Kerala Court December 2011 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.
The Secretary Kerala State Electricity Board and Another Vs. M. Venugo ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Dec-03-2011
SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellants are the opposite parties and respondent is the complainant in C.C. 15/07 on the file of CDRF, Palakkad. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing A2 Penal Bill dated 29.6.2006 for Rs. 11,973/- The opposite parties entered appearance before the Forum and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. They contended that the penal bill was issued based on the surprise inspection conducted by the Anti Power Theft Squad. It is further contended that evidencing the surprise inspection B1 site mahazar was also prepared by the Anti Power Theft Squad and the complainant affixed his signature on B1 site mahazar admitting the same. Thus, the opposite parties justified their action in issuing the Penal Bill for Rs. 11,973/- The complaint in C.C. 15/07 was once heard and disposed of by the CDRF, Palakkad vide its order dated 3rd March, 2009 allowing the comp...
G.N. Ravindra Panicker Vs. the Secretary, Kseb, Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Patt ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Dec-03-2011
SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHANNAIR, MEMBER This appeal is filed by the complainant in CC 5/10 before the CDRF, Pathanamthitta who is not satisfied by the direction contained in the order dated 18.1.2011 of the Forum below. As per the order, the opposite parties are under directions to pay a sum of Rs.750/- as compensation to the complainant. 2. The case of the complainant bereft of un-necessary details is that he had originally filed a complaint before the Forum as OP.107/05 and that the said OP was allowed in his favour whereby the Forum below directed the opposite parties to return Rs.60/- with 12% interest and compensation of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. However, against the said order, the opposite parties filed appeal before this Commission and that appeal was allowed in favour of the opposite parties. In the meantime, in the EP filed by the complainant the opposite parties were directed to pay an amount of Rs.1069/- and the complainant received the amount from the Forum below on executi...
K. Sureshkumar, Kuzhivila Puthenveedu Vs. United India Insurance Co.Lt ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Dec-03-2011
JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in OP.407/2001 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The complaint stands dismissed. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he had availed a janatha personal accident insurance policy. Subsequently on 25.11.99 during the period of coverage he met with an accident due to electric shock while carrying plumbing work and sustained serious injuries. He is unable to move his right hand and left leg. The Medical Board has certified a permanent partial disability of 60%. He is unable to do any work. The coverage is for Rs.1,00,000/-. The opposite parties have repudiated the claim. 3. The opposite parties/Insurance Co. has filed version contending that complainant has not entitled for the claim as per the terms of the policy. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1; Exts.P1 to P7. 5. The Forum has held that as per the terms of the policy the coverage is only for total permanent partial disability i...
State of Kerala Vs. Hotel Aracadia Regency
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-2011
C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.1. We have heard the Government Pleader for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the respondent.2. The question raised is whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that respondent was entitled to the compounding facility for payment of turn over tax on the sale of liquor initially granted, but later withdrawn. Admittedly, respondent was granted compounding facility to pay turn over tax treating the turn over for payment of TOT at 180% of the purchase turnover of liquors as provided under S.7 (i)(ii)(a) of the K.G.S.T. Act. However, the Assessing Officer later noticed that the respondent had not completed 3 years of business prior to the year 2010-11, the years for which compounding was sought and so much so, they are not entitled for compounding facility. The Tribunal took the view that cl.(a) of S.7 (i)(ii) applies to the respondents even though they had not completed three years business in the Bar prior to the year for which compounding is sough...
P. Aboobacker Vs. the District Collector, Thrissur and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-2011
The Petitioner, who is the President of Chammannoor Unit of the organization, “Kerala Naduvathul Mujahideen”, is challenging Ext.P1 and P4 orders issued by the 1st respondent, rejecting permission for construction of a Mosque in 10 cents of land owned by the said organization. When the petitioner approached the 3rd respondent Panchayat for getting Building Permit, the matter was referred to the 1st respondent for approval. Through Ext.P1 the approval was rejected stating that it was not brought out in the enquiry conducted that construction of a new mosque is necessary at the locality. On the basis of the rejection of approval, Building Permit was declined by the 3rd respondent, as per Ext.P2. The petitioner approached the 1st respondent seeking reconsideration of the matter, through Ext.P3. A mass petition was submitted by about 100 persons, who are residents of the locality. On the basis of Ext.P3, the 1st respondent reconsidered the matter and Ext.P4 decision was taken a...
Shybu Mathew Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-2011
N.K. Balakrishnan 1. The petitioner is the sole accused in CC No.158 of 2011 on the file of the JFCM Court-I, Sulthan Bethery. The charge sheet was laid against him by the police alleging commission of offence under Section 118(a) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011. The allegation against him is that he was found intoxicated in a public vehicle (Bus No.KL-12D-9218) and was in a rioting condition incapable of looking after himself and causing nuisance to the passengers in the bus. The incident, according to the prosecution, took place on 31/03/2011 at 5.50AM. The petitioner contends that the case is a false and foisted one. According to him he was sitting comfortably in his seat. When another passenger demanded, he was not ready to vacate the seat and he happened to laugh at him in a sarcastic manner. Thereafter the police came and arrested him. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitsthat the certificate issued by the doctor would show that he was not under the influence of liquor...
Sundaram Govind Vs. AssaIn @ HassaIn and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-01-2011
The Order of the Court was pronounced by Barkath Ali,J. - 1. This is a petition filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by Sri Sundaram Govind, Addl. District Judge, Alappuzha to expunge remarks made by this Court against him in judgment dated July 23, 2010 in M.A.C.A. No. 456 of 2006 or in the alternative to declare that the said observations are intended only for future guidance and are not to be relied upon to the detriment of his judicial career. 2. The material averments in the petition, in brief, are these: While the petitioner was working as Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri, he passed an award dated April 30, 2005 in O.P. (MV) No. 1736/2000. The claimant filed M.A.C.A.No.456/2006 claiming enhancement of the compensation, which was granted by this Court by judgment dated July 23, 2010. In paragraph 4,7 and 8 in that judgment this Court has observed thus: “4. We have extracted the relevant portion of the award to express our anguish and anxiety a...
Muhammed Hasim Vs. Sasikumar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-01-2011
ManjulaChellur, Ag.C.J. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 and 3 and the learned counsel appearing for the private respondents. 2. The brief facts that led to filing of these two Writ Appeals are narrated as under: W.P.(C) No.10095 of 2008 was filed by one Mr. Haridasan challenging Ext.p1 dated 1.3.2008, a Government order. Subsequently, one Mr. Saikumar M. also filed W.P.No.35147 of 2008 challenging the very same Ext.P1. These two petitioners were admittedly working as Forest Guards in the Department of Forest during 1995 since 1994. It is also not in dispute that as per the recruitment rules of the department, 25% of the vacancies to the post of Foresters are reserved for being filled up among Forest guards. The recruitment rules provide whenever forest guards training is completed, who secures first rank in such training conducted by the Government, would be entitled to preference in the matter of such pro...
Oil Palm India Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle, Ko ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-01-2011
1. In the 11 appeals filed by the assessee, the question raised is whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in sustaining assessment of part of the income derived by the appellant company from the sale of crude palm oil as “business income” under Rule 7 of the Income-tax Rules, 1961. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri.A.K.J. Nambiar appearing for the assessee and the learned Senior Counsel Sri.P.K.R. Menon appearing for the respondents. 2. The appellant is a plantation company in the public sector under the control of the State Government engaged in cultivation of oil palm and processing and extraction of crude palm oil from the fruit as well as from the kernel. For several years, the appellant has been assessed only under the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act treating 100% of the income as “agricultural income” and, therefore, the appellant has been filing returns under the Agricultural Income-tax Act and paying tax to the State Govern...
Shrimad Raghavendran Thirtha Swami Sanyasi Vs. Shrimad Sudheendra thee ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-01-2011
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. 1. The following questions are raised for a decision: (i) Whether, it is within the power of the Court to which a decree is sent for execution (for short, "the Transferee Executing Court") to entertain and decide a challenge to the executability of the decree on the ground that the Court which passed the decree had no jurisdiction to do so? (ii) Assuming that the Transferee Executing Court has the jurisdiction to entertain and decide such a plea, in what circumstance could such Court entertain that plea? (iii) Whether the Court which passed the decree in this case (for short, "the Transferor Executing Court") had the jurisdiction to pass the decree? (iv) Whether the decision of the Transferee Executing Court issuing warrant of arrest to the petitioner/judgment debtor is sustainable? 2. Short facts necessary for a decision of the above questions are: Petitioner (hereinafter referred as the judgment debtor) instituted the suit in the Court of learned Additional Distr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›