Kerala Court March 2012 Judgments

C. Vijayan Vs. Chairman, Kseb, Vydhythi Bhavan and Others

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The complainant has preferred this appeal calling for the interference of this commission as to the sustainability of the order dated:19.7.11 of CDRF, Malappuram in CC.86/09. As per the impugned order the complaint is dismissed by the Forum below. 2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he was running a hotel and that for the construction of the hotel building, an electric connection was sanctioned by the opposite parties and though he had applied for a regular connection, the opposite parties were delaying the matter and that on 19.6.2008 the opposite parties issued the bill for Rs.6,24,000/- against which a complaint was filed by him which was allowed in his favour on 26.2.2009. It is his case that on 28.2.09 the opposite parties issued a bill for Rs.7,89,879/- alleging that the supply given for construction purpose was used by the complainant for the purpose of running the hotel. It is stated by the complainant that for running the ...

C.M. Sulaiman Vs. E.M. Varghese and Others

Court: Kerala

Ramakrishna Pillai, J. 1. A 30 year old man who met with a road traffic accident on 10/10/2003 approached the Tribunal claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him. Allegedly while the appellant was riding on the pillion of a scooter, he was hit down by a car. Both the vehicles involved in the accident were insured with the United India Insurance Company. Since the accident had occurred at a Junction, the learned Tribunal found that there was 50% negligence on the part of the rider of the scooter and 50% negligence on the part of the car driver. As the policy in respect of the scooter was an act only policy, it was directed that 50% of the award amount be realised from the insurer of the car and the balance 50% be realised from the registered owner of the scooter. This finding as well as the quantum of compensation are under challenge in this appeal. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned standing counsel for the Insurance company. We have als...

T.S. Sajimon Vs. State of Kerala and Others

Court: Kerala

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J. 1. The petitioner is challenging the liability mulctedupon him to satisfy a sum of Rs.44,808/- , pursuant to Ext.P12 communication issued by the Executive Engineer of PWDto the 4th respondent, over and above the amount shown inExt. P10 for settling the entire liability under the 'AmnestyScheme'. 2. The factual position is as follows: The petitioner isa dealer engaged in the trade of wall tiles, floor tiles etc. runin the name and style as 'Himalaya Agencies' and is anassesseeon the rolls of the second respondent. During thecourse of business, the petitioner turned to be a defaulter withregard to the satisfaction of the amount due to the sales taxauthorities, in respect of the assessment years 2002 - '03and 2003 - '04, which led to recovery proceedings resorting tothe remedy under the R.R. Act.The property of thepetitioner having an extent of 45 cents and the buildingsituated therein was caused to be attached and the same wasnotified for sale. 3. Incidentally,...

Abbas Ali Vs. the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram ...

Court: Kerala

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Is an application for renewal of a regular permit filed, beyond the time prescribed by law, along with an application for excusing the delay, eligible to be treated as an application pending consideration, for the purpose of entertaining an application for temporary permit under section 87(1)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hereinafter referred to as the `Act'? This is the issue in this bunch of matters, referred to the Division Bench by a learned single Judge, indicating that the decision contained in Shahul Hameed v. Secretary, R.T.A [1999 (1) KLT 273] requires reconsideration. 2. Apart from the pleadings in the writ petitions, is an affidavit sworn to on 20.8.2011 on behalf of the Transport Commissioner, following the order dated 15.7.2011 calling for an affidavit touching all relevant aspects involved in these cases, through a government officer at the competent level. 3. We heard learned Advocates Sajeev Kumar K.Gopal, Saju J.Vallyara and Sha...

Pradeep Kumar Vs. Union of India

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(2)KLJ415; 2012(2)KLT229

K. M. Joseph, J. 1. Petitioner is the father of Swaroop (hereinafter referred to as the detenu). The petitioner's son stands detained under the provisions of the Kerala Anti - Social Activities (Prevention) Act (for short, 'the Act'). The detenu has been detained on the basis that he is a known - rowdy, vide Ext. P9 order. Ext. P9 is dated 27-09-2011. Pursuant to the order, the petitioner came to be arrested on 20-11-2011 (the date of detention, according to the learned ADGP is 21-11-2011). The order is approved vide Ext. P10 dated 02-12-2011. 2. We heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Director General of Prosecutions. There is also representation on the part of Assistant Solicitor General. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would address the following arguments before us : He would submit that 44th Amendment Bill to the Constitution of India was passed way back in 1978. It received the assent of the President shortly thereafter. No doubt, the Bill con...

The Proprietor, M/S Mobile Sook, Zero Junction, Mullackal and Another ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC.149/11 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The appellants are under orders to reconnect the mobile connection and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation. The appellants were exparte before the Forum. It is submitted that the counsel who was entrusted did not represent the matter properly. 2. In the circumstances the order of the Forum is set aside on condition that the appellants 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 contest the matter. The matter stands posted before the Forum on 24.4.2012. Office will forward a copy of this order to the Forum....

M/S Icici Lombard Insurance Co.Ltd., Rep.by Manager Vs. M.Anil Kumar a ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The delay condonation petition IA.319/12 is dismissed. Hence the appeal is also dismissed....

Sreekala Devi Ammal P.N. Vs. the Kerala Public Service Commission Rep. ...

Court: Kerala

C.R. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1. This matter is before the Division Bench on a reference. The petitioner applied to the Kerala Public Service Commission, for short, "PSC", for being considered for appointment as Data Entry Operator in the service of the third respondent, a District Co-operative Bank. That application was rejected on the ground that the petitioner did not have the requisite experience. The petitioner challenged it. The learned single Judge has made this reference, doubting the correctness of the ratio of the judgment dated 9.1.2012 in W.P(C).16522/11, cited on behalf of PSC. 2. The notification inviting applications quoted verbatim the qualifications laid by the Rules governing the service, formulated and accepted by the District Co-operative Banks, after the selection of employees to the District Co-operative Banks was entrusted with the PSC. The qualifications for the post of Data Entry Operator are as follows: "Qualifications: (1) B.A./B.Sc/B.Com. Degree of a r...

The Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. Vs. the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Kerala

Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. Heard Senior counsel Sri.Sarangan appearing for the appellant- assessee and Standing Counsel for the respondent. The first question raised pertains to disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act which stands covered against the assessee by judgment of this court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD. and OTHERS reported in 237 CTR 164. Following this judgment we answer this question against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. 2. Next question pertains to assessment of excess cash in the custody of the assessee which is kept in suspense account under the head "other liabilities and provisions". On going through the Tribunal's order we notice that assessee themselves conceded that the amount is excess cash with them retained for several years and there is no claimant for the same. We do not know why it is not income as the assessee themselves have no case that it is payable to anybody or it is a liability due from assessee to ...

The Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd,. St. Marys College Road, Thrissur Vs. th ...

Court: Kerala

Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. Heard Senior counsel Sri.Sarangan appearing for the appellant and Standing Counsel for the respondent. Of the three questions raised for our decision as arising from the order of the Tribunal, first two questions pertain to claim of bad debt/provision for bad debt which is covered in favour of the appellant-assessee vide recent judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1143/2011 and connected cases. Following the said judgment we answer the first two questions in favour of the assessee and allow the appeal by reversing the order of the Tribunal on this issue with direction to the Assessing Officer to allow the claim in terms of judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court. 2. So far as third question is concerned, the issue is whether the surplus amount received by the assessee on the sale of old gold ornaments pledged to the Bank kept in the suspense account is income assessable at the hands of the assessee. The contention raised by Senior counse...