Kerala Court June 2011 Judgments

The Kerala State Electricity Board, Represented by Its Secretaty Vs. E ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(3)KLJ230

P.S. Gopinathan, J. 1. The question raised before us is whether an employee transferred from the erstwhile Electricity Department of the Government of Kerala to the Kerala State Electricity Board, herein after referred to as 'the Board', is entitled to the benefit of Ext.P5 order granting interim relief to the State Government Employees and Ext.P7 order granting revision of pension and other related benefits from the respective dates or from a date opted by the Board. 2. The appellant before us is the 3rd respondent Board in W.P.(C) No.20865/2006. The Writ Petition was filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein. The brief facts of the case is that the 1st respondent was appointed in the erstwhile Electricity Department of the Government of Kerala as Lower Division Clerk on 1.11.1995. On constitution of the Board with effect from 1.4.1957, 1st respondent along with certain others were transferred to the Board and he continued service in the Board till his retirement on 30.4.1985 as an Accounts...

Kuriachan Chacko, Lis (Regd.), Palackal Court and Others Vs. Annakkutt ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC.181/2010 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad. The appellants are under orders to refund a sum of Rs.4,20,000/- with interest at 12% from 9/9/2005 and also to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation. 2. The matter is with respect to the amount deposited in the scheme advertised by the opposite parties that the amount will be repaid in double within 2 years and in addition to the deposit the subscriber would get additional income from the prizes won to the lottery tickets purchased. 3. The opposite parties have contended that the complainant has already received Rs.53,648/- as lottery commission. It is stated that the amount could not be repaid as the scheme has became stagnant by the interference on account of the judicial proceedings and criminal cases. 4. Evidence adduced consisted of the testimony PW1 and Ext.A1 receipt. 5. We find that the opposite parties have not adduced any evidence to substantiate the case tha...

The Manager, Union Bank of India, Thodupuzha Branch Vs. C.J. James

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA: MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Idukki in CC No. 154/2009 dated 26-04-2010. The appellant is the opposite party/bank and the respondent is the complainant in the above OP respectively. This appeal preferred under the direction of the Forum below that to return the amount paid by the complainant as penal interest which is Rs. 2,36,200/- to the complainant by the opposite party within one month and also directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- as costs of the proceedings. 2. In short, the complainant filed the complaint on 14-08-2009 and they availed a loan of Rs. 1,30,00,000/- and they offered sufficient security. The period for the loan was for one year and it was renewed recently in the month of February 2006. The minimum balance was kept by the complainant promptly. The opposite party was charging 14.5% interest for the OD (over draft). Later the complainant needed much more working capital for the business in the year 2007. The complainant r...

T.S Jayadevakumar, Proprietor, Thichampully Vs. P. Poulose

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the 1st opposite party in CC.941/08 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The appellant is under orders to supply refilled cooking gas cylinder within 20 days to the complainant and the respondents including the 2nd opposite party he is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as compensation. 2. There is no representation for the appellant inspite of repeated postings. 3. The allegation of the complainant is that the appellant is not supplying gas properly. It is alleged after 31/8/2008, the appellant has not supplied LPG cylinder to him. 4. The 1st opposite party/appellant has denied the allegation. 5. The 2nd opposite party was exparte. 6. The evidence adduced consisted of PW1, Ext.P1 and Ext.R1. 7. The first opposite party did not testify. The Forum has noted relying on Ext.P1, the copy of the customer hand book that after delivery on 31/8/2008, the gas cylinder was supplied only on 17/1/2009. We find that there is no patent illegali...

Regional Transport Officer, Fort, Thiruvananthapuram Vs. K.Shambhu

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT Appellant is the opposite party/Regional Transport Officer in CC.159/08 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation to the complainant and Rs.2000/- as cost and with interest at 9% if the amount is not paid within one month. 2. The case of the complainant is that he owned an autorikshaw having city permit and filed a joint application with one Ayyappan for transfer of ownership and permit on 31/1/2008 and remitted Rs.250/- towards fee. A number of times the complainant visited the office of the opposite party and was asked to come again and again. All the papers relating to the autorikshaw was submitted. The officials also directed the complainant to remit Rs.500/- towards compounding fee. Subsequently the records were returned on 4/6/2008 on request. The vehicle was to be kept idle till 4/1/2008. Deficiency in service is alleged. A sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation is claimed. 3. The...

T.C. Lakshamanan Vs. Vanaja and Others

Court: Kerala

1. This revision petition is filed by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of money. The suit document dated 31.1.2007, according to the petitioner, is only an agreement. In the written statement the defendant contended that it is a bond and since it is insufficiently stamped it is inadmissible in evidence. No specific issue was raised at that time regarding the admissibility of the said document. During trial affidavit was filed by the plaintiff in lieu of chief-examination. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that before starting cross-examination no objection was raised by the defendant regarding the admissibility of the said document. It was marked as Ext.A1. Questions were also put to the plaintiff in cross-examination touching upon Ext.A1. After the evidence was closed the case was argued by both sides and was posted for judgment. 2. The petitioner contends that the learned Munsiff suomotu reopened the case and passed the impugned order impounding Ext.A1. Th...

N.T. Muraleedharan Vs. State of Kerala and Another

Court: Kerala

Petitioner is the accused in C.C.437/06 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Payyannur. A complaint was filed by the 2nd respondent before that Court against the petitioner alleging Commission of offences u/Ss.408, 420 IPC etc. It was forwarded to the police u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. After investigation final report was filed against the petitioner alleging commission of offences u/Ss.408 and 420 IPC. 2. It was alleged that the petitioner who was an agent or employee of the complainant committed criminal breach of trust and cheating to the tune of about Rs.20 lakhs during the period from 1995 to 2004 by quoting excess price for the tea which was purchased by the petitioner in the auction conducted at Kochi. This petition is filed to quash the complaint and the cognizance taken against the petitioner in C.C.437/36. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that originally the complainant conducted business under the name and style as 'P.C. Abdulla and Company' in Tobacco and...

K.K. Sharshad Khan Vs. Union of India, Represented by the Administrato ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(3)KLT560; 2011AIR(Ker)191; 2011(3)KHC127

Ramachandran Nair, J. Connected Writ Appeals are filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge approving the authority of the respondents to collect security deposit at the time of sale of tender forms. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel for the Lakshadweep Administration. 3. The practice adopted by the respondents is a unique one because while in all PWD/CPWD tenders security deposit is demanded only on submission of tender forms, the demand of the respondents is payment of security deposit even for sale of tender forms for which Rs.500/- is collected for each tender form. While the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no justification or basis for the demand of security deposit at the time of purchase of tender forms andthe respondents' demand is arbitrary, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents sought to sustain the practice by stating that tender forms purchased are resold and there is tenden...

O.P. Balachandra Kaimal Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by Dy. Superi ...

Court: Kerala

1. The Enquiry Commissioner and Special judge, Kozhikode by judgment dated 26.8.2004 in C.C. No.13/2000 on his file found the appellant guilty for offence under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘PC Act’) and 409 IPC. Consequently, he was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.10,000/- on each count with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. Assailing the above conviction and sentence, this appeal was preferred. 2. PW15, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Malappuram filed the charge sheet (final report) against the appellant alleging offences under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of PC Act and Sections 409 and 477A IPC with an allegation that the appellant was working as a Village Officer in Velinyancode Village from 20.10.1989 to 10.8.1994 and that on 18.7.1994 when PW1, the then...

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

RamachandranNair, J. 1. The connected revision cases are filed by Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd., a public sector oil company, challenging the orders of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal confirming disallowance of concessional rate of tax claimed by the company on interstate sales of Diesel and other petroleum products. The Central Sales Tax assessments involved are for the years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. The C Forms filed by the company for claiming concessional rate of tax on the turnover of crores of rupees were found to be defective and unacceptable. Against disallowance of concessional rate of tax made by the Assessing Officer, company filed appeal to the first appellate authority. After scrutinising all the defective C Forms, the appellate authority found that for the year 1999-2000 defects in as many as 83 C Forms were minor and, therefore, directed the Assessing Officer to return the C Forms for correction and representation. Turnover covered by these C Forms is around Rs.36....