Kerala Court June 2011 Judgments

M/S. Zodiac Regency Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Another

Court: Kerala

Ramachandran Nair, J. The appeal is filed against judgment of the learned Single Judge rejecting the appellant's challenge against assessment of turnover tax on the sale of liquor in appellant's Bar hotel at the compounded rate provided under Section 7(1)(a) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter called "the Act"). We have heard counsel for the appellant and Government Pleader for the State. 2. The appellant, a Bar attached hotel not being a Star hotel or Heritage hotel, was entitled to pay turnover tax at the compounded rate provided under Section 7(1)(a) as against the liability for tax under the charging Section namely, Section 5(2) of the Act. Appellant applied for payment of tax at compounded rate under Section 7(1)(a) which is 140% of the purchase value of liquor and the appellant's request was allowed by the officer. Consequently during the assessment year 2006-2007 appellant remitted tax at compounded rate under Section 7(1)(a) and the same was accepted by the officer...

University of Calicut, Repd. by Its Registrar and Another Vs. PrebIn a ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellants are the opposite parties 2 and 3 and that respondents 1 to 3 are the complainant and opposite parties 1 and 4 respectively in CC.120/09 on the file of CDRF, Palakkad. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 1 to 4 in not publishing the complainants result of the 2nd year B.A examination due to the missing of answer sheet. It was further alleged that due to the aforesaid failure in publishing result of the complainants 2nd year B.A. examination the complainant was not issued B.A.Degree from the University and it resulted in loss of 3 years to the complainant and thereby the complainant suffered mental agony, inconvenience and financial loss. Thus, the complainant claimed compensation of Rs.4.lakhs under various heads. 2. Notice in the said complaint was served on the opposite parties and all of them entered appearance; but only the opposite parties 2 and 3 filed written version deny...

MayA.R. Nair and Another Vs. Chirayil A.S., Krishnan

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(3)ILR(Ker)372; 2011(3)KLJ325; 2011(3)KLT86(SN)(C.No.86); 2011(3)KHC91

The petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.58 of 2011 on the file of the court of the Munsiff of Changanassery. The suit was filed for eviction of the respondent from the plaint schedule building. The respondent filed O.S.No.302 of 2010 against the petitioners before the same court for an injunction restraining the defendants from evicting the plaintiff therein (respondent herein) otherwise than in accordance with law. Both these suits are pending. 2. The petitioners filed I.A.No.1050 of 2011 in O.S.No.58 of 2011 for joint trial of that suit along with O.S.No.302 of 2010. It is stated that O.S.No.302 of 2010 is posted in the special list for trial on 10.8.2011. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the steps in O.S.No.58 of 2011 are not complete. 3. The prayer in the Original Petition is to issue a direction to the learned Munsiff to take up both the suits together, to conduct a joint trial and to dispose of the suits by a common judgment. The prayer as such cannot be...

P.A.Abdul Majeed Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Ramachandran Nair, J. Revision is filed by the assessee challenging the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal confirming revised assessment issued against the assessee under the Central Sales Tax Act, for the assessment year 1997-98. We have heard Sri.E.P.Govindan, counsel appearing for the petitioner and Government Pleader for the respondent. 2. Assessee, a dealer in old gunny bags, was engaged in purchase and local as well as interstate sale of gunny bags during the year 1997-98. The assessee made interstate sales of gunny bags at an average sale price of Rs.4.68. The CST assessment was originally completed without any contest. However, in the KGST assessment, the Assessing Officer estimated the sale price at the rate of Rs.6/- per gunny bag. When the assessee filed appeal against the KGST assessment, the first appellate authority reduced the price to Rs.5.5 per gunny bag. On further appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal not only confirmed the first appellate authority's order, bu...

Sudheer Vs. the District Collector and Another

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(3)KLT14; 2011(4)KLJ171; 2011(3)KHC673

1. Petitioner is the registered owner of Tipper Lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-45-A-2719. 2. Proceedings were initiated against the vehicle on the allegation that the vehicle was used for transportation of river sand in violation of the provisions contained in the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. Those proceedings culminated in Ext.P2 order of the District Collector. In that order petitioner was found guilty and was directed to remit an amount of `25,000/- towards fine. The order contains a further direction, which reads as under :- " . . ." The challenge in this writ petition is only against the aforesaid direction that the payment of fine shall be endorsed in the R.C.Book. Taking note of the said grievance of the petitioner, this Court passed order dated 15.7.2008 directing the learned Govt. Pleader to get instructions as to what is the source of power available to the District Collector to order endorsement of payment of fine in the R.C.Book. Ho...

Chandrika Amma and Another Vs. Saramma and Others

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(4)KLT14(SN)(C.No.16); 2011(3)KHC671

Basant, J. The petitioners have come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondents 6 and 7 to afford protection to the petitioners for execution of Ext.P1 conditional order issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. It is submitted that respondents 1 to 5 are raising illegal obstructions against the attempt of the petitioners to comply with Ext.P1 order. 2. The petitioners are the landlords of a building. Respondents 1 to 5 are tenants of different portions of the same building. There are disputes between the landlords and the tenants. There are litigations between them. Interim orders have been passed by the civil court directing maintenance of status quo and injunction against demolition of buildings pending disposal of the suit. However, the learned Magistrate had made it clear that the order of injunction shall not stand in the way of action being taken under Section 133 Cr.P.C. 3. It is further submitted that another person-n...

The Kerala State Electricity Board Secretary and Another Vs. V.Y. Sree ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER The appeal is preferred from the impugned order dated 31.12.09 passed by CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in OP.86/2001. The appellants are the opposite parties and respondent is the complainant in the aforesaid OP.86/2001. The above complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing the demand notice for Rs.8,283/- by way of short assessment with respect to fixed charge for the additional connected load of 15 KW. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. They contended that the demand for Rs.8,283/- was made in accordance with the provisions of the Electricity Act and the conditions of supply of electrical energy. Thus, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 2. Before the Forum below, the complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P16 documents were marked on his side. From the side of the opposite party Ext.D1 copy of ...

Gopalakrishnan Vs. Noorjahan and Others

Court: Kerala

The complainant in C.C.No.480/2001 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Varkala is the appellant. The complaint was filed against the first respondent herein complaining of commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the respondent/accused. The learned Magistrate found that the period of limitation would start from the date of receipt of notice by the accused i.e. 05/09/2000 but the complaint was lodged on 27/11/2000 i.e. after the prescribed time limit as contemplated under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The learned Magistrate hence held that the complainant has failed to prove all the ingredients of S.138 of N.I. Act. On that finding, the learned Magistrate found the accused not guilty of the offence u/s. 138 of N.I. Act. She was acquitted of the said offence u/s.255(1) Cr.P.C. Hence, this appeal is preferred by the aggrieved complainant against acquittal of the accused. 2. The case of the complainant in brief is as follo...

M. Valsala Kumari Devi Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by Its Secreta ...

Court: Kerala

Ramachandran Nair, J. The question raised in the connected appeals, one filed by the aggrieved Higher Secondary School Teacher, other by the management and the third by the State, relate to one issue i.e. the consequential benefits eligible to the appellant in W.A. No.421/2011 pursuant to Ext.P8 judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the appeal filed by her. We have heard Senior counsel Sri.O.V.Radhakrishnan appearing for the appellant-teacher concerned, Senior counsel Sri.K.R.B.Kaimal appearing for the Manager and the Government Pleader for the State. The parties referred to in the judgment are as arrayed in W.A. No.421/2011 filed by the aggrieved teacher in whose favour the Honourable Supreme Court issued Ext.P8 judgment. 2. A vacancy of Higher Secondary School Teacher in History arose in the 4th respondent school on 1.8.2000 when the appellant was the seniormost Social Studies Teacher in the High School Section of the very same school with qualification to be promoted as HSST i...

K. Purushothaman and Another Vs. the Kerala State Co-operative Employe ...

Court: Kerala

1. The short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the employees of a co-operative society who joined the Contributory Provident Fund established by the employer society in terms of section 61 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 read with rule 58 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, long before the Kerala Co-operative Societies Employees Self Financing Pension Scheme, 1994 was introduced, are entitled to have their service prior to the date on which they joined the Contributory Provident Fund reckoned for the purpose of computing the length of qualifying service for the purpose of determining the pension payable to them. The brief facts of the case are as follows. 2. The petitioners are former employees of the second respondent bank. They entered service on 6.5.1981 and 27.7.1981 respectively. The petitioners joined the Contributory Provident Fund established by the second respondent bank under section 61 of the Kerala Co-operati...