Kerala Court October 2011 Judgments

Marikkar Motors, Branch Manager Vs. Baburaj and Others

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

1. The first opposite party in CC.292/08 before the CDRF, Thrissur is the appellant herein who is aggrieved by the order dated 20.11.10. As per the impugned order, the opposite parties are under directions to return Rs.4,14,440/- to the complainant with interest at 12% per annum from the date of purchase till realization with cost of Rs.2500/-. 2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he has purchased an Ambassadar Car through the first opposite party for a sum of Rs.4,14,000/- by availing a loan and that after the purchase of the car, the engine of the car started heating up excessively and the oil consumption also became high. When the defects were reported to the 1st opposite party the vehicle was directed to be brought to the first opposite partys workshop and the vehicle was kept in the work shop from 10/1/08 to 8. 2.08 and the vehicle was returned on 8.2.08 after replacement of the half engine of the vehicle. The complainants case is that even after replacement of...

M/S. Muthoot Pappachan Consultancy and Management Services, Muthoot Ce ...

Court: Kerala

1. A petition was filed by appellant-establishment before the Employees Insurance Court (‘Insurance Curt’, for short) under Section 75 and Section 77 of Employees State Insurance Act (‘the Act’, for short for a declaration that i) appellant-establishment is not coverable under the Act ii) that Inspector of the respondent-Corporation need not make any inspection under section 45 of the Act and also to set aside Ext.A6 as null and void. 2. As per the averments in the application, appellant-establishment does not constitute a factor under the Act. The appellant does not come within the purview of any notification issued under the Act or Rules thereunder either by Central Government or by State Government. But, respondent - Corporation sent Ext.A6 notice dated 17.2.1999 to the appellant stating that provisions of the Act are made applicable to the appellant with effect from 1.7.1998. A reply was sent by appellant denying the allegations regarding coverage and ...

M.K. JibIn Shah Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

COMMON ORDER P. S. Gopinathan, J. 1. These revisions under S.63 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act are filed by the common assessee assailing the legality and correctness of the common order in TA VAT Nos.168 and 169 of 2010 on the file of the Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam. The OTRV No.81/2010 relates to the assessment year 2007-2008 and the other revision relates to the assessment year 2008-2009. As the revision petitions are against the common order and that the disputes are connected, these revisions are disposed of by a common order. 2. The facts leading to the revisions are as follows: On 02/01/2009, the Intelligence Officer (I.B), Thrissur, made a surprise inspection at the business establishment in the name and style M/s.Relax Todays Kitchen, at Irinjalakuda. No Books of Account was seen maintained in the establishment. Four diaries, four note books, two bill books and a file containing order forms were seized from the establishment. On the following day, t...

Abdul Arshad Vs. the State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

The Petitioner in these Bail Applications, Abdul Arshad, seeks bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He is one of the accused in several crimes registered at different Police Stations. The petitioner was arrested on 11.6.2011 in one case and his formal arrest was recorded in several other cases. In some of the cases, formal arrest of the petitioner is not recorded. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in the crimes relating to three of the Bail Applications (B.A. Nos. 7429 of 2011, 7485 of 2011 and 7548 of 2011), the petitioner is not made an accused. 2. The offences alleged against the accused are under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (Central Act No.43 of 1978) (hereinafter referred to as “Prize Chits Act”). 3. The petitioner herein and some other accused persons had filed Bail Applications before this Court on an earlier occasion. Those Bail Applicat...

Girish Babu, G. Vs. the High Court of Kerala

Court: Kerala

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. This is a public interest litigation filed by a law student for a direction to the High Court to reject the request of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram to transfer C.C. 6 of 2003 pending before him to another court. We have heard counsel appearing for the petitioner and have gone through the petition and the News paper report annexed thereto. 2. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that false, motivated and baseless allegations were made against the Vigilance Judge which prompted him to recuse himself from hearing the matter by requesting the High Court to transfer the case to another court. The contention raised is that those who made allegations against the Judge are not parties to the litigation and so much so, the allegations are motivated, which the Judge should have ignored. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and after going through the writ petition and the documents and the News paper cuttings ...

Linda John Abraham Vs. Business India Group Company and Others

Court: Kerala

1. The complainant in CC.692/09 renumbered as CC.52/2010 which is now pending before JFCM - III, Mavelikkara, is the petitioner. The complaint was filed against four persons namely; against the company, its chairman, Managing Director and another Director. The complainant filed a petition for amendment to introduce a plea to the effect that accused Nos.2 to 4 were/are persons in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. That plea was not raised in the original complaint filed by him. The second and third accused are the Chairman and Managing Director. The cheques were signed by those persons. Hence there would be no difficulty to sustain the prosecution, provided the case is otherwise acceptable. 2. So far as the 4th accused is concerned, it was not specifically stated in the complaint that at the time the offence was committed he was in charge of and was responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. According to the learned counsel f...

P.M. Ashraf Vs. the Senior Intelligence Officer and Another

Court: Kerala

1. The petitioner is the accused in O.R.No.2 of 2010 on the file of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Calicut, for the offence under 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘NDPS Act’). The petitioner seeks bail in this Bail Application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The prosecution case is the following: The Intelligence Officer, DRI, Calicut, got specific information at 16.20 hours on 24-12-2010 that a person aged about 40 years, with slight limp while walking, would be present near the main ticket counter of Calicut Railway Station at about 5 P.M. with 500 grams of heroin in his possession, for the purpose of carrying the same to Kuttippuram. The Intelligence Officer reduced the information in writing and transmitted the same to the Senior Intelligence Officer, DRI Regional Unit, Calicut. The officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence proceeded to the spot. Two persons availabl...

P. Surendran Varuvila Veedu, Naruvamoodu Vs. Jagadeesan Oversear Naruv ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBERThe order dated:30.04.10 of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in CC No. 123/03 is challenged in this appeal by the complainant who is aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint by the Forum below. 2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he is a consumer of the opposite parties and that he was remitting the current charges regularly and further that on 1.3.02, the meter of his connection no.7 was changed and a new meter was installed in its place. Aggrieved by the said change of meter he filed complaints before the higher authorities of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. It is his case, that the higher authorities did not take any action on his complaints though he had given his statement on 15.1.03. It is further alleged that the tariff of his another connection bearing consumer no. 3467 was arbitrarily changed by the opposite parties and though he had complained about the said proceedings, nothing was done by the opposite parties and t...

Baiju K, Kollam and Others Vs. the Government of India, Ministry of To ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(4)ILR(Ker)609; 2011(4)KLT115(C.No.127)(SN); 2011(4)KHC377

RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. 1. When Writ Appeal No.1251/2011 was heard before this Bench, all the parties agreed that the issue raised in the Writ Appeal is the same as raised in the connected W.P.(C)s. and, therefore, at the request of parties all the cases are posted together and heard by us. The issue raised in the connected cases is whether there is encroachment of land by the hotel owners and whether the construction of the building is in violation of the building permit issued by the Panchayat. We have heard Senior Counsel Sri. C.C. Thomas appearing for the hotel owners, Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayat, Government Pleader for the State authorities and Senior Counsel Sri. Darmadan appearing for the public interest litigant who filed W.P.(C) No.6384/2011. 2. Before proceeding to consider the issues raised in the separate cases filed, we have to consider the broad facts and controversy arising in the cases. The petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.17074/2010, 34130/2010 and 3422/2011 a...

Sivasankara Pillai and Another Vs. Narayana Pillai and Others

Court: Kerala

M. Sasidharan Nambiar, J. 1. Plaintiffs 1 and 3 in O.S.119 of 1992 on the file of Munsiff Court, Adoor are the appellants. Legal heirs of the deceased sole defendant are respondents 1 to 3. Second plaintiff is the fourth respondent. On his death, additional respondents 5 to 7 were impleaded as his legal heirs. Learned Munsiff passed a preliminary decree for partition in respect of item No.2 of the plaint schedule properties but dismissed the claim for partition of item No.1 of the plaint schedule properties. Appellants challenged the decree before Additional District Court, Pathanamthitta in A.S.19 of 1996. Learned Additional District Judge confirmed the findings of the learned Munsiff and dismissed the appeal confirming the dismissal of the claim for partition of item No.1 of the plaint schedule properties. Appeal is filed challenging the decree. The appeal was admitted formulating the following substantial questions of law. 1) Whether the redemption taken by Sri. Narayana Pillai is f...