Kerala Court February 2012 Judgments

P.N. Subramanian and Another Vs. K. Rajappa Kaimal and Others

Court: Kerala

1. Inter se disputes between the members of a Society, namely, Space Engineers Welfare Society, registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literacy Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act (Act 12 of 1955), have given rise to three suits, viz, O.S. No. 366/09, O.S. No. 444/09 and O.S. No. 891/08 on the file of the Additional Munsiff Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. O.S. No : 366/09 was filed by two persons claiming to be erstwhile members of the above society seeking for a declaration that the defendants in that suit who held and exercised official position in the management of the society do not possess core membership in such society as required under its bye laws, and for other reliefs. O.S. No : 444/09 was filed by five persons, all of them claiming to be the founder members of the society, and in their suit they canvassed for a declaration that suspension of the first plaintiff and also expulsion of other plaintiffs from the membership of the first defendant society are ill...

Beena Pradeep Vs. Government of India, Rep. by the Commissioner of Cen ...

Court: Kerala

Ramachandran Nair, J. The appellant challenged adjudication order issued by the 2nd respondent determining service tax liability on palletizing as "packaging activity" falling under Section 65 (76b) of Finance Act, 1994 in writ proceedings on the ground that order issued is without jurisdiction. 2. The learned Single Judge however following the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Union of India v. Zaicon Electronics, reported in 2010 (225) ELT 490, dismissed the WP(C) for the reason that adjudication order on facts and law has to be contested in statutory appeal and not in writ proceedings. It is against this judgment, this Writ Appeal is filed contending that there is no controversy on facts, and even on the admitted facts the adjudication is without jurisdiction. 3. We have heard Adv.Shri.V.B.Jinnah appearing along with Adv.Smt.S.Chithra and learned Senior Standing Counsel Shri.Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil appearing for the respondents. 4. The appellant is engaged in palletizin...

K.M. Varghese Vs. Thankamma @ Ponnamma, Keelethil, Madamon Muri, Perun ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(2)ILR(Ker)596; 2012(2)KLT971

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. The substantial question of law; the only issue; for decision in this employer's appeal under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is as to whether the Commissioner erred in law in applying Section 8 of the Act, thereby refusing to act on an agreement under which the dependents of the deceased workman accepted amounts from the employer in settlement of the claim for compensation. 2. The workman died on 7.8-.2005 leaving behind mother, widow and two minor sons. The claim was filed before the Commissioner in 2006 by the mother, the widow and a minor son. The other minor son was impleaded later. Preliminary enquiry was held on 25.8.2006 and 27.10.2006. Thereupon the claim was admitted and numbered as WCC No.72 of 2006. On 4.1.2008, a petition was filed stating that the parties have arrived at a settlement and an order may be passed in terms of that. It was stated therein that an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was received by the widow of the workman; of which, ...

Maliakkal Industrial Enterprises Vs. the Union of India and Others

Court: Kerala

1. In all these writ petitions, the same issue arises as to whether by a condition in the import policy of the Government of India, the respondents can insist upon the petitioners in these writ petitions to obtain a registration under the Insecticides Act, 1968, as a condition for obtaining a licence to import of boric acid, if such import is not for the purpose of using the same as an insecticide under the Insecticides Act, 1968, and as to whether such a condition in the import policy is legally sustainable. 2. The facts are in a very narrow compass. Boric acid is a substance, which is used as an insecticide and also for industrial and other purposes. The petitioners use imported boric acid not for use as an insecticide but for other manufacturing purposes. By the export- import policy, as a condition for grant of licence to import boric acid, the petitioners are obliged to obtain a registration for boric acid under the Insecticides Act, 1968, from the authorities under the Insecticid...

K.K. Abdul Lathif Vs. Kuthiyathodu Juma-ath Mahal, Represented by Its ...

Court: Kerala

ThottathilB. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. The plaintiff in a suit filed before the Wakf Tribunal, Kollam challenges the dismissal of the suit holding that it is not maintainable. 2. The reasons stated by the Tribunal for the said decision is that the matter, at best, would have to go only to the Wakf Board and Wakf Tribunal could only sit in appeal on the decision of the Wakf Board. The different provisions empowering the Wakf Board is dealt with by the Tribunal in the impugned order and the suit has been found to be not maintainable on the ground that the Wakf Board has got the power to grant the reliefs sought for. 3. Following is relief No.A sought for by the plaintiff in the plaint. "To declare that plaintiff was the legally elected president for the period 2006-2008 of the defendant and that the continuance of the then existing committee and further inclusion of member to the Managing Committee and the decisions allegedly taken to bring out amendments to the existing constitutions are arb...

N. Balachandran, Secretary, Association of Orphanages Mananthavady Vs. ...

Court: Kerala

1. The short question which arises for consideration in this petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code is whether orphanages and charitable homes which are registered under the Orphanages and other Charitable Homes (Supervision and Control) Act 1960 have to be again registered under Section 34(3) of Juvenile Justices (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 as amended by Act 33 of 2006. 2. Petitioner is the Secretary of Association of Orphanages and Charitable Homes in Kerala, Wayanad Branch. The second respondent is the Child Welfare Committee, Sulthan Bthery, Waynad District, represented by its Chairman which is constituted under Section 29 of Juvenile Justices (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000. About 43 Orphanages and 19 Old age homes in Wayanad District are the members of the above mentioned association. It is registered under Orphanages and other Charitable Homes (Supervision and Control) Act of 1960. The second respondent issued a notice to the petitioner t...

Sujitha Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by the Chief Secretary to Gov ...

Court: Kerala

K.M. Joseph, J. 1. Petitioner is the wife of the detenu, who has been detained under the provisions of the Kerala Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act (for short, 'the Act'). Ext.P1 is the order of detention dated 11.11.2011. The prayers in the Writ Petition (Criminal) interalia are as follows: "(i) To issue a writ of mandamus or order and call for the records leading to Ext.P1 and quash Ext.P1 by issuing a writ of certiorari. (ii) To issue a writ of habeas corpus commanding the 4th respondent to produce the detenu before this Honourable Court and set him at liberty forthwith." 2. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Director General of Prosecution. 3. The following are the contentions raised by the petitioner: He would point out that in Ext.P1 order of detention, the detaining authority has referred to the report of the Superintendent of Police dated 31.10.2011. However, the detenu was not served with the said report. Instead, he was served with Ext.P2. E...

Saraswathi Pillai @ Saraswathy Amma, Kayamkulam Village Vs. Sarasee Ba ...

Court: Kerala

1. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.36 of 1993 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kayamkulam. The above suit is stated to be one for recovery of possession of certain trust properties, whereunder the plaintiff as the de facto trustee and also as a beneficiary claimed that relief alleging that the 1st defendant, the de-jure trustee, was acting against the interests of the trust, and, thus, incompetent to represent the suit. That suit was dismissed upholding the challenges raised by the contesting defendants impeaching its maintainability and also the competency of the plaintiff to sue for the reliefs canvassed for. As against the decree of dismissal, petitioner/plaintiff preferred and appeal, A.S.No.14 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District Court, Mavelikkara. The appeal was dismissed as stated in paragraph 9 of the original petition with the following order:- “…The appellants counsel reported no instruction vide endorsement on the vakalath. The appellant is call...

Shriram Transport Investments Ltd. and Another Vs. S. Vijayan

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER Aggrieved by the order passed by the CDRF, Alappuzha in CC No. 154/2008 the appellants came up in this appeal. 2. The case of the complainant is that the vehicle purchased availing finance from the opposite parties for Rs.1,00,000/- on agreement to repay Rs.1,50,250/- in 30 installments. The complainant approached the opposite parties to close the loan account and to release the NOC. The opposite parties demanded for Rs.73,333/- on 2.8.07 and the complainant was compelled to remit Rs.63,000/- on 3.8.07. The balance amount of Rs.10,401/- was due which was written off by the opposite parties. The complaint is filed alleging that the opposite parties collected excess amount. 3. The opposite parties filed objection wherein it is stated that the complainant took a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- as per agreed repayment schedule. The repayment schedule was to pay 24 installments @ Rs.5,210/-,25th to 29th @ Rs.4,210/- each and 30th installment of Rs.4,160/- which was fixed as Rs....

T.A. Poulose Vs. K. Shanley Sebastian

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT Appellant is the 2nd opposite party, agent of Malayala Manorama daily in I.A.335/11 in CC.298/11 in the file of CDRF,Ernakulam. As per the order in the I.A the Forum has directed the opposite party/appellant to deliver Malayala Manorama daily newspaper to the petitioners house at the price fixed by the 1st opposite party/Malayala Manorama till the disposal of the complaint. In view of the fact that the matter involved does not call for any detailed evidence the Forum is directed to dispose of the CC itself within two months from the date of receipt of this order. Till then the appellant will deliver the newspaper as ordered by the Forum. Forward a copy of this order to the Forum urgently....