Kerala Court July 2011 Judgments

Mohanakumar Vs. Santhamma and Another

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(3)KLJ780; 2011(4)KLT259; 2011(4)KHC769; 2012(1)KLT37SN

1. Challenge in the revision is by the husband, who was proceeded on an application by the wife under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short “the Act”) against the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ranni prohibiting him from committing any domestic violence, with other directions also, as confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta, who has turned down his appeal. 2. The respondent/wife had moved an application under Section 12 of the Act imputing domestic violence by the revision petitioner-her husband. While they were having a shared household she was manhandled and necked out with her children and thereafter, she is living separately with the children in a rented house and, still, there is interference and perpetration of violence against her; even of preventing her from enjoying the collection of usufructs from her property and also various other abuses against her and her children, was he...

Union of India Represented by General and Others Vs. P. Aboobacker and ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(4)KLT176; 2011(4)ILR(Ker)228; 2011(4)KLJ60

“C.R.” GOPINATHAN, J. 1. By the impugned order dated 19.2.2009 in O.A. No.196/2008 the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, directed the petitioners to pay gratuity and pension to the first respondent with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of superannuation i.e. 31.7.2004 till date of payment. The petitioners now did not dispute the liability to pay gratuity and pension. Only the liability to pay interest is disputed with a pleading that Pension Rules does not permit payment of interest on belated pension and gratuity. True, there is no Rule. Reason is obvious. Rule makers did'nt anticipate any such delay in payment of pension and gratuity. In other way no rule permit delayed payment of pension or gratuity. It is not in dispute that pension or gratuity is not a grace by the employer, but a right of the retiring employee. Every person retiring from service has the right to get his pension and gratuity determined and must be payable by the retire...

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tata Ceramics Ltd.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(4)KLJ757

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. These appeals are file by the Revenue for sustaining assessment of the tax paid by the respondent assessee on remittance made to a foreign collaborator as income assessable at the hands of the respondent. 2. We have heard learned Senior counsel Shri. P.K.R. Menon appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. The respondent assessee, a Company engaged in manufacturer of ceramic products at Special Economic Zone, Kochi, entered into an agreement with a British Company for technical collaboration for manufacture of products. Clause 11 of the technical collaboration agreement produced as Annexure G is as follows:- “11. Taxes All direct or indirect taxes and the import duties due in India in connection with the performance of the Agreement shall be borne by TCKL. All direct or indirect taxes and import duties in London in connection with the performance of the Agreement shall be borne by APT.” In terms of the above...

Arukandi Kishakkedath Vasudevan Vs. Nallakandi Arukandi Hyma Vasudevan ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(3)KHC770

This second appeal is filed as early as on 19.6.2003, about eight year back. It arises from a partition suit of the year 1994. The appeal was filed with certain defects and it was hence, returned for curing the defects and re-presenting the same. Thereafter, it was only about one year, on 6.7.2004 that the appeal was moved for admission. Another bench of this court issued “notice before admission”. It is thus, evident that this court thought it fit to hear all the parties, even before admission of this appeal. 2. Though notice was ordered by this court, in the 2004 itself, appellant again defaulted, and process was defective. Hence, notice could not be sent to respondents. The defect was not cured by appellant, even after expiry of about five long years. The appeal was posted on 29.5.2009, in the light of a letter dated 22.4.2009 sent by appellant to Hon’ble Chief Justice, seeking early posting, stating that he is a retired IPS officer, a senior citizen aged 80 years ...

Punjab National Bank Rep. by Its Chief Manager Vs. the Consumer Disput ...

Court: Kerala

1. The petitioner Bank challenges an interim order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alappuzha, passed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in Ext.P4 complaint filed by respondents 1 and 2, restraining and prohibiting the petitioner from taking auction proceedings of sale and other proceedings against the respondents 2 and 3, pursuant to a notice issued by the petitioner under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), for recovery of loan amounts due under a loan given to the respondents 2 and 3, on the ground that the respondents 2 and 3 have made out a prima facie case against the petitioner and there is a consumer dispute. According to the petitioner, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (CDRF) has no jurisdiction to entertain a challenge against the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: "a) quash Ext.P3 order by the issue of a writ of certi...

R. Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala, Rep. by Public Prosecutor and Others

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(3)ILR(Ker)811; 2011(3)KLJ589; 2011(3)KLT787; 2011(3)KHC563

Father of a child, aged four years, which succumbed to the injuries sustained in a road accident involving a vehicle driven by the 2nd respondent, in which the 3rd respondent, his wife, attended to children taken in that vehicle to different schools, has filed this revision, impeaching the propriety, legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track-I), Thrissur, by which the case committed to Sessions Court for trial has been remitted to the magistrate, holding that no offence triable by Sessions Court is made out as imputed in the final report filed by the police. 2. The unfortunate incident resulting in the death of the child, it is alleged, occurred when the vehicle was parked for dropping the child near its house. While the child crossed over the road on account of alleged recklessness and, perhaps, culpable criminal negligence on the part of the driver, and also the attendant of the vehicle, his wife, who too traveled in that vehic...

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mohanan, S/O. Narayanan and Others

Court: Kerala

Basant, J. Where two vehicles are involved in an accident and the driver/rider of one vehicle suffers injury on account of his own alleged negligence is he entitled to sustain a claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the owner and authorized insurer of the other vehicle involved in the accident? This is the crucial question arising for consideration before us. 2. On fundamental facts there is no dispute. The claimants are the legal heirs of a deceased person who was riding his motorcycle at the time of the accident. On that motorcycle, in addition to the rider there were two pillion riders. When the deceased was riding that motorcycle, that motorcycle was involved in an accident. There was a collision between that motor cycle and another motorcycle. In that, other motorcycle there was one rider and one pillion. All the five persons who were traveling in the two motor cycle suffered injuries. One of them, the rider of motorcycle No.1 (we will hereafter refer to the s...

Ajish G Nambiar, Director, Four Zone Llc Vs. Shri. Mansoor, Manager, E ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHANAN : MEMBER This appeal is preferred by the complainant in C.C. 488/09 of CDRF, Kozhikode who is not satisfied by the directions of the Forum below to the opposite parties to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and 1,000/- as cost. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he had booked a ticket with the opposite parties on full payment for the sector Dubai-Bangalore-Dubai on 17.9.09 and 6.10.09 respectively and that he had cancelled the journey from Dubai to Bangalore and upgraded his return journey from Bangalore to Dubai and had taken tickets for his wife and child from Bangalore to Dubai. It is his case that though himself, his wife and his child had confirmed tickets, all the tickets were not allowed by the opposite parties and the complainant had to purchase a new ticket for his return journey to Dubaialong with his wife and child. Alleging deficiency in service, the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposi...

P.T. Jose Vs. Leela Antony and Others

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the 7th opposite party in OP.1364/04 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The appellant along with opposite parties 1 to 16 has been made liable to refund the amounts deposited by the complainant with interest at 9% and cost of Rs.500/- 2. It is the case of the appellant is that he was not a partner of the 1st opposite party firm which is running a finance outfit. The appellant had produced Ext.R1 copy of the extract of the register of firms maintain by the Registrar of Firms with respect to the 1st opposite party firm. The above documents were produced before the Forum. But the Forum has not considered the same. We find that in the above document there are the names of 20 partners. The 15th partner is one M.A.Jose S/o Antony. The appellant is P.T.Jose S/o Thomman. The residential address is also different. The firm has ceased to function also and the assets are with the official receiver appointed by the Civil Court. 3. The complaina...

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Jameela Complex Vs. P. ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellant is the first opposite party and respondents are the complainants and second opposite party respectively in O.P. No. 157/02 on the file of CDRF, Malappuram. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party/Oriental Insurance Company Ltd in repudiating the insurance claim preferred by the complainant as insured with respect to its country made mechanized boat bearing registration No. KMFF 2485. Notice in the said complaint was served on the first opposite party and that the first opposite party/Oriental Insurance Company Ltd entered appearance. The Insurance Company filed written version denying alleged deficiency in service. They admitted that the complainants country made Boat was insured with the first opposite party /Insurance Company and the same was destroyed in an incident which taken place on 10.6.2001. The first opposite party justified their action in repudiating Insurance cla...