Kerala Court February 2012 Judgments

Lissie Medical Institutions, Represented by Its Director Vs. Commissio ...

Court: Kerala

Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. The appellant is a charitable institution registered under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short), and is running a hospital. In the course of running the hospital, the appellant acquires medical equipments such as x-ray units, scanning machines etc., which were purchased with the surplus funds available. The entire expenditure incurred for acquisition of capital assets is treated as application of income for charitable purposes under Section 11(1)(a) of the Act. When capital expenditure is treated as application of income for charitable purposes, the appellant virtually enjoys a 100% write off of the cost of assets. However, since medical service is a business activity held in Trust, the appellant claimed all the benefits under the Act including depreciation in the computation of net income. In the course of assessment for the year 2005-06, the Assessing Officer noticed that the appellant has claimed depreciation for R...

New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Venu K Shabu Nivas and Others

Court: Kerala

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. This appeal is against an award passed under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, for short, the 'Act'. The insurer is the appellant. 2. Vehicle bearing No.KL-01 G 4271, which is a Bajaj pick-up auto, collided with a mini lorry and the person who was driving the pick-up auto died while being carried to the Medical College Hospital, Trivandrum. His legal representatives filed a claim under the Act. 3. The insurer contested fundamentally on two grounds. The first contention was that there is breach of the policy condition in as much as the deceased driver possessed a licence only to drive a passenger vehicle, i.e., to say, a vehicle other than a goods vehicle and the vehicle that met with the accident was a goods vehicle. The second contention was that the policy was granted only regarding a passenger vehicle, i.e., to say, Bajaj autorikshaw and not for a goods pick-up auto. 4. Appreciating the evidence, the Commissioner repelled the plea that the insu...

S. GeethA., Has (English) Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by Secretar ...

Court: Kerala

1. The competing claims between the petitioner and the sixth respondent for appointment as Higher Secondary School Teacher (Junior) (English) under the school managed by the fifth respondent, is the issue arising for consideration herein. The interpretation of Rule 6(2) of chapter XXXII K.E.R. and other Rules also arises for consideration. The petitioner is now working as H.S.A. (English) in the school. Her academic qualifications are B.Sc. (Zoology), B.Ed. in Natural Science and M.A. in English. She is having B.Ed. in English and has passed State Eligibility Test in English also. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as U.P.S.A. on 5.7.1992; promoted as H.S.A. (Natural Science) on 4.8.1994 in a leave vacancy and in a regular vacancy as H.S.A. (Natural Science) on 5.6.1995. Pursuant to the Government Order issued creating separate cadre of H.S.A (English), she was appointed by category change as H.S.A. (English), as per Ext.P2 order dated 1.11.2003, with effect from 29.1.2004. 3. T...

Vodafone Essar Cellular Limited Vs. Jose Mathew C. Capil and Others

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in C.C. 373/09 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as punitive damages and also cost of Rs. 1,500/- and also under orders to discontinue such unfair trade practice forth with. The case of the complainants who are seven in number and two of them having two mobile connections that the opposite parties/Vodafone Essar Cellular Ltd. indulged in unfair trade practice by floating the scheme named Diwali Contest and promised prices to 500 subscribers who recharge for the sum of Rs. 100 or more. The subscribers were advised to send SMS Diwali to 111 Customer Care Toll free Number. On receipt of SMS they will be provided with a question and on sending the correct answer the numbers of such persons will be put in a lot and draw taken and the houses of the lucky persons will be painted free cost by Dulux. According to the petitioners although they recharged for ...

Mallya City Hospital, Near Lml General Motors and Another Vs. Abdul Ma ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Appellants are the 1st opposite party, hospital and the 2nd opposite party, Orthopedic Surgeon in CC.118/05 in the file of CDRF, Kasaragod. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.1.lakh as compensation and Rs.7,500/- towards cost, to be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order failing which to pay interest at 9% from the date of complaint. 2. The case of the complainant is that he sustained injuries while driving autorickshaw on 30.07.2003 and was admitted at the opposite party hospital on the same day. The complainant has sustained contaminated, compound fracture and dislocation of the right ankle. He was an inpatient up to 3.9.2003. On the same day of admission he underwent an orthopaedic surgery. Thereafter plastic surgery was conducted by Dr.Leo Theobald Menezes. As against the advice of the above doctor that he should undergo daily dressing twice till complete cure he was discharged by the opposite parties after...

Indian Overseas Bank Ltd. Vs. as Sureshan

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Revision petitioner is the opposite party in CC.105/09 in the file of CDRF, Kannur. The revision petition is filed over in the application filed by the revision petitioner seeking joint trial of CC.105/09 and CC.106/09. 2. The Forum has dismissed the application on the ground that the subject matter is different in both the C.Cs. 3. We find that, as mentioned in the order CC.105/09 is filed alleging deficiency in service in delaying the return of the title deeds. CC.106/09 is filed alleging deficiency in service in not providing adequate insurance coverage. We find that there is no illegality in the order of the Forum and there is no scope for admitting the revision petition. Hence revision petition is dismissed in limine. Office will forward the copy of this order to the Forum....

The District Officer, Ground Water Department, Palakkad Vs. K.R. Udaya ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER This appeal is preferred against the order of CDRF, Palakkad in OP No. 137/10 to pay an amount of Rs.12,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as cost. The opposite party filed a petition to set aside exparte order which was also dismissed by the Forum below and hence this appeal. 2. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the OP filed memo of appearance and could not contest the case. The lower Forum disposed the case on merits based on the documents filed by the complainant. The respondent was absent and Adv. Jagadish Kumar, amicus curiae represented the respondent. The counsel submitted that the complainant filed affidavit and documents which were marked as Exts A1 to A7 and the lower Forum passed the order on merits. The counsel also contended that if at all an opportunity is to be given to the appellant/opposite party to contest the matter before the Forum below that may be on payment of costs. 3. In view of the fact that the order cannot be trea...

N.M. Yohannan, S/O.Mathai Vs. P.N. Sabu, S/O. Narayanan Pervikode and ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT31(SN)(C.NO.32)

The complainant is the appellant. He filed the complaint against the first respondent (herein after referred to as respondent) alleging offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Ext.P1 is the cheque dated 08/10/2003 for Rs. 4 lakhs drawn on the Co-operaive Urban Bank, Kenichira branch. The appellant contended that Ext.P1 was issued by the respondent to discharge a legally enforceable liability. When presented for encashment, it was returned dis- honoured on the ground of insufficiency of funds. Statutory notice was sent to the respondent which was acknowledged by him but no reply was sent. The amount was also not paid. Hence the complaint was filed. 2. The complainant got himself examined as PW.1 and the Manager of the bank was examined as PW.2. Exts. P1 to P.8 were marked. The learned Magistrate after thorough scrutiny of the evidence found that Ext.P1 cheque is in such a condition that it cannot be compared with the admitted signatures of the accused, due to the spreading of ink in that...

P.V. Suresh Palakkad District Vs. the Insurance Ombudsman, Kochi and A ...

Court: Kerala

1. Aggrieved by the order of the Insurance Ombudsman rejecting the complaint against the repudiation of a claim under a life insurance policy in favour of his deceased wife, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: "(i) call for the records leading to the passing of Exts.P3 and P5 orders by the respondents and quash the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction; (ii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to honour the policy No.773896707 issued in favour of late Lalitha and disburse the amount due thereunder to the nominee, the petitioner herein. (iii) declare that the reasons stated by the respondents to repudiate the claim put forward by the petitioner is highly unsustainable and vitiated by arbitrariness." 2. The petitioner's wife, Lalitha, took Ext. R2(a) insurance policy dated 28-2-2002, for ` 50,000/- from the 2nd respondent- Life Insurance Corporation of India. She di...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram Vs. St. Mary's Mala ...

Court: Kerala

Ramachandran Nair, J 1. The question raised in these connected appeals filed by the Revenue against the very same assessee is whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that a "Seminary" teaching students for priesthood is an educational institution entitled to exemption from tax u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Income Tax Act. One additional question raised is whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the respondent was entitled to claim exemption u/s 10(23C) (iiiad) for the first time at the appellate stage. We have heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant and we have also gone through the orders of the Tribunal. 2. The first question raised is whether a seminary coaching and training students for priesthood is an educational institution as referred to in the above provision of the I.T. Act. Educational institution is not defined under the I.T.Act. Therefore, for ascertaining the scope and meaning of "Educational Institution" the Tribunal referred to variou...