Kerala Court December 2011 Judgments

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Orga ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR: MEMBER This appeal is filed by the 3rd and 4th opposite parties in CC 204/2003 before the CDRF, Kannur. By the impugned order dated:29.1.2011, The appellants are under directions to pay to the complainants revised rate of pension with 12% interest from the dates due with cost of Rs.1500/- each. 2. The complainants had approached the Forum stating that they had applied for reduced pension consequent to their retirement and that they were given pension at a lesser rate than that was entitled to them. It was their case that they had more actual service than that was computed by the opposite parties and that the 1st complainant was entitled to more than Rs.745/- per month and the 2nd complainant was entitled to more than Rs.396/- per month and the 3rd complainant was entitled more than Rs.633/- per month. It was further submitted that the opposite parties did not consider the correct actual service for the computation of the pension thereby they were given only...

E.Padmanabhan Nair and Another Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR: MEMBER Complainant in CC.125/09 before the CDRF, Kozhikkode is the appellant herein who is aggrieved by the dismissal of his complaint by the Forum below. He has approached the Forum for directions to the opposite party to pay the insurance claim and that it was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party to repudiate his genuine claim. The opposite party filed version disputing the averments in the complaint. However the complainant could not adduce evidence before the Forum even though he was given ample chance to present his case before the Forum. In the memorandum of appeal, the complainant has stated that he was prosecuting the complaint with utmost sincerity and that due to acute rheumatic disease he could not attend the Court on certain occasions. It is also submitted that the non appearance was not willful. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and on going through the order it is found that the order is passed without the jun...

M/S. Reliance Security Agency, Prem Buildings, Near Sndp Union Office, ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT40(SN)(C.No.41); 2012(3)KLJ108

1. The petitioners seek to declare Sec.67 of Chapter V of the Finance Act 1994 (Act 32 of 1994), as amended from time to time, and other provisions and rules made and notifications issued under the Act, in so far as it includes the expenses and salary paid to the Security Guards and the statutory payments like contributions to ESI and EPF, in the 'Gross amount' charged for valuation of 'taxable service' in computing the 'service tax' payable, as ultra vires to the Constitution of India. 2. W.P.(C) No. 34643 of 2004 has been preferred by an Association representing various Security Agencies, who are alleged to be the members of the said Association. In fact, the said Association is stated as registered under the provisions of the Travancore- Cochin (Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies) Registration Act. The grievance is mainly with regard to the steps taken by the respondents to mulct the liability towards service tax upon the members of the Association under various heads; by...

Kallen Devi Vs. Kizhakkekoroth Raghavan

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT142

1. The defendants is O.S. No. 72 of 1993 who suffered concurrent decrees at the hands of the Courts below are the appellants. 2. The parties and facts are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Trial Court. 3. The plaintiff is the owner and in absolute possession and enjoyment of the plaint A schedule property. The plaint B schedule property which belongs to the defendants is situated on the southern side. The western boundary of the plaint A schedule property is an old road. That roads goes towards north from Kurumathoor to Vallikkurumbathottam. It is claimed that the road has a width of 18 feet and used by the public of the locality. The road which is shown as C schedule according to the plaintiff passes through the property owned and possessed by the defendants. It is stated that on 15-02-1993, the defendants interrupted the passage of the plaintiff through the road and threatened that he will not permit the plaintiff to use the road any more. It is stated that the p...

Mahesh M. Vs. the Chief Conservator of Forests and Others

Court: Kerala

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P9 order of the first respondent, terminating his services. According to the petitioner, the order of dismissal has been passed without conducting an enquiry as contemplated by Rule 15 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 (‘CCand A Rules’ for short). 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the ‘physically handicapped quota’ by order dated 10.8.2005 of the first respondent to the Wayanad District. The said order is Ext.P1. Pursuant to Ext.P1, he joined duty and started working. Subsequently, his services were regularized by an order dated 8.3.2006 of the first respondent, Ext.P2. He was on probation thereafter, which was completed by him satisfactorily. Thereupon, as per Ext.P3 order dated 12.3.2009, his probation was declared. 3. Meanwhile, an organization by name ‘Handicapped Association of India’ filed a writ petition before ...

Victory Paper and Board (India) Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

1. Denial of Sales Tax exemption as per S.R.O. 1729/93 issued in exercise of the power under S.10 of the K.G.S.T. Act in respect of capital investment towards ‘plant and machinery’, holding that the ‘second-hand’ machinery ‘imported from abroad is not eligible for such exemption, is the subject matter of challenge in these cases. 2. The relevant orders passed by the Original and Appellate Authorities, followed by Ext.P12 Demand Notice in respect of the assessment years 1999-2000 to 2004-05, are under challenge in W.P.(C) 6561 of 2007; while Ext.P14 Demand Notice in respect of the claim for deferment of tax for the assessment year 2005-06, pursuant to enactment of K.V.A.T. Act and the enabling provision under S.32 therein, is sought to be challenged by the very same petitioner in the other Writ Petition - W.P.(C) 7206 OF 2007. Reference is made to the parties and documents, as described in W.P.(C) 6561 of 2007, except where it is mentioned otherwise. ...

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. O. Abdul Razak

Court: Kerala

K. Vinod Chandran,J. 1. The above appeal is filed by the revenue against the order of the Tribunal in the appeal of the assessee deleting certain additions made by the assessing officer confirmed by the first appellate authority. The assessee, who was adjudged as a "resident not ordinarily resident" by the first appellate authority and confirmed by the Tribunal, was before the Tribunal challenging certain additions made by the assessing officer for the block period 1988-89 to 1998-99. 2. Pursuant to a search conducted at the residential premises of the assessee on 22/10/1998 based on seized records as also the statement recorded under Section 132 (4) of the Income Tax Act, the assessing officer proceeded to assess the assessee, for the block period 1988-89 to 1998-99. On the basis of seized documents, recovered during search, relating to purchase of land as also the sworn statement recorded under Section 132(4), the assessing officer computed the undisclosed income. The addition made w...

Kochukrishanan and Others Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer and Other ...

Court: Kerala

1. Second petitioner is the son of the first petitioner. During pendency of this writ petition the first petitioner died and a memo to that effect was filed. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the 2nd petitioner is the sole owner of the property which is the subject matter involved and hence pleading of other legal heirs is not required. Hence the writ petition is allowed to be prosecuted by the second petitioner. 2. Respondents 4 and 5 submitted Ext.P1 complaint before the 1st respondent that, the petitioners have caused illegal obstruction to a pathway situated on the northern side of property belonging to them, which was being used by them and others for the last so many years. Since the 1st respondent has not taken any steps on the basis of Ext.P1, the 4th respondent herein had approached this court in W.P. (‘C). 24242/10. In Ext.P2 judgment this court directed the 1st respondent (4th respondent in that writ petition) to pass a conditional order Section 133(...

Akkal Sreedharan Nair Vs. Malabar Devaswom Board and Others

Court: Kerala

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Petitioner is Akkal Sreedharan Nair, a nominee of Akkal Karunakaran Nair, who is the Karanavan of Akkal Tharawad, for the purpose of clause 5 (iii) of the Scheme framed by this Court in M.F.A No.74 of 1988 for Sree Kottiyoor Perumal Seva Sanghom. It is not in dispute that Karunakaran Nair had nominated Sreedharan Nair. The question is, whether, having done so, he retains the authority to withdraw the nomination of Sreedharan Nair. 2. This issue initially went to the Malabar Devaswom Board. It came out with Ext.P9 holding that this cannot be done and the nomination cannot be withdrawn. That became the subject matter of W.P.(C).No.29224 of 2011. By Ext.P11 judgment, the Commissioner was directed to decide that issue untrammeled by anything stated in the decision of the Board. In the light of that judgment, W.P.(C).No.17618 of 2011 was also closed. 3. In W.P.(C).No.17618 of 2011, Ext.P8 interim order was issued at the stage of admission. It is profitable...

M/S. Link Line Enterprises Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax and An ...

Court: Kerala

K. Vinod Chandran, J. 1. The short question canvassed in the above Writ Appeals is the scope of the power under S.154 of the Income Tax Act (for short "the Act") to rectify any mistake apparent from the record. 2. The appellants are respectively two firms and one of the partners of the said firms. The facts relevant to the subject of challenge made in the writ petition have been detailed by the learned Single Judge. For the purpose of the disposal of these appeals, suffice it to say that the premises of the assessees were searched under S.132 of the Act and pursuant to a notice under S.148 of the Act, the assessments against the assessees were completed for the years 1988-89 to 1995-96 and interest was also levied under S.234A, S.234B and S.234C. The assessee filed an application under S.119(2)(a) for waiver of interest imposed under S.234A, S.234B and S.234C for the assessment years 1989-90 to 1995-96. The application was filed invoking the powers of the Chief Commissioner of Income T...