Kerala Court February 2012 Judgments
T.O. Chacko Vs. Kerala State Co-operative Employees Pension Board and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-27-2012
P.N. Ravindran, J. 1. The petitioner is a former employee of the third respondent co- operative society. He entered service as a Lower Division Clerk on 15.4.1960 and attained the age of superannuation on 31.8.1998. He was a member of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 with effect from 1.2.1966. 2. While the petitioner was working as Branch Manager, a theft occurred in the Othara branch where the petitioner was working, on 10.6.1994. By order passed on 25.6.1994 the petitioner was placed under suspension and disciplinary action was initiated against him. Later, by order passed on 28.8.1996, he was dismissed from service. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the order of dismissal from service in appeal before the Managing Committee of the third respondent society. He thereafter unsuccessfully moved the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies under rule 176 of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act, 1969. His appeal to the Government was also dismissed. He, thereupon, filed...
Tag this Judgment!Rekha Vs. Vanitha Driving Institute, Kanippayyur, Kannamkulam
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Feb-27-2012
SHRI. A. RADHA : MEMBER Aggrieved by the order passed by the CDRF, Thrissur in OP No 568/04 the appellant/complainant came up in this appeal. 2. The complainant joined the respondent driving school where ladies were taught driving. The case of the complainant is that the fees prescribed was Rs.3,500/- and the appellant/complainant paid Rs.2,000/- on admission on 11.11.02. After joining the class the complainant had to discontinue due to health problems and after one year ie on 8.12.03 she rejoined and remitted Rs.1,500/-. It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party was reluctant to pick her up from her house even after the payment of fees. This act of the respondent amounted to deficiency in service and filed the complaint. She filed the complaint alleging deficiency in service and prayed for Rs.7,000/- as compensation, Rs.2,000/- for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards cost. 3. The opposite party/respondent filed version stating that the complainant joined under the sche...
Tag this Judgment!P.V. Chacko Vs. Lissy Joseph and Another
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Feb-25-2012
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the 2nd opposite party in CC.45/11 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The opposite parties including the appellant is under orders to refund Rs.4,20,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from 5.6.07 the date of deposit. 2. The case of the complainant is that he deposited Rs.4,20,000/- in the Jyothis project of the opposite parties on 5.6.07 believing the assurance of the opposite parties that double the amount will be repaid on maturity on 28.4.09. After maturity the amount was not refunded. The complainant was claimed the above amount with interest at 12%. 3. The 1st opposite party/ Firm represented by the Managing Partner stood ex-parte. The Managing Partner who is the 2nd opposite party/appellant in person has contended that he is not the Managing Partner of the 1st opposite party/Firm and that there is no cause of action against him. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A12. 5. Exts.A2 to A11 ar...
Tag this Judgment!Fawas Ajmal Vs. the State of Kerala and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
MANJULA CHELLUR, AG.C.J. 1. These Writ Appeals are directed against the judgment dated 30.1.2012 in W.P(C).No.34131 of 2011 and other connected petitions filed by the present appellants. All the appellants were the writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge. As the subject matter of the Writ Petitions was common, they were heard and disposed of by a common judgment. Similarly, all the appeals are heard and disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The brief facts led to filing of the present appeals are as under: It is not in dispute, the appellants were admitted to the respondent College for Bachelor of Dental Science (BDS), after securing ranks in the entrance examination conducted by the Commissioner concerned for the year 2010-2011 admissions. The rank list drawn by the Commissioner providing admission of students to Medical Course in different Colleges in the State pertain to Government Owned, Aided and Self Financing Colleges. The Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur (...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala Dinesh Beedi Workers, Central Co-Operative Society Ltd., 'Dines ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. The short question arising in the appeal filed by the assessee is whether the Tribunal was justified in declining to interfere with the order issued by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act directing the Assessing Officer to reconsider assessee's entitlement for deduction of interest earned on deposit made in other societies under Section 80P(2) of the Income Tax Act. We have heard counsel for the appellant and Standing Counsel for respondent. 2. After hearing both sides and on going through the orders of the Tribunal and that of the Commissioner and also the assessment order, what we notice is that the assessment was completed granting deduction of the entire amount claimed under Section 80P(2) of the Act which is interest income earned by the assessee on deposit made in another society. However, the Commissioner on going through the assessment order noticed that the Assessing Officer has not considered application of Section 80AB which prov...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Kerala, Rep. by District Collector, Kottayam and Others J ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
1. Under challenge in this petition is Ext.P2 order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kottayam in CMA No.70 of 2008 filed by the respondent against the order of the second petitioner directing the respondent to pay Rs.1,04,650/- as deficit stamp duty and Rs.16,746/- as registration fees. 2. The respondent purchased 1.69 percent undivided interest in 19.36Aresof property in Muttambalam Village with right to construct an apartment having a super built up area of 113.87 sq. metres along with one covered parking area. The value set forth in the instrument is Rs.1,61,645/-.For determination of deficit stamp duty, reference under Section 45B of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was made by the third petitioner to the second petitioner. On objection being taken to the sufficiency of stamp duty and registration fee, the second petitioner held that the value of the property covered by the instrument is Rs.10 lakhs and directed the...
Tag this Judgment!Balaji Refinery Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Cental Circle)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
Antony Dominic, J. 1. Petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of refining of gold bars, and is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, on the rolls of the 1st respondent. On 15/1/09, a team led by the Income Tax Officer from Palakkad conducted a search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the premises of the petitioner. In the search, 4136.83 grams of gold was seized and Ext.P1 is the panchanama prepared during the course of the search. Following the search and seizure, by Exts.P2 to P2(f) orders issued on 31/12/2010, assessment for the years 2003-04 to 2009-10 was completed under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act. In these orders, it is also stated that penalty proceedings under section 271(1)C of the Income Tax Act are being initiated. Later the assessment orders for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2006-07 were rectified as per Exts.P2(g) to P2(j). 2. Case of the petitioner is that the liability under Ext.P2 series of orders were discharged by remitting th...
Tag this Judgment!Sivaraman and Others Vs. State of Kerala Represented by Forest Range O ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
1. The petitioners challenge the concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence passed under Section 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act. Though the complaint was filed alleging offence under Section 27 (1) (e)(iii) also, the accused were found not guilty of that offence. Since there is a concurrent finding of fact regarding the act complained of, the only point that has been canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that though the prosecution contended that the area alleged to have been trespassed upon by the accused is a reserve forest, the original or the certified copy of the notification issued under Section 19 of the Act was not produced before the court and so the conviction is unsustainable. It is submitted by the learned counsel that production of the original or the certified copy of the notification under Section 19 is a pre-requisite for finding the accused guilty of the offence under Section 27 of the Act. It is argued that what was produced before ...
Tag this Judgment!Basil Attipetty @ Basil A.G, Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. 1. This is the 2nd round litigation in this Court challenging the establishment and constitution of Kerala Administrative Tribunal. The first round of litigation ended up with the Division Bench judgment in Sreekandan v. State of Kerala, reported in 2011(2) KLT 394, wherein this Court upheld the establishment of the Tribunal and appointment of the Chairman, against which SLP filed is said to be pending before the Honourable Supreme Court. In these batch cases, in addition to the challenge against the establishment and constitution of the Tribunal and appointment of the Chairman, some of the petitioners have challenged the selection and appointment of two Administrative Members from out of the 3 candidates selected by the selection committee. So far as Judicial Members are concerned, even though the selection committee selected two candidates, both members of the High Court Bar, from among several candidates who applied for the post including judicial officers from...
Tag this Judgment!Baby Chakrapani Vs. CochIn University of Science and Technology, Thrik ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings Ext.P1, issued by the University, nominating the sixth respondent as Head of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences. 2. The petitioner's case in a nutshell, is the following: He is presently working as Associate Professor in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences. Out of the six teaching members of the Department, four are Associate Professors/Professors and two are Assistant Professors. As per Statute 18 of the Cochin University of Science and Technology First Statutes, 1991 the Syndicate will have to nominate a teacher not below the rank of Reader as Head of the Department according to seniority, on a rotational basis for a period of three years. It is submitted that the current turn is that of the petitioner, as Prof. K. Mohankumar who is the sixth respondent herein, Prof. Babu C.A. and Dr. K.R. Santhosh have already served as Heads of the Department IN TURN during the last three terms, the last one having ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »