Kerala Court September 2011 Judgments

K.G. Premsankar (ig of Police) Vs. Sunil Krishnan

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(4)KLJ252; 2011(4)KLT56(C.No.62)(SN); 2011(4)KHC895

1. The defendant who suffered a decree in OS No.479/95 at the hands of the Sub Court Thrissur, is the appellant. The parties and facts are herein after referred to as they are available before the trial court. 2. The defendant is an I.P.S. Officer. It is alleged in the plaint that he was not on good terms with the members of his family. His mother passed away on 24.01.1993 at Aswini Hospital, Thrissur. The deadbody was brought to the house of the plaintiff and cremated on 25.01.1993. The allegation is that when the defendant came to perform the religious obsequies on the dead of his mother on 31.01.1993, the plaintiff was forcibly taken to a house and made to sign some blank papers. He was also tortured, according to the allegations in the plaint. Later, the plaintiff came to know that though signed blank papers have been used by the defendant to manipulate records to show that the vehicle owned by the plaintiff has been transferred to the defendant. The specific allegation in the plai...

M/S. Kalliyath Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

C. N. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. The short question arising for consideration in the tax revision case filed by the assessee is whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming disallowance of input tax credit claimed on opening stock held on the first day of the assessment year 2005-06. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner / assessee and learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent, and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities including that of the Tribunal. 3. The VAT regime was introduced in the State from 01/04/2005 onwards. Under the scheme of levy of tax under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, registered dealers are entitled to input tax credit and the liability to pay tax is output tax as reduced by the input tax paid on purchases, which is allowed as credit. Admittedly, the assessee is entitled to input tax credit on the opening stock held on 01/04/2005 which has suffered tax on the purchases made under the Kerala General Sales Tax A...

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. PatspIn India Ltd.

Court: Kerala

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. The short question arising in all the connected appeals filed by the Revenue against the very same assessee is whether deduction of export profit for 100% export oriented industrial unit has to be granted with reference to the profit of the industrial unit computed under the provisions of the Act which includes set off of unabsorbed depreciation carried forward from earlier years as provided under Section 32(2) of Income Tax Act, (hereinafter called "the Act"). The assessments involved are for the years 2001-2002 to 2005-2006 (5 assessment years). The assessee filed returns for regular assessment on the profit determined under the provisions of the Act and in the alternative, for assessment on book profit as provided under Section 115JB of the Act. The controversy arose in the determination of deduction admissible under Section 10B(4) to both of the industrial units run by the assessee which are admittedly 100% EOUs eligible for deduction on export profits...

ismayil Vs. Fathima and Another

Court: Kerala

Basant, J. How is the concept of maintenance to an unmarried adult daughter to be unmarried adult daughter to be understood? Does that conceptually include the obligation to meet the marriage expenses of an adult daughter? Is the concept of maintenance payable by a Muslim father to his adult daughter to be understood differently? These are the questions that arise for consideration in this writ petition. 2. Reference to the essential factual matrix may be relevant. The husband/father is the petitioner. His wife and daughter had filed O.P.No.1603/09 before the Family Court, Thrissur, claiming past and future maintenance to them as also the prospective marriage expenses of the daughter. This petition was filed under Sect.7 of the Family Courts Act. An amount of Rs.1,20,000/- towards past maintenance and maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per mensem for each towards future maintenance as also an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- as prospective marriage expenses of the adult major daughter aged ...

P. Gopakumar Vs. B. Anil Kumar and Another

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(4)KLT39(SN)(C.No.37); 2011(4)KLJ82; 2011(3)KHC850

The revision is by the accused, who has been convicted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for short, the ‘N.I. Act’, concurrently, by the two inferior courts. The learned Magistrate, on his conviction, had sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a sum of Rs.3 lakhs as compensation and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Confirming the conviction, in appeal, the learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence reducing the substantive term of imprisonment to one day, till the rising of the court, retaining the sum of compensation, but, converting it to one of fine, reducing the default term of imprisonment to two months. Fine amount, if realized, was directed to be paid as compensation to the complainant. Feeling aggrieved, the accused has preferred this revision. 2. Notice given, the 1st respondent/complainant has entered appearance. I heard the counsel on both sides. The main thrust of at...

Thressiamma Jacob, Retd Headmistress Vs. T.A.K. Sankaranarayana Iyer

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in CC.325/09 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The Forum closed the proceedings on the ground that the complainant filed a memo stating that she has no interest in further pursuing the matter. 2. The case is with respect to the alleged defective saris purchased by the complainant from the respondent/opposite party. It is the case of the appellant that it appeared that the Forum is supporting the opposite parties and hence she may not get justice from the Forum. Evidently the complainant was under a misapprehension. The appellant presented the case in person. 3. In the circumstances, the order of the Forum is set aside. The Forum is directed to issue notice to the opposite parties and dispose of the matter afresh. The Forum is directed to provide the assistance of a counsel to the complainant free of cost. 4. The matter stands posted before the Forum below on 17.10.2011 The office will forward the copy of this order...

Asst.Engineer, Kerala Water Authority Water Works Section Vii Pongumoo ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/Kerala Water Authority in CC.69/09 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as costs to the complainant with interest at 12%. 2. It is the case of the complainant that there is leakage in the water connection subsequent to the pipe line work in the road and when the matter was informed to the opposite parties he was told that he will have to pay Rs.750/-. Subsequently, the leakage was closed. Thereafter the complainant was not getting water. When the matter was intimated he was directed to rectify the defect at his own costs. He is not having water supply for a considerable period. 3. The opposite parties have contended that the leakage was not due to the pipe line works and that the leakage started after 2 months of the completion of work and road tarring. It was contended that as per the regulations, the consumer ha...

Sreekumar, Manager Hdfc Ltd. and Another Vs. P. BenjamIn and Another

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/officials of the HDFC bank in CC 287/06 in the file of CDRF, Kollam who are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.1250/- with interest at 12% and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and costs. It is the case of the complainants/husband and wife that they are the joint owners of 6 cents of land and had applied for housing maintenance loan in the year 2004 and that on getting expert opinion that doing maintenance is impractical they applied for a loan for the construction of a new building and remitted Rs.1250/- towards processing charges. The officers of the opposite party visited the plot and informed that the loan has been sanctioned. But no intimation was received in writing. The loan was sanctioned and the complainant proceeded to the construction of the building and cut down 3 trees standing in the proposed site. Subsequently when the complainant approached to receive the loan amount he was told that ...

Mujeeb Vs. State of Kerala Rep by the Public Prosecutor

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(3)KLJ763; 2011(4)KLT31; 2011(3)KHC748; 2012CrLJ95(NOC)

1. This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.3 in Crime No.212 of 2011 of Perumpadappu Police Station, Malappuram District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 21 (c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NDPS Act’). The case was originally registered under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act and Section 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Later, a report was filed and the sections of offence were altered to Sections 21 (c) and 29 of the NDPS Act. 3. The prosecution case is the following: On 28.6.2011 at about 4 PM, the Sub Inspector of Police, Perumpadappu Police Station got secret information that some persons belonging to Mannarkkad would arrive near Taj Theatre, Palappetty, to hand over brown sugar to one Tharayil Mujeeb of Palappetty. The police party went to the spot. They found four persons near the ...

Srimad Raghavendra Thirtha Swamy Vs. Srimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swamiji

Court: Kerala

Thomas P. Joseph 1. A question relating to the jurisdiction of the District Court, Ernakulam to execute a decree for prohibitory/mandatory injunction on a counter claim made in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Thirupathi in a suit brought by the petitioner/plaintiff arises for a decision in this proceeding. 2. Short facts necessary for a decision of the question are: Petitioner filed a suit in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Thirupathi praying inter alia for a declaration that he is the Matadhipathi of Kashi Matt Samsthan. Apart from resisting the suit contending that respondent/decree holder/defendant is the real Matadhipathi, he also laid a counterclaim for prohibitory/mandatory injunction, inter alia asking for a direction to the petitioner to return the deities, valuable ornaments etc. in his custody to the respondent. Learned Additional District Judge, Thirupathi after trial, dismissed the suit and decreed the counter claim. Petitioner challenged the...