce evidence with respect to the period of attendance of the complainant and other details. 5. In...