Kerala Court April 2011 Judgments

D.Ranganathan Vs. Commercial Tax Inspector and Another

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(2)ILR(Ker)647; 2011(2)KLJ805; 2011(3)KLT22(SN)(C.No.24); 2011(2)KHC471

Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P4 order issued by the 2nd respondent imposing penalty under Section 47 (6) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act). Brief history of the case is that, the petitioner who is a resident of Dharmapuram Taluk in Tirupur District of Tamilnadu State, had attempted transport of an Excavator Loader (JCB) through the Commercial Tax Check post at Gopalapuram at the border of the State of Kerala, and it was detained by the 1st respondent, invoking Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act, on issuing Ext.P2 notice. The reason for detention mentioned in the notice is as follows:- "On verification of the records (RC Book of the excavator) it is found that the excavator is manufactured in 2004 and the same is newly painted. Hence it is suspected that it is for sale or contract work within the State. The registration number of the vehicle is also not displayed. Hence, the SD and cess demanded." 2. According to the petitioner, the Excavator was purchased ...

Raju Joseph (C.T.O.) Vs. M.S. Shine, Mannasseril House and Another

Court: Kerala

1. Petitioner is accused in C.C.No. 4 of 2011 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Vaikom for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Prayer in this petition is to order transfer of the said case the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Aluva on the ground that the former Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and take cognizance of the offence. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioner contended that no part of the cause of action has arisen within the local limits of learned JFCM-II, Vaikom and hence learned Magistrate could not have taken the complaint on file or taken cognizance of the offence against the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on Ahuja Nandkishore Donjre v. State of Maharashtra (2007(1) KLJ 738). 2. Learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the complaint was originally filed before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Va...

G.M. Haneef Vs. N. Majeed Haji and Another

Court: Kerala

1. Petitioner is accused in S.T.No.2249 of 2008 of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Kannur, for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, 'the Act'). Learned Magistrate had granted him permanent exemption from appearance. After questioning under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') was over, the case was posted on 11.1.2011 for defence evidence. Counsel for petitioner could not appear in Court on that day. The case was posted on 18.2.2011 for hearing. On 18.2.2011, petitioner filed a petition under Section 315 of the Code to examine himself as a witness. It is submitted that the said petition was not entertained, since according to the learned Magistrate, a petition under Section 311 of the Code also is required to consider the petition under Section 315 of the Code. Accordingly, C.M.P.No.677 of 2011 was filed under Section 311 of the Code. On 11.3.2011 on which day the case was posted, the...

In the Matter of Travancore Devaswom Board Vs. the Secretary, Travanco ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(3)KLT865; 2011(3)KHC222

“CR” ThottathilB. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. We have perused the affidavit filed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue. That affidavit dated 20.4.2011, in our view, is nothing but a candid admission that the provisions of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, hereinafter referred to as the “DM Act” and the Rules framed thereunder have not been given effect to in the State of Kerala except by doing some paper work and appointing certain officers as Disaster Management Authorities or its members. We say this because, in paragraph 4 of that affidavit, the Additional Chief Secretary vividly states about the notification issued by the Government and mentions that the District Collectors, ADM and the Superintendents of Police in each district are members of the Disaster Management Authority. Though an attempt is made to state that these arrangements were made under the co-ordination and control of the Devaswom Department for the management of the arrangements at Sabarimal...

Managing Director, Srilankan Airlines Limited Vs. K.Riyas and Another

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN: MEMBER Counsel for the appellant endorsed in the appeal memorandum, appeal is not pressed. Hence dismissed....

Sreeni Pattathanam and Another Vs. the State of Kerala, Represented by ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(3)KLT257; 2011(3)ILR(Ker)234; 2011(3)KLJ214; 2011(3)KHC33

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. This writ petition is filed by two persons claiming to be the General Secretary of the 'Bharatheeya Yukthivadi Sangham' and General Secretary of 'Manavavedi' respectively. They seek a declaration that the participation of the Government of Kerala through any one of its departments like Police, Forest, Revenue, Electricity etc. in a superstitious religious event is unconstitutional and violation of Article 27 of the Constitution of India. Petitioners further seek a direction to the respondents not to forbid the petitioners or similar bodies or media from conducting an enquiry in terms of Article 51-A of the Constitution of India to find out whether 'Makarajyothi' is a divine or super human miracle or only man-made to find out the truth and inform the public about it. They plead that a superstitious religious event called 'Makarajyothi' is being performed and it is not a super human phenomenon. 2. The State Government have filed a statement prominently ...

R. Latha, Propritrix Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd, Repd by the Divnl ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The complainant who is the proprietrix of M/s.Krishna Enterprises conducting business in rubber and spices has sought for a compensation of Rs.16.75 lakhs towards loss sustained on account of the fire that took place in her godown and consequent losses. It is her case that the business turn over for the particular year 1996-97 was to the tune of 1.3 crores. She had availed cash credit loan and bill discounting facility from the third opposite party/bank. The third opposite party/bank had availed insurance cover for the stock in trade from the second opposite party/insurer and the premium paid is credited to the account of the complainant. The insurance cover was availed in the year 1994 for a sum of Rs.6 lakhs and for the year 1996-97 the sum insured was enhanced to Rs.10 lakh. On 7.7.97, a fire had broken out in the go-down at 5.30 am. The entire stock in trade worth over 10 lakhs stored in the go-down was totally destroyed. On the next day itself, the ...

G.S. Prakash and Others Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by the Additi ...

Court: Kerala

1. These Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are in challenge of orders passed by the learned Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram (for short, "the Special Judge") under Sec. 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code") directing the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau (for short, "the VandACB") to conduct a preliminary enquiry and register a case if materials indicating commission of offences as alleged in the private complaints are disclosed and if not, report the matter to the learned Special Judge. The following questions of law are urged for a decision: I. Whether, in view of Sec. 68A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act,1969 (for short, "the Act") it was within the power of learned Special Judge to direct the VandACB to conduct an enquiry/investigation and the VandACB to enquire/investigate into matters relating to a Co-operative Society registered under the Act? II. Whether, it was within the power of...

Smt.C.Rekha Vs. M/S R.C.P.M Hospital and Others

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI K.R. UDAYABHANU:PRESIDENT The complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.48,24,000/- towards compensation on the ground that the surgery etc. conducted by the Opposite Parties 2 to 5 at first Opposite Party hospital was vitiated by negligence and lack of adequate care. As per the averments in the complaint she consulted the 3rd opposite party gynecologist of the hospital in January 2006 on account of continuous back pain. After under going ultra sonogram she was informed the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties/doctors that she is having an ovarian cyst and the same has to be removed by laparoscopic surgery. She was told that it is a minor procedure. The complainant was admitted at the hospital on 28.02.2006. She was taken to the operation theatre 01.03.2006 at about 8 a. m. It is alleged that the procedure was done in a careless and negligent manner. Instead of removing the ovarian cyst they caused a serious full thickness injury to the rectum, the ascending, mid transverse and descending colon...

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Jacob Punnen Paraekulam House

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. K.R.UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC.166/09 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The appellants are under orders to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- being the balance amount payable as per Ext.A2 policy and also Rs.5,000/- as compensation. It is also mentioned that amount will carry interest at 9%. 2. It is the case of the complainants ie; husband and wife that they had availed medi-claim (GOLD POLICY) of the opposite parties and the same has been renewed periodically up to 2008-09. The total coverage was Rs.8 lakh (ie; Rs.4,25,000/- for the first petitioner and Rs.3,75,000/- for the second petitioner). The premium as demanded was paid every year. The second petitioner underwent Angioplasty at Appolo Hospital, Chennai. The expenses was incurred amounting to Rs.3,82,705.27. The opposite party paid only Rs.2 lakh. The contention of the opposite parties that they are liable to pay Rs.70% for the sum insured or maximum of 2 lakh for Angioplas...