Kerala Court September 2011 Judgments

N.P. Pushpangadan and Others Vs. the Federal Bank Ltd., Rep. by Its Br ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(4)ILR(Ker)196; 2011(4)KLT134(FB); 2011(4)KLJ93; 2011(4)KHC40; 2012AIR(Ker)27

K.T. SANKARAN, J. 1. When this Writ Petition along with another Writ Petition came up for hearing before another Bench of this Court, the following questions of law were framed for consideration. (i) Whether the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘Securitisation Act’) has an overriding effect over the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965? and (ii) Whether a tenant under the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act of a premise which is the subject matter of Securitisation proceedings can be summarily evicted under Sections 13 (4) and 14 of the Securitisation Act irrespective of the protection available to him under the Rent Control Act? 2. According to the petitioners, they are tenants in a line building consisting of six rooms in Ward No.13 of Cherthala Municipality. The building belonged to the predecessor in interest of respondents 2 to 4. ...

Aspinwall and Company Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner

Court: Kerala

C. N. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. A plantation company owning rubber plantation and an assessee under the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991, was amalgamated with the assessee in this case under a scheme of amalgamation approved by the High Court of Kerala. The amalgamation was made effective from 01/01/2006 and consequently amalgamating company’s first assessment under the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 was made for the assessment year 2006-2007 covering income for three months for the financial year ending 31/03/2006. Besides very little income from minor crops, the main income earned by the assessee on acquisition of estate from the amalgamated company is income from rubber in the form of field latex which was processed in assessee’s factory and sold as centrifuged latex. Even though the income from centrifuged latex was being assessed exclusively as agricultural income under the State Act until the assessment year 2001-2002, from the next year onwards by vi...

Commissioner of Customs, Customs House CochIn Vs. N.V. Georgekutty

Court: Kerala

Antony Dominic, J. 1. Certain common questions of law arise in all these cases and therefore these cases were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. For narration of facts, we shall refer to OP No. 23272/2002, against the Judgment of which, WA No. 1140/2006 has been filed and WP (C) No. 3751/2009 and the parties are described as they are arrayed in the original petitions and writ petitions. 3. The petitioners are exporters of door mats, floor mats etc., which are made out of "Rubber Compounded Sheets" and the subject - matter of the litigations is their claim for the benefit of Duty Entitlement Pass Book. Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the 'DEPB Scheme' for short). Three such Original Petitions were allowed by this Court and against the judgments, the Writ Appeals are filed by the respondents therein. 4. OP No. 23272/2002 was filed by 20 such exporters and the prayers sought are to: "1. Declare the clarification of the 1st respondent in Ext. P10 excluding do...

The Manager Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., and Another Vs. Mathai ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN :JUDICIAL MEMBERAppellants are the opposite parties and respondent is the complainant in CC No. 91/10 on the file of CDRF, Wayanad, Kalpetta. The complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in calculating the actual balance amount due to the opposite parties under the loan agreement dated 5.6.06. It was also alleged that the opposite parties demanded a sum of Rs.7,20,000/- by way of balance amount due under the said loan agreement. 2. The opposite parties entered appearance before the Forum below filed written version and denied the deficiency in service. They contended that the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act as the loan was availed for commercial purpose. It was further contended that the complainant was a defaulter in making the monthly installments under the loan agreement and that he is also liable to pay over due charges for the delayed payment of the monthly installments. Thus, the ...

Kseb, R/by Its Secretary, Vydhuthi Bhavan and Another Vs. Ajith Mathai ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellants are the opposite parties and respondent is the complainant in CC.517/06 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The complaint was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing bill dated:10.9.2003 for Rs.62,860/- for consumption of the energy for the month of August 2003. The complainant alleged that his average consumption during the year 2002-2003 was around 800-900 units but as per the impugned bill the consumption is shown as 6627 units, for the month of August 2003. Thus, the complainant prayed for cancellation of the aforesaid bill dated:10.9.2003. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged consumption of energy. They contended that the disputed bill for Rs.62,860/- was issued based on the consumption of electrical energy recorded by the energy meter installed at the premises of the complainant. It is further contended that the disputed meter was tested by t...

Abdulrahiman, Central Prision, Kannur Vs. State of Kerala, Represented ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(4)KLT124; 2011(4)KLJ118; 2011(3)KHC931

"CR" 1. A convict, who is undergoing sentence, imposed on default of payment of maintenance ordered under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure {for short ‘the Code”}, has sent a petition from jail challenging the punishment imposed against him on two applications moved by the claimants/respondents, his wife and children. Orders in C.M.P.No.22/08 and 1443/10 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kasaragod imposing sentence of imprisonment against the petitioner, for the terms fixed thereunder, are challenged in this petition. Petition sent by him has been numbered as a revision as aforesaid. 2. Since the petition has been sent from jail, I have appointed Advocate Smt.Leela to assist the court. Notice was ordered to be served on the counsel, who appeared for the respondents in the Family Court, directing service through that court. Such service has been effected as seen from the report of the Judge of the Family Court, but the respondents have not entered appear...

T. Balakrishnan Master Vs. K.M. Ramachandran Master and Another

Court: Kerala

(Prayer: Petition praying that is the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court be pleased to condone the delay of 21 days caused in filing the Crl. Revision Petition in the interest of justice.) 1. The unnumbered revision with the afore numbered petition to condone delay, has been filed by the de facto complainant in C.C.No.127 of 2004 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - V, Kozhikode, impeaching the legality and correctness of the order of acquittal passed in favour of the first respondent/accused, who was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 166, 167 and 466 of the Indian Penal Code, on a report filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Faroke Police Station. 2. The delay petition coming up for consideration, a question arose whether the de facto complainant/revision petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy of preferring an appeal against the order of acquittal. The crux of the allegations for prosecution of the first res...

Venkatachalam Vs. State

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(4)KLT222; 2011(4)KLJ264; 2011(4)ILR(Ker)550

Crl.R.P.No.2457/10 is by accused Nos.4 and 8 and Crl.R.P.No.3137/10 is by the 3rd accused in C.C.No.1/08 on the file of the Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Lakshadweep. 2. Accused, nine in number, are proceeded with for offences punishable under S.120B read with Ss.468 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code and Ss.7, 12, 13(2) read with S.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short “the Act”), on a report filed by the Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Kochi. 3. Petitioners in the aforesaid revisions (accused 3, 4 and 8) had filed petitions, separately, seeking their discharge raising various grounds contending that the prosecution against them is unsustainable. Accused 4 and 8, in these petitions, had raised challenges as to want of sanction under S.197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”) and also S.19 of the Act, as interdicting the court from taking cognizance of the offences imputed against them in the case. The ...

O. Sivanandan Vs. C.K. Kumaran

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellant is the opposite party and respondent is the complainant in C.C. 131/05 on the file of CDRF, Kozhikode. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in doing the leak proofing work for the house of the complainant. The complainant claimed refund of the amount of Rs. 73,851.40 received by the opposite party for doing the leak proofing work and also for compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for the mental agony suffered by the complainant, and also for the financial loss to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- with cost. 2. The opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. He took the contention that the complainant is not a consumer coming within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act and that the complaint is bad for non joinder of the manufacturer of Roofit Mix Water Proof Plaster S.P. 506 that the guarantee was issued by the manufacturer and tha...

C.U. Pappachan Vs. Thilakan

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 19th January, 2011 in E.A. 28/10 which was filed under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act for initiating action against the offender for his failure to comply with the order passed by the Forum below directing restoration of the electricity connection to the complainant /petitioner, Thilakan. It is against the said order, the present appeal is filed. 2. When this appeal was taken up for final hearing, there was no representation for the respondent/complainant. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant/first opposite party, the offender in E.A 28/10. It was submitted that there was no willful negligence or disrespect on the part of the offender, the appellant herein. It is also submitted that the electricity connection was dismantled and so the offender was not in a position to restore the connection. It is further submitted that with much difficulties, the offender, Asst. Engineer of ...