Kerala Court May 2011 Judgments

Chief Postmaster General and Another Vs. State of Kerala, Rep.by Its S ...

Court: Kerala

RamachandranNair, J. 1. The question raised in the connected Writ Appeals and the W.P. (C), all filed by the Postal Department, is one and the same i.e. whether the State Government is entitled to levy motor vehicle tax in respect of the vehicles owned and used by the Postal Department in Kerala. We have heard Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants/petitioners and the Government Pleader appearing for the State Government and it's departments. 2. The proposition canvassed by the Standing Counsel appearing for the Postal Department is that motor vehicles belonging to Central Government Departments including the Postal Department come within the description of "property" belonging to the Union of India referred to in Article 285(1) of the Constitution of India which is exempt from tax under any State-law. However, this contention did not find acceptance with the learned Single Judge who held that motor vehicle tax is an indirect tax which is not covered by Article 285(1) of the Con...

Union of India Vs. Anandavally Amma and Others

Court: Kerala

Antony Dominic, J. 1. The respondent in WP (C) No. 15199 of 2008 is the appellant. By the judgment under appeal, the learned Judge of this Court directed the appellant to pay pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme framed by the Government of India to the respondent - writ petitioner. 2. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the claim of the respondent was based on the conviction suffered by her deceased husband in CC No. 18/125 ME on the file of the Court of First Class Magistrate, Cherthala. According to the appellant, this case is not one included in the register of Punnapra Vayalar cases kept in the office of the District Collector, Alapppuzha and therefore, the said conviction, even if it was suffered by the husband of the appellant, did not form part of Freedom Movement qualifying for getting pension under the aforesaid Scheme. However, we are unable to accept the contention raised by the leaned counsel for the appellant for the...

State of Kerala and Others Vs. John Joseph and Another

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(3)KLT23

J. Chelameswar, C.J. This is an appeal preferred by the State aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.08.2009 in W.P.(C) No.23779/2009. The first respondent herein was the petitioner in the above mentioned writ petition. He purchased an extent of 45 cents of land in various survey numbers in Kollamula village, Ranni Taluk by sale deed No.778/2002 of Ranni Sub Registrar Office for a total consideration of `1,00,000/-. The above mentioned document was duly registered by the Sub Registrar, Ranni. However, the Sub Registrar doubted the correctness of the valuation of the property and referred the case to the District Registrar. The District Registrar, in exercise of the statutory power under Section 45B(2) of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959, held an enquiry and came to the conclusion that the real value of the property held by the said document is `2,00,000/-, but not `1,00,000/-, as stated in the document. Therefore, he ordered the first respondent to remit the deficit stamp duty of `10,000/- and d...

O.R. Manoj Vs. Guruvayur Devaswom, Rep by Its Administrator and Others

Court: Kerala

1. The question arising for consideration in the Original Petition is whether the High Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, would set aside an ad interim order of injunction granted by the trial court, challenged by an affected person who is not a party to the suit. 2. From the pleadings, documents and the submissions made by the counsel, the following facts are revealed: Guruvayur Devaswom (hereinafter referred to as `Devaswom') invited competitive tenders for the right to take photographs of the devotees in connection with "Choroon" and "Thulabharam", and video films of "Chembai Sangeethotsavam" for the period from 1.6.2011 to 31.5.2012. The tenderers should be persons proficient in photography and who run studio. Earnest Money Deposit of Rupees one lakh should be made by the tenderer. The tenders were to be submitted before 3 PM on 24-3-2011. Tenders were to be opened at 3.30 PM on the same day. The person who quotes the highest ...

The Postmaster General Vs. K. Christopher and Others

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR,MEMBER This appeal is preferred by the opposite party against the order dated 31.3.08 of CDRF, Kozhikode in CC.395/06 Wherein and whereby HE IS under directions to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2,000/- as compensation and a sum of Rs.425/- being the value of postal charges and Rs.500/- as costs. 2. The complainants case before the Forum below was that he had sent two documents by speed post on 1.12.05 to his son at CaymanIslandand that the postal articles did not reach him. Though the opposite party promised to conduct a detailed enquiry, the same was not done and that the articles sent were lost. It is also alleged that the Superintendent of Post office, Kozhikode Division sent a letter to the petitioner stating their willing to compensate the petitioner by giving the speed post charges of Rs.850/-. Alleging deficiency in service, the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and costs. 3....

M/S. B’ Canti Infotech ((P) Ltd. Vs. M/S Nexus Computers (P) Ltd. ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT It is the case of the complainant that the IBM server manufactured by the second opposite party and purchased from the first opposite party was defective from very beginning and has sought for return of the amount paid ie; Rs.3,54,500/- with interest at 18% from 18.2.02 the date of installation and also to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The Forum has ordered to replace the server with a new one or in the alternative to refund the cost of the same ie.Rs.3,54,500/- along with a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/-. 2. The dealer did not contest the matter. The manufacturer/second opposite party contested the case and disputed the averments in the complaints with respect to the defects alleged. 3. The second opposite party/R2 remained absent in the present proceedings. R1, the dealer has not also entered appearance. 4. The case of the counsel for the appellant is that no purpose will be served by replacing the particular server which...

M/S Sony India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Mini George

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC.642/10 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The complaint stands allowed. The opposite parties are the manufacturer. The dealer was ex-parte. 2. It is the case of the appellant that the notice was served on the appellant on the previous day of the posting date of the case at the office of the appellant at New Delhi and that the matter was also disposed of thereafter quickly. 3. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of Exts.A1 to A5. 4. The matter relates the defects of the TV manufactured by the appellant, within the warranty period. The opposite parties have been directed to rectify the defects of the TV set free of cost and also to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- and cost of Rs.1000/-. We find that the complaint had been filed on 6.12.2010 and disposed of on 31.1.2011. We find that at least the dealer could have contested the case. The appellant cannot disown the dealer and contend that they ha...

Ramakke and Others Vs. Gopi and Others

Court: Kerala

"CR" THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. The surviving defendants in a suit for partition are the appellants. Mundappa Gatty had three children; a son Manju Gatty and daughters Birmage and Korappalu. Manju Gatty died issueless and intestate and his right also devolved on the sisters and the plaintiffs are the heirs of Korappalu. They accordingly sued for partition. 2. The defendants contended that Manju Gatty was himself the cultivating tenant of the property in question, he having obtained lease from Vakil Narasimha Naik and had, along with the heirs of Narasimha Naik, filed J Form under the Kerala Land Reforms Act and obtained Ext.A8 order of assignment and certificate regarding the property in question and Manju Gatty who remained unmarried and issueless had executed Ext.B1 Will in favour of the 2nd defendant, who is the son of the 1st defendant. 3. The fact that Ext.A8 purchase certificate is issued by the Land Tribunal in favour of the 2nd defendant is admitted by the plaintiffs, e...

U. Narayanankutty Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(3)ILR(Ker)399; 2011(3)KLJ340; 2011(2)KLD87

'CR' 1. The appellant was found guilty by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur, in C.C.No.22/01 on his file for offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short, hereinafter referred to as `PC' Act), and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. Assailing the above conviction and sentence this appeal was preferred. 2. PW10, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Thrissur prosecuted the appellant alleging offences under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) and Section 15 r/w 13(1)(d) of the PC Act and also for offences under Sections 409, 419, 468, 471 and 109 IPC. It was alleged that the appellant was working as a Higher Grade Peon in Mullassery Block Panchayath Office during the period from 22.5.97 to 2.1.98 and in that capacity, he is a public servant coming under Section 2(c) of the PC Act. PW3 was a film operator in a Cinema Theater at Thrissur. In 1994, he subscribed a kuri run by Popular Kuries Limited ...

Mangadath Devi Amma Vs. Mangadath Parvathykutty Amma and Others

Court: Kerala

ThottathilB. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. The plaintiff in a suit for partition is the appellant. She and the three defendants are the children of late Lakshmi Amma and Appu alias Paithal Kidave. The 2nd defendant supported the plaintiff. The court below upheld Ext.B1 Will of Lakshmi Amma, as propounded by defendants 1 and 3 and accordingly dismissed the suit. Hence, this appeal. 2. At the outset, we may note that there is no controversy, before us on the findings of the court below as regards proof of Ext.B1 Will, in as much as, D.W.2 is admittedly the attestor of Ext.B1. The plaintiff had also not tendered any oral evidence before the court below. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff argued that going by the allotments under Ext.B1, item A schedule therein which is allotted to the plaintiff is not a piece over which the testator Lakshmi Amma had title. This has to be taken as a suspicious circumstance surrounding the execution of the Will, it is argued. The premise of this argu...