Kerala Court May 2011 Judgments

Justus Simon, Senior Dealer and Another Vs. Ramachandran Pillai G. and ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties 3 and 5 in CC No. 220/2007 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The opposite parties including the appellants are under orders to refund a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of complaint and also to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,500/- towards costs. 2. The case of the complainant is that he deposited an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- in the opposite partys scheme which assured that the complainant would get a monthly income for his livelihood and also share of dividend. He deposited the amount on 16-01-2007 by way of DD. He was issued with a trading user ID No. and CRN No. The complainant was also provided with daily statement of the deposit with different companies. On 22-01-2007 the complainant was intimated that he will have to deposit a further sum of Rs. 4,00,000/-. The complainant was not wiling. On 12-02-2007 he went to the office of the opposite parties and enquired th...

Rajagiri Rubber and Produce Company Ltd. Registered Office at Beach Ro ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(2)ILR(Ker)817; 2011(3)KLJ59; 2011(3)KLT18(SN)(C.No.20); 2011(2)KHC658

The declarant in S.M.C.No.26/81, on the file of the Taluk Land Board, Vythiri, challenges the order dated 17.8.1994 in this Revision. The petitioner was, originally, Kalpetta Estates Limited. It is stated that as per the order passed in C.P.No.9 of 2005 connected with M.C.A.Nos.97 and 98 of 2004, this Court ordered amalgamation of the assets and liabilities of Kalpetta Estates Limited with Rajagiri Rubber and Produce Company Limited and that the assets and liabilities of the transferor Company vested with Rajagiri Rubber and Produce Company Limited. As per the order dated 6.12.2006 in this Revision, the cause title was allowed to be amended changing the name of the petitioner as Rajagiri Rubber and Produce Company Limited. 2. The ceiling proceedings were initiated originally as TLB.1777/1973 of Taluk Land Board, South Wynad. The Taluk Land Board in its order dated 23.1.1976, considered the ceiling statement dated 12.9.1970 of Kalpetta Estates Limited and, after considering the claims a...

Alphonsa Streeder, W/O. MartIn Streeder Vs. Pallipuram Grama Panchayat ...

Court: Kerala

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J. Whether changing of 'Asbestos roof' to 'Concrete roof' will amount to any 'construction' so as to attract the 'Ban' in respect of 'CRZ III' under the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification issued by the Government of India, is the issue involved in this appeal. 2. The appellant/petitioner, who is the owner of the building/rooms numbered by the first respondent Panchayat/local authority as XI/1017-A,B,C,D and E respectively owns 19.58 cents of land in Sy.No. 26/I of Kuzhuppilly Village, situated in the coastal belt of Kerala in Vypeen Islands. The petitioner is running a small restaurant in the downstairs of the building complex numbered separately, while the aforesaid 5 rooms are situated upstairs and have been numbered as separate buildings. In fact, the above 5 rooms in the upstairs are having an 'Asbestos' roofing, which according to the petitioner has been damaged and is leaking at different places. The petitioner wanted to change the same, to be replaced b...

Rasheeda, Kandissertharayil Peringala Muri, Vallikunnam Village Vs. Na ...

Court: Kerala

Abdul Razak Kunju, the father of the petitioner herein, filed O.S.No.561 of 1997 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Kayamkulam, for a declaration that the documents executed by him do not bind on him and the properties and that they are null and void and also to set aside and cancel the documents. Abdul Razak Kunju was represented by his next friend and daughter Rasheeda, the petitioner herein. The defendants in the suit are the son, daughter and wife of Abdul Razak Kunju. Abdul Razak Kunju died during the pendency of the suit. I.A.No.1075 of 1998 was filed by the petitioner to implead four other persons as the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff. The petitioner also filed I.A.No.1076 of 1998 to implead her as the second plaintiff. The court below dismissed I.A.No.1076 of 1998 by the order dated 28.2.2001 and on that date itself, dismissed the suit as abated. This Revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment in the suit. The order in I.A.No.1076 of 1...

M/S.Muthoot Hotel and Tourism Ventures Vs. State of Kerala Rep.by the ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(3)KLT112(SN)(C.No.114); 2011(3)ILR(Ker)655

Ramachandran Nair, J. The appellant is a star hotel located at Thiruvananthapuram. It is also running a restaurant in the International Airport at Thiruvananthapuram. The Airport restaurant has only a limited kitchen facility and therefore cooked food is transported from the hotel and served in the restaurant. The Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) provides for levy of tax on cooked food served in star hotels and bar hotels at 8%. So far as other hotels and restaurants are concerned, the provision contained in the Act is to collect licence fee based on the annual turnover of the hotel. The appellant has no dispute with regard to it's liability for tax at 8% on the sale of cooked food and beverages served in the star hotel. The contention raised by the appellant before the Sales Tax Authorities is that it has no liability to pay tax at 8% on the sales turnover of cooked food and beverages in the Airport restaurant as the same does not const...

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam Vs. the Midland Rubber Co. Lt ...

Court: Kerala

RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. 1. The short question arising in the appeal filed by the Department is whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was engaged in export of processed goods entitling it for deduction of export profit under Section 80HHC (3)(a) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short). 2. We have heard learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the respondent assessee. 3. The facts leading to the controversy are the following:- The assessee is a plantation company, which is also engaged in trading of goods. The assesseepurchases cardamom from farmers, clean up the same by washing, sort and grade it, and exports the best quality cardamom. However, the net result of the trading activity for the previous year relevant for the assessment year was a loss, that disentitles the assessee to claim exemption on export profit in respect of trading of goods covered by clause (b) of Section 80HHC(3) of t...

Manicherry Saseendran Vesus P.V. Leela and Others

Court: Kerala

1. The questions involved in this Revision are the following: a) Whether the Court could dismiss the Original Petition for the issue of succession certificate on the ground that complicated questions of fact are involved? b) Whether the Court could refuse to entertain the Original Petition for the issue of succession certificate on the ground that the petitioner is claiming under a Will? c) Whether gratuity payable to the deceased is a debt in respect of which a succession certificate can be issued? d) Whether the courts below were justified in dismissing the Succession O.P. on the ground that the petitioner claims to issue the succession certificate in respect of only part of the estate of the deceased. 2. Chandramathi, the next friend of the first respondent and sister of respondents 3 and 8 died a spinster. The petitioner alleged that Chandramathi borrowed a sum of `45,000/- from him for the construction of a house. Chandramathi was a staff nurse working in the Government Hospital, ...

M/S. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., Rep. by Its Power of Attorney Holder ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(2)KLJ613; 2011(2)ILR(Ker)804; 2011(2)KLT1040; 2011CrLJ3791; 2011(2)KHC582

The question involved in this Writ Petition is whether an advertisement made by the first petitioner, M/s.Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., in India Today (Malayalam) in respect of their vehicle, Scorpio, in which the engine of the vehicle is described as having 109 BHP would constitute an offence under Section 11 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985, Sections 14 and 79 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and under item No.11 of Part II of the Second Schedule to Rule 5 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (National Standards) Rules, 1988. 2. The first petitioner Company, established in 1945, is engaged in the manufacturing and marketing of motor vehicles under a general brand name "Mahindra". The petitioners released an advertisement in which the engine was described as having 109 BHP, BHP being British Horse Power. The second respondent, the Inspector of Legal Metrology, Kanhangad, issued Ext.P1 show cause notice to the second petitioner, the C...

The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. K.S.S ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/insurance company in OP.360/99 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.71,182/- with future interest at 14.5% and also to pay Rs.10,000/- as general damages and Rs.2000/- as cost. 2. It is the case of the complainant is that he is the selling and servicing agent of M/s Bajaj Auto Limited for their vehicles and spares and that the same included the repairs of 2 wheelers and 3 wheelers. The business premises is situated at the bank of the streamlet near Neyyattinkara. The complainant had insured the building, spare parts etc for a total sum of Rs.38.lakhs under two policies. On account of the continuous heavy rains in the night of 4th November 1998 the business premises of the complainant was flooded and the complainant sustained loss to the tune of Rs.4,30,000/-. After considerable delay the opposite parties paid a sum of Rs.2,07,233/-. The complainant rec...

Hyundai Motor India Ltd. and Others Vs. Vinod R Nair and Another

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT 1. The appellants are respectively the manufacturers/OP3 and the dealers/OP1 and 2 in CC.163/2003 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.68,091/- towards excise duty rebate and compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.1000/- with interest at 14% on Rs.68,091/-. It is the case of the complainant that he was entitled for excise duty rebate of Rs.68,091/- as the vehicle was registered as a taxi. He had submitted the certificate of registration as taxi and other required documents to the dealer on 12/8/2002. It is alleged that the 1st opposite party/dealer did not take the required steps in time. 2. The 1st opposite party/dealer had contended that the vehicle was purchased on 12/6/2002 and that the vehicle was registered after considerable delay. It is alleged that the complainant did not furnish the certificate of registration and other papers in time. 3. The 3rd opposite party/manufacturer has contende...