Kerala Court January 2012 Judgments
Vasantha Kumari Vs. State Bank of Travancore
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-31-2012
1. Challenge in this Writ Petition is against Exts. P2 and P3 revenue recovery notices issued at the instance of the respondent Bank. According to the petitioners, who are the parents of Smt. Jwala, an education loan of Rs. 3,32,000/- was availed of by their daughter in 2004. The loan was for the purpose of completing her studies in B.Sc Nursing at the Vivekananda College of Nursing, Bangalore. It is stated that after completing 3 years of her study, since the institute did not have recognition of the authorities, students including their daughter was debarred from appearing for the public examination. As a result, the student had to join another college in September, 2007 where she is now undergoing her course in the final year. Meantime full amount of financial assistance from the Bank was availed of. On the allegation that default was committed in the matter of repayment, revenue recovery proceedings are now initiated. Petitioners challenge the revenue recovery proceedings on variou...
Tag this Judgment!Kumar, Kanyakumari Dist Tamil Nadu and Others Vs. State of Kerala, Rep ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-31-2012
1. Accused nos. 1 to 4 and 6 are the petitioners in Cr.M.C.No:3856/2011. Accused no.9 therein, is the petitioner in Cr.M.C. No:4249/2011. Accused nos. 5, 7, 8 and 10 in that case are petitioners in O.P.(Crl) No:3681/2011. The firm 'M/s. Malayalam Builders' had purchased a partly constructed multi storied building. A7 to A9 are partners of that firm. An incident took place at the construction site on 21.10.2007, which resulted in the death of two nuns who were residents of the convent situated just adjacent to the compound where construction was being done. Bricks were being lifted by hoist lift without providing protective measures/nets to prevent fall of bricks and other materials while being hoisted/lifted. While bricks were being lifted through the hoist lift some bricks fell down. It fell on the heads of the two nuns causing fatal injuries to which those two nuns succumbed. A crime was registered against ten accused persons alleging offence under section 304 IPC. After conducting i...
Tag this Judgment!V.N. Raghavan Vs. State of Kerala Rep. by the Chief Secretary, Govt. S ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-31-2012
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner is an Assistant Engineer, who has retired from the Electrical Section, Wandoor, on attaining superannuation. Shortly before his retirement, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on allegations of corruption and he was alleged to have accepted bribe. According to the petitioner, he was trapped in a false corruption case by some of his opponents. The Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Malappuram had registered a case V.C. No.1/2000 against the petitioner alleging that he had accepted illegal gratification of an amount of Rs.500/- from the son of an applicant who sought a fresh electric connection. In the criminal case, the petitioner was found guilty and was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each. The petitioner has filed Crl.Appeal No.812/2007 before this court challenging the conviction and sentence against him. The Criminal Appeal is still pending. 2. While so, af...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Comprehensive Digital, World Pvt.Ltd. Represented by Its Managing ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-31-2012
1. The defendants in O.S. No. 42 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Kottayam have filed this revision challenging the finding entered on additional issue No.3 in the above suit, by the learned Additional Sub Judge. Suit was one for realisation of money filed by the respondent, a subsidiary Bank under the State Bank of India. Suit was instituted on behalf of the plaintiff Bank by its Branch Manager in whose branch, presumably, the banking transaction giving rise to the suit claim with the defendants had taken place. In the written statement, among other contentions, the defendants had disputed the competency of the above said Branch Manager to institute a suit in the name of the Bank. The order impugned in the revision would also show that on an application moved by them as I.A.No. 3253 of 2009, an additional issue was cast in the suit as “Whether the person who instituted the suit is competent to institute the suit in the name of the plaintiff Banks?”. Plainti...
Tag this Judgment!Subhaga Kumar M.K., Ernakulam, Others Vs. State of Kerala, Rep. by Its ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-31-2012
1. The petitioners in this bunch of writ petitions are employees of the State Co-operative Bank and the District Co-operative Banks. They challenge the orders of exclusion purportedly passed under the Employees’ Provident funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the ‘Act’ for short). I shall refer to the parties and the exhibits in WP(C) No.15150/2011 for the sake of convenience. Two of the writ petitions have been filed seeking to enforce the exclusion orders impugned in the other writ petitions. 2. The petitioners enrolled themselves under the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 framed under Section 6A of the Act while in service. The petitioners retired from service during the years 2000-2005 and have since been drawing pension under the scheme aforesaid. The disbursement was abruptly halted by an order of exclusion passed by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation. Ext.P3 is the order of exclusion passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Akhil G Vs. the Union of India and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-31-2012
1. When the matter was taken up for admission, the Court raised a question as to whether the proper forum for adjudicating the grievances of the petitioner is not the Armed Forces Tribunal under the Armed Forces Tribunals Act, 2007. 2. The Central Government Counsel appearing would submit that there is still some doubt regarding the same since in respect of appointment and enrolment, the Tribunal takes a view that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in so far as going by the definition of “service matters” in Section 3(o), only over persons subject to the Army Act, 1950, the Tribunal will have jurisdiction and persons seeking appointment and enrolment concerned do not become subject to the Army Act. Therefore, I have considered the question as to whether the petitioner should be relegated to the remedy by way of approaching the Armed Forces Tribunal. 3. Section 14 deals with the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Armed Forces Tribunal in service matters. Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Susheela, Post Kasaragod and Another Vs. T.M. Muhammedkunhi, Kasaragod
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-31-2012
Ramkumar, J. 1. The two defendants in O.S. No. 139 of 1993 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kasaragod, are the appellants in this first appeal. Pending the appeal the first appellant died and her legal representatives were impleaded as additional appellants 3 to 8. The aforesaid suit was one for specific performance of Ext.A1 agreement for sale dated 19-1-1993 of two items of immovable properties each admeasuring 12 cents belonging to the first and second defendants respectively. The plaintiff's case 2. The case of the plaintiff can be summarised as follows:- The plaint schedule items 1 and 2 belong to defendants 1 and 2 respectively. As per Ext.A1 agreement for sale dated 19-1- 1993 the plaintiff agreed to purchase and the defendants agreed to sell the plaint schedule properties to the plaintiff for a total consideration of ` 1,45,000/-. The plaintiff paid ` 55,000/- on the date of the agreement itself and the defendants have acknowledged the same in Ext.A1 agreement. The...
Tag this Judgment!Sulthan Gold International, Kasaragod Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-31-2012
Ramachandran Nair,J: 1. Question raised is whether the Tribunal was justified in declining rebate of tax under Section 12(1) a of the KVAT Act read with rule 38 (5) of the KVAT Rules on the purchase turnover of old gold ornaments from the tax determined on estimated turnover based on inspection done during the period, August 2006. We have heard counsel for the petitioner and also Government pleader appearing for respondents. 2. The petitioner is a gold dealer in Kasaragod whose place of business was inspected on 9.8.2006. Massive suppression of sales of Rs. 45 lakhs was found out which was for the four hours business carried on the date of inspection. Based on the inspection turnover for the return period August 2006 was estimated by making addition of three times to the actual suppression besides treating the suppression itself as turnover. To make up for the suppressed purchases, 80% of the addition on sales turnover was treated as purchase suppression and tax was demanded under Sect...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary, K.S.E.B., Vydyuthy Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram a ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jan-31-2012
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/KSEB in C.C. 218/11 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The penal bill issued by the opposite parties stands cancelled. It is the case of the complainant that he had got regularized the unauthorized connecting load in 2007 after remitting penal charges. Subsequently on 8.4.2011 a penal bill to the tune of Rs. 26,615/- has been issued subsequent to the audit report. It is alleged that the same is barred by limitation. The evidence adduced consisted of Ext. A1, B1 and B2. The Forum has noted that Ext. B1 copy of the audit report disclosed that penalty was continuously recovered up to 4/09. Further more the bill has been issued only on 8.4.2011. The Forum has relied on clause, 18(8) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2005 which is the same as Sec. 56(2) of the Electricity Act. The opposite parties are not entitled as per the above provisions to issue the bill after the expiry of 2 years. Hence we find that there is...
Tag this Judgment!Ramachandran, Proprietor, Sree Durga Finance, Punnamparambu, Thrissur ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jan-31-2012
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in C.C. 1001/06 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The appellant is under orders to pay Rs. 10,500/- with interest at 12% from the date of complaint. The case of the complainant is that he had pledged with the opposite party a gold ring weighing 7.4 grams for Rs. 2000/- on 7.5.2002, a gold chain of 11grams and 2 ear rings for Rs. 3,500/- and on 11.5.2002 a bangle of 9.8grams for Rs. 3,750/- He had remitted the interest on 10.8.2003. When he wanted to redeem the pledged on 20.4.2006 he was told that the same has been sold in auction. According to him no notice was given to him before the articles were sold. He has sought for return of the ornaments and compensation of Rs. 5,000/- The opposite parties have contended that the period fixed in his establishment for gold loans is usually six months. If the ornaments are not taken back within 6 months notice used to be sent directing to take back the ornaments. It is al...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »