Kerala Court March 2012 Judgments
Kerala Voluntary Health Services Vs. the Union of India , Rep.by Its S ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-26-2012
Ramakrishna Pillai, J 1. The petitioner, an organisation registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1995 and affiliated to the Voluntary Health Association of India, New Delhi, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking positive directions for the implementation of the statutory stipulations in the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003, hereinafter called as 'COTPA' and its allied Rules, which were enacted in public interest to protect public health as well as to prohibit consumption of Cigarette and other Tobacco products which are injurious to health. 2. The petitioner alleges that the negligence and callous attitude of the law enforcing agencies have in effect flouted the provisions of COTPA and its allied Rules and the same is dereliction of duty cast upon ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/S. Karinos Weave Private Limited
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-26-2012
RamachandranNair, J. 1. The connected appeals are filed by the Revenue raising a major objection in the assessee pressing a ground before the Tribunal contrary to the undertaking given in this Court while disposing of the assessment appeal, namely ITA No.99/2011, against the holding company. The common dispute arose in the assessment of the holding company, namely M/s.William Goodacre and Sons (India) Ltd. and its subsidiary company namely, M/s.Karinos Weave Pvt. Ltd. with regard to assessment of closing stock of the subsidiary company amounting to Rs.82.47 lakhs, which was not shown as opening stock of that company. However, the holding company declared an opening stock of the same amount in the account of the said Company. In other words, closing stock of the subsidiary company is shown as opening stock of the holding company, which is a strange principle of accounting by both the companies. We felt that the value of the stock should be considered for assessment only at the hands of ...
Tag this Judgment!Manjooran Group of Institution, Municipal Vuilding Vs. V.V. Leela, Aam ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Mar-24-2012
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT Appellants are the opposite parties in CC.237/10 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The appellants are under orders to refund a sum of Rs.6000/- the fee remitted and also to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation. 2. The matter is with respect to the refund of the fee remitted by the complainant on the ground that the classes of IELTS conducted by the opposite parties were substandard and as a result she discontinued her studies. The appellants were exparte before the Forum. It is submitted that there was lapse the lapse on the part of the counsel who was entrusted with the matter. 3. All the same we find that the order cannot be treated as a considered one and hence order the same is set aside on condition that the appellants/opposite parties pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards cost to the complainant or deposit the same before the Forum which can be withdrawn by the complainant. On payment of cost the Forum will permit the opposite parties to cont...
Tag this Judgment!V.K. Jalaluddin, Veliyathukudiyil (H) Vs. M/S Kerala State Electricity ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Mar-24-2012
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in CC.540/09 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The complaint stands dismissed. 2. The case of the complainant is that he was conducting a car service centre and a car beauty shop on the same premises and that the connected load is 20KW. The opposite parties/KSEB issued a penal bill for Rs.90000/- on the ground of unauthorized extension of the power connection and also for unauthorized connected load of 5 KW. It is denied that there was unauthorized extension or unauthorized connected load. He has sought for setting aside the penal bill issued. 3. The opposite parties have filed version pointing out that the complainant is running the Engineering work shop under industrial tariff LT IV with connected load of 20KW . On the APTS inspection it was found that he is having unauthorized connected load of 5KW with respect to other establishments by name Good luck car beauty shop and Ideal Maruti service centre. Weather proof...
Tag this Judgment!O. Kunhimohamed Vs. K.K. Satheesh and Others
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Mar-24-2012
SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER The appellant/complainant aggrieved by the order of dismissal of the complaint in CC No.3/2010 before the CDRF, Malappuram, came up in this appeal. 2. The case of the complainant is that he entrusted with the opposite parties the concrete work and warp of his sons newly constructing house which was not carried out properly. The stair case and the warp have to rebuild and there is leak in the slop during rain. Alleging deficiency in service the complaint was filed for compensation from the opposite parties. 3. The opposite parties denied all the allegations of the complainant in the version and contended that the complaint was filed in order to avoid the liability to pay the balance amount due to the opposite parties. The allegation of defects in the stair case was not proved. So also the leak of warp was a false allegation. The first opposite party was the supervisor of the building and the agreed amount of supervision charges was not fully paid. Subsequently the...
Tag this Judgment!M.P. Vijayalekshmi Vs. State of Kerala, Rep. by Its Secretary to Gover ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-23-2012
1. Essentially, the question posed herein is regarding the date of retirement of an incumbent in the post of Headmaster, the consequential filling up of the vacancy by promoting the fourth respondent and other allied matters. The petitioner is aggrieved by Exts.P6 and P9 orders wherein the view taken is that the fourth respondent was rightly promoted as Headmistress. 2. The circumstances leading to the dispute are the following: Prior to the promotion of the fourth respondent, one Shri K. Prasannakumar, was the Headmaster of the school. His date of attainment of superannuation on completion of 55 years, was 24.11.2010. Since the said date is one coming within the course of the academic year, he continued upto 31.3.2011 in terms of the relevant provisions of the Kerala Education Rules, (for short K.E.R.), viz. Rule 62 of Chapter XIV-A and Rule 60(c) of Part I of Kerala Service Rules (for short K.S.R.), according to the petitioner. But the petitioner maintains that the eligibility for pr...
Tag this Judgment!Rajeev and Another Vs. the District Collector, Thrissur and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-23-2012
Judgment "C.R." Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Director General of Prosecutions. 2. Examining the statutory provisions as contained in the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, for short, the "Act", in the backdrop of decisions rendered by this Court touching different aspects of that Act, we see that the learned Judge, in making the order of reference, was justified in stating that the situation in hand needs further consideration because, in the ultimate analysis, it is also the requirement that section 20 of the Act is effectively implemented. 3. Section 20 of the Act provides the penalty for contravention of the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder. Section 21 provides the penalty for abetment of any offence punishable under the Act. Taking cognizance of any offence punishable under the Act stands governed by sections 24 and 25. Statutory provisions authorizi...
Tag this Judgment!Rajappan and Another Vs. State of Kerala Rep.by Excise Inspector,excis ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-23-2012
1. Petitioners in this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are accused 1 and 2 in C.P. 6 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Devikulam. The Excise Inspector, Excise Range Office, Devikulam, filed Annexure F Final Report before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Devikulam, alleging offences under Sections 56(b) and 57(a) of the Abkari Act with an allegation that on 14.7.2010, the Excise Inspector took two sets of samples (samples A and B) of coconut toddy under Rule 8 of the Kerala Abkari shops Disposal Rules 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules 2002") from the toddy shop run by the petitioners and sample 'A' was forwarded to the Chemical Examiner. By Annexure A, the Chemical Examiner to Government of Kerala, reported that the sample A contained 8.35% by volume of ethyl alcohol. Rule 9 (2) of the Rules prescribes that the maximum percentage of ethyl alcohol at 8.1%. Since the percentage of alcohol exceeded the limit pre...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Kumar. A. Vs. State of Kerala, Rep. by Home Secretary, Secretaria ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-23-2012
"CR" Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. I. These matters are before the Division Bench on different reference orders by a learned single Judge. The first among them was issued on 11th April, 2011 in WP(C).No.11777 of 2011 noticing that different interlocutory orders were issued in writ jurisdiction permitting persons who were involved in criminal cases to undergo training on being selected as Police Constables. The reference is on the ground that such practice of issuing interim orders needs reconsideration on issues of law; the learned Judge who made the reference, having, apparently, disagreed with such practice and procedure. II. Different interlocutory orders, including as directions, were issued pending the proceedings before the Division Bench, also focussing on the legal issue referred to the Division Bench. III. On 21st June, 2011, it was directed that except in cases where any candidate has completed the period of training and has been permitted to discharge duties and resp...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Secretary, Electricity Department, Thrissur Corporation and ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Mar-23-2012
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/Thrissur Corporation in OP.441/05 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The notice issued by the appellant claiming a sum of Rs.10,487/- as arrears of electricity charges stands set aside. 2. The demand notice has been issued on 21.2.05. The period for which the arrear has been claimed is from 9/05 to 2/01. The Forum has relied on Sec.56(2) of the Indian Electricity Act as per which after a period of 2 years no sum towards the electricity charges can be recovered unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrears of charges for electricity supplied. There is no such case. We find that there is no patent illegality in the order of the Forum. There is no scope for admitting the appeal. The appeal is dismissed in-limine. Office will forward a copy of this order to the Forum....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »