Kerala Court March 2012 Judgments

Secretary, Kseb, Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Tvpm and Another Vs. Sunny ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The application is filed for condonation of delay of 367 days. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the application by the Assistant Engineer, KSEB it is mentioned that the file of the case file happened to be misplaced at the chief office and further the Executive Engineer was also transferred. 3. We find that the reasons mentioned for the inordinate delay for a period of more than one year is hardly sufficient to condone the same especially in view of the fact that the appellant represents the mighty organization having sufficient staff and a legal department. 4. In the circumstances we find that the delay of 367 days cannot be condoned on such grounds. Further no affidavit has been filed at the instance of the persons who were in custody of the file which has been allegedly misplaced. Hence the application is dismissed. Consequently the appeal is also dismissed. Office will forward a copy of this order to the Forum....

Assistant Secretary, Electricity Department, Thrissur Corporation and ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/Thrissur Corporation in CC.273/08 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. Notice issued by the appellant for realization of a sum of Rs.17,392/- as arrears of energy charges stands set aside. 2. According to the complainant on 11.3.2008 he received a demand notice for Rs.17,392/- for the period prior to 3/01. The appellants were exparte before the Forum. The Forum has allowed the complaint relying on Sec.56(2) of the Indian Electricity Act. 3. The counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision of the High Court of Kerala in Abdul Nazer Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board and Others 2006 (1) KLJ 440. On a perusal of the above decision we find that in the above case demand notice was issued prior to the date of commencement of the Indian Electricity Act in the State of Kerala ie on 10.12.2003. It was observed therein that the Act is not retrospective and hence the Electricity Board is entitled to realize the amo...

Shriram City Union Finance Limited and Another Vs. C.A. Mohanan

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/financers in CC.24/11 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The appellants are under orders to deduct a sum of Rs.24,500/- from the complainants loan account and also directed to charge only 12% interest with respect to the pending instalments from the due dates. 2. The case of the complainant is that he had availed a loan of Rs.57,000/- from the opposite parties for purchasing a motor cycle, Victor GX. As per the loan agreement the amount was to be repaid in 36 instalments at the rate of Rs.1,580/- per month. The complainant paid 20 instalments without default. As he was unable to pay further instalments and as directed by the opposite parties he surrendered the vehicle on 21.1.2010. Subsequently on 23.2.2010, the complainant received a letter from the opposite parties directing to pay Rs.32,890/-. According to the complainant he is not liable to pay the above amount. 3. According to the opposite parties the compl...

Lekshmi Vs. Preetha

Court: Kerala

1. The first respondent approached this Court complaining that even after coming out successfully in the selection process for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Law Colleges, she was not included in the list for the reason that she has less than two months shortage in bar experience. The specific case canvassed by the appellant was that during this period she was continuing as Full Time Research Fellow in the University after LL.M. and the research study, if not superior, is at least equivalent to LL.M. Course which is equivalent as bar experience for the purpose of eligibility for selection as Lecturer. Even though learned Single Judge declined relief, in Appeal, we held Reported in 2012(2) KLT 563. that since LL.M. Course is treated as bar experience Full Time Research after LL.M. also should be reckoned while considering experience as bar practice Since the first respondent had combined bar experience and LL.M. study and Full Time Research period, which is less than two months ...

M/S. Toc Disinfectant Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala Represented by the Secr ...

Court: Kerala

Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. All these are revision petitions filed by the assessee Company, which is later taken over by M/s.Hindustan Unilever Limited. Revisions filed are against KGST assessments for the years 2002-03 to 2004-05 and against CST assessment for the year 2003-04. The common issue involved in the revisions filed against KGST assessments is with regard to rate of tax on the product sold under the name Domex, which is used to clean and disinfect toilet commodes. During hearing, learned counsel Shri.Madhu Radhakrishnan appearing for the petitioner produced label and leaflets pertaining to the product. The case of the petitioner is that the product is not covered by any of the entries in the First Schedule to the KGST Act, and so much so, it should be assessed at 8% as an unclassified item in terms of the residuary entry to the Schedule. The case of the Department is that the product is essentially a cleaning agent falling under Entry 51 of the First Schedule to the KGST Act, a...

Dejo Kappen and Another Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(2)KLT143

Ramachandran Nair, J.  The short question arising in these writ petitions filed in public interest is whether the judgment of this court confirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court prohibiting holding of meetings on public roads and road margins as violative of fundamental rights of the citizens guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India can be got over through State legislation and when the State has made such a legislative invasion on the fundamental rights of the citizens of the country, shouldn't this court declare such law as unconstitutional and stillborn under Article 13(2) of the Constitution of India. The background of the impugned legislation and the developments that led to this second round of litigation to protect fundamental rights of the citizens of the State are stated below in brief.2. Public meetings were held frequently by erecting panthal and by spreading chairs on tarred road in the junction in front of the Aluva Railway Station which is just...

T.V. Sasikala Vs. Kerala Public Service Commission, Represented by the ...

Court: Kerala

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. The petitioner applied for selection on the basis of a notification issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission. Clause No.1(a)7 of that notification required that the application shall include a photograph taken within a period of six months of the application and with the name of the applicant and the date of the recording of the photograph written on that photograph. Admittedly, the petitioner did not write her name or enter the date of photographing, on the photograph which was printed and uploaded while submitting the application on-line. KPSC rejected that application. The petitioner's challenge against that stands turned down by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. In doing so, the Tribunal has followed the unreported judgment dated 4.7.2011 of a learned single Judge of this Court (Mr.Justice C.T.Ravikumar) in W.P.(C). No.17767 of 2011. Hence this original petition by her. 2. Arguing that the KPSC would be well within its authority to provide...

Renu Alex Vs. Alexander Muthalali

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT40(SN)(C.No.40); 2012(3)KLJ57

S.S. Satheesachandran, J. 1. The above three transfer petitions are filed by the samepetitioner seeking transfer of three cases pending on the file ofthe Family Court, Kottarakkara to the Family Court, Kollam.Petitioner is the wife and the respondent, the husband.Matrimonial disputes of the spouses have given rise to threeproceedings before the Family Court, one of them by the wifeand the two others by the husband.The wife has filedO.P.No.616 of 2010 seeking a decree for return of goldornaments and compensation.Husband has filed two otherpetitions as O.P.Nos.358 of 2011 and O.P.No.830 of 2011, theformer to restrain the wife from collecting the amount on thepolicy taken in her name in the Life Insurance Corporation andthe latter restraining her from entering into the matrimonialhome. All the above three petitions are now pending before theFamily Court, Kottarakkara. Petitioner/wife seeks transfer of thecases to the Family Court, Kollam as indicated earlier. 2. Notice given, the responde...

Anakkayam Puliyil Juma And#8211; Ath Palli Wakf Committee Vs. V.P. Abd ...

Court: Kerala

1. Challenge in the original petition is against Exts. P5 and P6 orders passed by the learned Sub Judge. Manjeri in the final decree proceedings of a suit for partition, numbered as O.S. No. 107/11. 2. Petitioner, who was not a party to the suit applied for impleading him as an additional respondent in the final decree proceedings moving Ext. P3 application. He is a Mutawalli of a Jama-ath, a wakf registered under the Wakf Act. Advocate commissioner appointed by the court in the final decree proceedings in the above suit came to inspect the wakf property and attempted to take measurements over such property as if the same was included in the suit and covered by the preliminary decree, was the case canvassed for impleading him as an additional respondent in the above proceedings. He also moved another application as Ext. P4 to give directions to the advocate commissioner not to carry out measurement of the property till a decision is taken on Ext. P3 application for impleadment. The lea...

Dejo Kappen and Another Vs. State of Kerala Rep.by Its Chief Secretary ...

Court: Kerala

RamachandranNair, J. 1. The short question arising in these writ petitions filed in public interest is whether the judgment of this court confirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court prohibiting holding of meetings on public roads and road margins as violative of fundamental rights of the citizens guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India can be got over through State legislation and when the State has made such a legislative invasion on the fundamental rights of the citizens of the country, shouldn't this court declare such law as unconstitutional and stillborn under Article 13(2) of the Constitution of India. The background of the impugned legislation and the developments that led to this second round of litigation to protect fundamental rights of the citizens of the State are stated below in brief. 2. Public meetings were held frequently by erecting panthal and by spreading chairs on tarred road in the junction in front of the Aluva Railway Station which is just op...