Kerala Court February 2012 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. A.H. Khais
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-10-2012
RamachandranNair, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Tribunal confirming the CIT(Appeals) order cancelling block assessment made on the respondent-assessee. We have heard Senior counsel Sri.P.K.R.Menon appearing for the Revenue and Adv. Sri.Arun Raj appearing for the respondent-assessee. 2. Block assessment was made on the respondent-assessee based on evidence collected in search conducted on 29.7.1997 along with search in the premises of the film distributor by name Sri.P.D.Abraham @ Appachan of Swargachitra Films and assessee's own brother Sri.A.M.Fazil, another film director. The questions raised in the appeal relate to the addition of undisclosed income of Rs.4.5 lakhs for 1994- 95 and Rs.1,17,140/- for the assessment year 1995-96. The addition is based on evidence recovered in the course of search in the form of realisation statement from the premises of another partner namely, Sri.A.M.Fazil who is assessee's brother. The addition relates to 40% ...
N. Rajesh Vs. Terrance Herbert Patterson
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Feb-10-2012
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Appellant is the opposite party in CC.45/06 in the file of CDRF, Kannur. The appellant is under orders to refund a sum of Rs.2,05,000/- towards the value of rectification works and to refund Rs.68,180/- and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.3000/- towards cost. 2. The case of the complainant is that he had entrusted the construction of a residential building with the opposite party vide agreement dated:31.8.2002. He paid altogether a sum of Rs.23,27,195/- including Rs.51,680/- as supervision charges for additional works done. The cost of additional works amounted to Rs.6,83,505/-. The construction was completed in June 2003. It was agreed to use the best quality material available in the market and that the construction will be completed under the direct personal supervision of the opposite party. House warming ceremony was conducted on 30.06.2003. Thereafter several cracks developed on the walls. Gradually, cracks become ...
Mathew Vs. P.J. Joseph and Another
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Feb-10-2012
JUSTICE SHRI.KR. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Appellant is the 1st opposite party/dealer in CC.8/09 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The appellant along with the 2nd opposite party/manufacturer is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as cost and that if the amount is not paid within one month the interest rate will be 12% from the date of default. 2. The case of the complainant who is running a shop for ladies items, fancy items etc is that the plywood purchased by him from the shop of the 1st opposite party/appellant and manufactured by the 2nd opposite party was of substandard quality and that as a result he had to dismantle the entire furnishing made to the shop and thereby he has sustained a loss to the tune of Rs.7,69,037/-. The furnishing in the shop was made in June 2002 and he paid an amount of Rs.1,89,448/- for the plywood from the shop of the 1st opposite party who assured 10 years replacement guarantee and also for the quality. He spent a sum of Rs.1,70,587/- towards the labour cha...
The Managing Director, Integrated Stock Brocking Service Pvt.Ltd. Vs. ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Feb-10-2012
JUSTICE SRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC.74/07 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.40400/- to the complainant with 12% interest from the date of complaint. 2. The case of the complainant is that one Suresh from the office of the 1st opposite party/Branch Manager Integrated Finance Group came to his residence and on behalf of the 1st opposite party canvassed deposit of Rs.20000/- each from both the complainants and handed over brochures for purchase of shares. It was assured that the complainants will be paid Rs.2000/- per month per deposit from the next month onwards. The complainants enquired the matter at the office of the 1st opposite party and confirmed the same. Accordingly the complainants paid Rs.20000/- each and the 1st opposite party/Branch Manager issued temporary receipts and told that the original receipt will be issued after one month by the 2nd opposite party Managing Director/Head ...
The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co, Ltd., Chittoor and Another ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Feb-10-2012
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT Appellants are the opposite parties/Insurance company in C.C 42/10 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 54,795/- with interest at 12% from 31.12.2008, the date of repudiation of the claim till the date of order and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs, to be paid within one month failing which the amount would carry interest at 9% from the date of the order. The case of the complainant is that the Hitachi Excavator owned by him and covered by the policy of the opposite parties for a sum of Rs. 16 lakhs fell in to a pond and sustained damages on 9.3.2008. As it was a Sunday, on the next day the matter was informed to the opposite parties. As the machine should not be allowed to remain submerged in water for a long time, to minimize damages it was retrieved from the site . A surveyor has inspected the machine. The claim was repudiated. According to the complainant he had spent a sum of Rs. 3,30,000/- for repairs....
State Bank of India, Thampanoor Branch, Thiruvananthapuram. Reptd by I ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Feb-10-2012
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC 5/03 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellants are under orders to return the share certificates deposited by the complainant or in the alternative to take steps to issue duplicates of the share certificates at the cost of the opposite parties and also to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.2,000/- as costs. 2. It is the case of the complainant that she has deposited share certificates of 33600 equity shares of Kanichai Hotels (P) Ltd; of which she is the Director. The company had availed financial assistance from the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Cochin which was amalgamated with the State Bank of India. The share certificates were deposited as security along with the title deeds. The bank subsequently instituted suit before the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram for recovery of the loan amount. Subsequently, the case was transferred to DRT, Cochin. The complainant deposited the amounts and ...
Suni @ Sudheer, Thrissur Vs. the State of Kerala, Rep. by the Public P ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-09-2012
K. Vinod Chandran, J. 1. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. This is a classical case of such fire, fiercer than that of the purgatory, consuming the lover and also the avenger, but not even singeing the one from whom such fire emanated. 2. The appellant (A1) was charged along with three others with the offence of conniving with the other accused and murdering the deceased who had jilted his aunt (A3), on the eve of the betrothal of the deceased. The offence as charged by the prosecution occurred on 11.1.2003 at 8.15 p.m. The 1st accused along with three others being his cousin (A2) and aunts (A3 and A4) with the common intention of murdering one Suresh, detained the latter and committed his murder with a chopper, causing 23 ante-mortem injuries on the deceased, was the allegation. The 1st accused alone was charged with the overt act of inflicting the injuries on the deceased leading to his death. The other accused were arraigned for the common intention they nurtured to commit the...
Muhammed Vs. Joint Regional Transport Officer and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-09-2012
MANJULA CHELLUR, AG.C.J. 1. These Writ Appeals and Writ Petitions pertains to controversy of fancy/particular registration numbers to the vehicles of appellants and petitioners respectively. Subsequent to amendment to Rule 95 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short, 'the Rules') which come into force with effect from 1.3.2011, several litigations are filed before this Court. In the above two appeals, challenge was to the rejection of the respondent authorities in allotting fancy/particular number of applicant's choice. They had approached the learned Single Judge and the Writ Petitions came to be dismissed. As the Writ Appeals were pending before the Division Bench, all the Writ Petitions involving similar controversy were clubbed with the above appeals. 2. The table below would indicate which appellants/petitioners had sought for which fancy/particular number which came to be rejected by the respondent transport authorities: CASE No.FANCY/ PARTICULAR NUMBER SOUGHT FORTEMP....
O.P. Sreedhara Menon, Coimbatore and Others Vs. K. Amarnath Shetty, Pa ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-09-2012
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J: 1. Whether dismissal of an appeal preferred by the State against the declaration given by the Forest Tribunal, that the property is not a ‘private forest’ vested with the Government and the failure, if any, on the part of the Government/Department to restore possession, will by itself give rise to a cause of action to proceed against the respondent(s)/State by way of Contempt of Court, is the primary point to be considered in these cases. Whether non-implementation of the ‘Undertaking’ given before the Court will constitute an offence of contempt always, irrespective of the circumstances under which such Undertaking was given, is the next point to be answered. Will the non-compliance with the ‘Undertaking’ give rise to any ‘Criminal contempt’ is the further point to be considered in COC (CRL.)2/2011-Suo motu. Whether initiation of such Suo Motu contempt as per the order dated ’30.03.2011’ in respect ...
K. Premajan Vs. Corporation of Kozhikode, Represented by Its Secretary ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-09-2012
V. CHITAMBARESH, J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the construction of a massive building by the second respondent on the adjacent 3 cents (125 Sq.mts) of land within the limits of the Corporation. Ext.P1 building permit issued by the Corporation for a three storied building is impugned in this writ petition. The complaint is that a pencil like structure is being erected to circumvent the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short.) 2. The construction of buildings in small plots (not exceeding 125 Sq. mts of area) is governed by Rules 60, 61, 62, 63 and 64 contained in Chapter VIII of Rules. Rule 60 of the Rules is as follows:- 60. Special provisions for construction in small plots:- The provisions in the Kerala Municipality Building Rules shall apply to construction of building under residential and/or commercial occupancy, in plots not exceeding 125 sq.meters of area subject to the modifications in this Chapter: Pr...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »