Kerala Court August 2011 Judgments

A. Balakrishnan Vs. State Bank of Travancore and Another

Court: Kerala

P.S. Gopinathan, J. 1. The review petition is preferred against the judgment dated 7.9.2009 in W.A.536 of 2009 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. The writ petition is also filed by him mainly assailing the findings in a disciplinary proceedings which has became final by the judgment in W.A.536/2009. Parties and dispute being common, we are disposing both the petitions by this common judgment. The documents are referred to as appended in the writ petition. 2. The petitioner was working as cashier-clerk under the contesting respondent/bank (hereinafter referred to as the respondent, unless otherwise required) in its branch at Manjeri. While so, departmental and criminal actions were initiated against the petitioner alleging breach of trust and misappropriation of funds. Ext.P1 is the charge memo in the disciplinary proceedings. After due enquiry, on finding that charge was proved, by Ext.P2 order, the respondent dismissed the petitioner from service. Ext.P2 order was assailed...

State of Kerala Vs. M.J. Joseph

Court: Kerala

C. N. Ramachandran Nair, Ag. C. J. 1. The question raised in the seven connected cases filed by the State against the very same assessee is whether the VAT Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the products manufactured and sold by the respondent attract tax only at 4% under Entry 7 of the Third Schedule to the KVAT Act as against 12.5% assessed under Entries 19 and 103 of SRO No. 82/2006 issued under S.6(1)(d) of the KVAT Act. We have heard Government Pleader for the petitioner and Adv. Sri. Mayankutty Mather appearing for the respondent - assessee. 2. Respondent is a manufacturer and seller of the products by name “Fat paste cream and choco paste”. The dispute raised is only with regard to rate of tax applicable to the product under the KVAT Act. In order to identify the relevant entry under which tax is to be levied, we have to identify the product with reference to the ingredients used in the manufacture and the nature of use of the products. Accordingly we e...

P. Ajayan Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by the Public Prosecutor an ...

Court: Kerala

V. Ramkumar, J. These two cases filed under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. come up for consideration before us consequent on a reference made by a learned Judge of this Court (Justice Thomas P. Joseph). The learned judge was prima facie of the view that the decision reported in Chacko v. Mohandas - (2010 (3) KLT 122) and the two unreported decisions in Radhakrishnan v. State of Kerala (Crl.M.C.No.4824 of 2010) and Premkumar v. State of Kerala (Crl.M.C.No.4361 of 2010) require re-consideration by a larger Bench in view of the fact that the amendment made under Sec.151 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by introducing two provisos thereto and inserting Sections 151 A and 151 B with effect from 15-6-2007 being amendment of the procedural law and, therefore, retrospective in its application, cognizance taken by Magistrate on police reports filed prior to 15-6-2007 would be valid. 2. Cahcko’s case was decided by one of us while sitting single and th...

Gopalan and Others Vs. the Additional Chief Secretary (Finance) Secret ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(3)KLT914; 2011(3)ILR(Ker)914; 2011(4)KLJ54

While working as Forest Guard one Murukesan who is the son of petitioners 1 and 2 and the brother of the third petitioner died on 9.1.2010. Subsequently, the petitioners submitted Ext.P3 representation on 18.2.2011 with the requests to disburse the retrial benefits due on account of death of the said Murukesan to petitioners 1 and 2 and to grant appointment under Dying-in-harness scheme to the third petitioner. The 4th respondent informed the first petitioner that the aforesaid requests could not be acceded to. It is in the said circumstances that this writ petition has been filed mainly with the prayers to quash Ext.P5 and to issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 4 to take a decision on Ext.P3 and pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioners and the 5th respondent. The further prayer is for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 4 to disburse the death-cum-retirement benefits to petitioners 1 and 2 and to appoint the third petitioner under D...

The Manager, Ranni Marthoma Medical Mission Centre and Another Vs. Pon ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

COMMON JUDGMENT SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER These appeals are preferred by the opposite parties in O.P. 87/01 before the CDRF, Pathanamthitta who are aggrieved by the order dated 28.12.2009. Appeal 123/10 is filed by the Ist opposite party and appeal 124/10 is filed by the 2nd opposite party. By the impugned order though the president had dismissed the complaint, the 2 members disagreed with the findings and conclusions of the president and had passed a separate order fastening liability on the opposite parties to pay to the second complainant a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs (Rs. Three lakhs only) with interest at 6% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of order and thereafter at 8% per annum till the date of payment. The opposite parties are also under directions to pay Rs. 10,000/- as costs. It is further directed that if the amounts are not paid within 2 months from the date of receipt of the order, the interest rate would be at 9% from the date of default till the date ...

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., R/by Its Regional Manager Vs. A.J. Jo ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/insurance company in CC.586/09 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.2.lakhs with interest at 6% from one month after the date of receipt of the order. 2. The complainant had claimed the hospitalization expenses for the by-pass surgery undergone by him. It is the case of the opposite parties that the complainant had suppressed the fact that he had diabetes and hyper tension and was under medication for the last 20 years and hence it is contended that the opposite parties are not liable to honour the policy claim. 3. Evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, Exts.A1 to A8 and B1. 4. As contended by the counsel for the appellant we find that in Ext.A2 discharge summary as well as in the medical certificate attached to Ext.A4 claim form it is mentioned that the complainant was having diabetes and hyper tension and was on medication since 20 years. The con...

Proprietor, Thomson Associates and Another Vs. Aneesh

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC.65/10 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad. The appellants, the dealer and the manufacturer of the Godrej Shelf is under orders to pay Rs.21,000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as cost. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Godrej Shelf for a sum of Rs.20,000/- on 30.4.2009. It was assured that the lock is very strong and safe. The salesman even offered a lifetime warranty. While using the shelf it was noticed that the lock is defective. The complainant approached the opposite party but the opposite party refused to repair the lock system. The complainant claimed the price of the Godrej Shelf with interest and compensation of Rs.10,000/-. The opposite parties have filed version disputing the allegations. It is contended that the opposite parties refused entry to the technician for repairing the lock. The defect can be rectified by tightening the screw of the assembly. Evidence adduced consisted o...

The Accountant General, Office of the Accountant General(Aande), Kozhi ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The 1st opposite party in CC.162/08 before the CDRF, Pathanamthitta is the appellant herein who is aggrieved by the rder dated 13.5.2010 directing the appellant to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.12751/- with 10% interest from 31.3.07 along with compensation of Rs.5000/- and cost of Rs.1000/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order failing which the appellant is under further direction to pay 12% interest per annum from the date of order till the whole amount is paid. 2.The complainant has approached the Forum stating hthat he is a retired Government teacher and that consequent to his retirement on 31.3.07, his subscription to GPF was not properly closed and that he was entitled to get a sum of Rs.12751/- towards the balance. Claiming the balance amount and imputing deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complaint was filed praying for idrections to the opposite parties to pay the unpaid balance of Rs.12751/- wi...

P. Muraleedharan Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Kerala

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. In all the 30 cases the question raised is one and the same i.e. whether the explanation introduced to Section 65(19)(ii) read with Section 65(105)(zzb) of the Finance Act 1994 providing for levy of tax on service rendered in relation to lotteries promoted or marketed by the clients is unconstitutional as claimed by the petitioners. All the petitioners are distributors or agents of lotteries organized by various State Governments or their authorised agencies engaged in sale of lottery tickets in Kerala. The tickets sold are of lotteries organized or authorised by States of Kerala, Sikkim and also Bhutan Government. The petitioners have approached this Court challenging notices issued demanding details and documents pertaining to the charges received for the service rendered in relation to lotteries, which is obviously for levy of service tax under the head “Business Auxiliary Service” covered by Section 65(19) of Finance Act, 1994. 2. We have h...

Chloroplasts Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

C. N. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. Question raised is whether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the rate of tax applied i.e. 12% on the turnover of PVC pipes sold by the petitioner under brand name during the year 2003-2004. We have heard counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader for the respondent. 2. Admittedly appellant got PVC pipes manufactured in their brand name “Sakthiman” from a SSI unit which claimed exemption from sales tax based on the declaration in Form No. 25D issued by the petitioner stating that petitioner is paying tax on sale of the products in the brand name which is the point of levy by virtue of operation of S.5(2) of the Act. S.5(2) itself was introduced to the statute to levy tax on wholesale market price of the goods when sold by the brand name holder. Petitioner also concedes their liability under S.5(2) as deemed first seller of goods being brand name holders selling goods after purchase from SSI units who manufactur...