Kerala Court June 2012 Judgments

Vittala D. Prabhu and Others Vs. Nalini Shenoy

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(2)ILR(Ker)740; 2012(3)KLT70

K.T. Sankaran, J. The respondent filed R.C.P.No.6 of 2009 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kasaragod, for eviction under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act against the petitioners. The Rent Control Petition was allowed on 17.12.2009. Though the tenants filed appeal, the Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. The tenants filed R.C.R.No.258 of 2011 before this Court. The Revision was disposed of by this Court on 4.7.2011, granting nine months’ time from 1.8.2011 to the tenants to vacate the building. The nine months’ period expired on 30.4.2012. As per the order passed by the High Court, the tenants filed an unconditional undertaking before the executing court to vacate the building within the period fixed by the High Court. 2. On the basis of the order passed by the High Court, the executing court closed the Execution Petition, taking into account the undertaking made by the tenants. However, the tenants did not vaca...

M/S. Malanadu Cements and Allied Products Private Limited and Others V ...

Court: Kerala

Whether the power of review conferred on the 4th respondent Tribunal under Section 60(7) of the KVAT Act takes in the power to review an 'interim' order of the Tribunal, is the point for consideration. 2. The assessment finalised in respect of the assessment year 2005-06 was challenged by filing statutory appeal, but it did not turn to be fruitful in the first round of litigation, which made the petitioner to pursue the second round by filing Ext.P1 appeal before the 4th respondent/Tribunal. Along with the appeal, the petitioner also preferred an interlocutory application for stay in respect of the coercive proceedings. 3. After considering the merits involved, the Tribunal passed Ext.P2 order on 30.03.2012, whereby interim stay was granted subject to the satisfaction of a sum of Rs. Five lakhs and furnishing of security for the balance amount within four weeks. 4. Being aggrieved of the said order, the petitioner filed Ext. P5 application for review, pointing out that, while passing t...

The Chief Secretary to Government of Kerala and Others Vs. Mercy Scari ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT406; 2012(3)KLJ410

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. This appeal by the State of Kerala is against an award passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. 2. The respondents are the dependents of a person who was employed as a mazdoor, stated to be on temporary basis as part of watch and ward staff for the Forest Department. The plea of the State is that the workman was attacked by a Panther on 24.2.2005; the injuries suffered by him then were cured and he was discharged from hospital on 7.3.2005 and his death, later, on 30.9.2005, was as a result of injuries sustained while cutting down a tree which stood in the estate of M/s.Harrison Malayalayam Limited, and, Perunad Police had registered Crime No.142 of 2005 for unnatural death and later, a final report was filed on 18.10.2005. The dependents of the workman moved the Commissioner on the premise that the death was as a result of the attack by Panther. That is how the award has been passed. 3. The fact of the matter remains that though the State Go...

Nadayi Mohanan Vs. the Thalassery Municipality, Rep. by Its Secretary, ...

Court: Kerala

1. Application for building permit submitted by the petitioner for construction of residential house in a property owned by him having an extent of 6.36 cents has been rejected through Ext.P3 letter issued by the 1st respondent Municipality. The reason for rejection mentioned in Ext.P3 is that the property wherein the construction is proposed is included in the "Agriculture zone" as per the part variation scheme, 2007 submitted to the 'Thalassery Town Development Plan'. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P3. Further grievance of the petitioner is against proceedings initiated against him under Section 406 (1) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1995 alleging unauthorised construction and the apprehended action of forceful demolition of the construction, inspite of submission of detailed objections  submitted. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that the detailed town planning scheme was approved as early as in the year 1983 and it was formulated on the basis of the status prevailed as i...

Hilal B Vs. the State of Kerala Represented by Secretary

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT438; 2012(3)KLJ503

Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. The appellants purchased premium cars, one a BMW 320and other a Toyota Fortuner on the verge of closure of thefinancial year 2011-12, but got the registration done for thevehicles on 02/04/2012 when the rate of motor vehicles taxhad gone up. The dispute raised before the learned SingleJudge was whether the tax revised from 01/04/2012 wasrightly levied and collected from the appellants for the vehiclesregistered on 02/04/2012 or whether the tax payable by themwas only the pre-revised tax applicable in the precedingfinancial year because the vehicles were purchased andtemporarily registered on 26/03/2012.The learned SingleJudge referred to the 2nd proviso to the charging Section 3(1)of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 (hereinafterreferred to as the Taxation Act for short) and held that thoughthe date of commencement of liability is the date of purchaseof vehicle, the incident of tax falls on first registration of thevehicle, which is not the temporary...

S. Prasannan Vs. the Controller General of Trademark and Others

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT351; 2012(3)KLJ600

1. The interpretation to be placed on rule 7 of the Patents Rules, 2003, arises for consideration in this writ petition. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 2. The petitioner submitted an application for a patent under section 7 of the Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) accompanied by a provisional specification relating to “The method and manner of a device for mechanical automatic water level controller”. The fee payable on an application for a patent accompanied by a provisional specification by a natural person at the relevant time was Rs.1,000/-. The petitioner however paid only Rs.750/- as fee by demand draft dated 17.1.2005 drawn on City Union Bank Ltd. Since there was a deficiency in the fee payable, the petitioner was called upon to pay the deficit fee of Rs.250/- which he paid by demand draft dated 5.2.2005. Thereupon a receipt dated 17.2.2005 [Ext.P1(2)] was issued to his attorney. It was mentioned therein that ...

C.A. Ramunnikutty Nair Vs. Kotak Mahindra Primus Ltd., Represented by ...

Court: Kerala

The petitioner in the above writ petition challenges Exhibit P5 order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short 'CDRF'), Kozhikode, refusing to proceed with the complaint filed by the petitioner and referring the dispute to arbitration. The petitioner also challenges the proceedings taken in Arbitration O.P.No.65 of 2006 before the II Additional District Court, Ernakulam at the instance of the respondents for appointment of an Arbitrator, though no documents are produced to evidence the same. 2. The petitioner was a borrower from the respondents; having availed financial assistance for the purchase of an Ambassador Car. As per the agreement, the loan was to be repaid in 36 equated monthly instalments, for which the petitioner claims to have issued 36 post-dated cheques. It is contended that the petitioner had closed the loan account by repaying the entire amounts as on 8.4.2004. The allegation of the petitioner before the CDRF was that despite the loan account being closed, t...

Siju Paul Vs. T.V. Subash

Court: Kerala

V. Chitambaresh, J. 1. The suit as framed is one for mandatory injunction,directing the defendant to return the cheques allegedlyissued by the plaintiff as security. The suit is not one for adeclaration that the plaintiff has already paid the amount dueto the defendant covered by the cheques in question.Therefore the finding of the court below that the valuation ofthe plaint under Section 27(c) of the Kerala Court Fees andSuits Valuation Act, 1959 is proper cannot be faulted with. 2. The plaintiff has a contention that he has alreadypaid Rs.1,05,000/- due to the defendant and that the sum ofRs.2,40,000/- shown in both the cheques together is not thecorrect amount.These are all incidental questions to beconsidered by the court below in the matter of granting therelief of mandatory injunction sought for. But the plaintiffhas not sought for any declaration to that effect andtherefore there is no necessity to pay the court fee underSection 25 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits ValuationAct...

Giresh Kumar, Giri Krishna, Nayyattinkara and Another Vs. C.S. Rajeswa ...

Court: Kerala

1. The former criminal revision petition has been filed by the 2nd accused in S.T. No.718/2002 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Neyyattinkara and the latter revision petition has been filed by the 1st accused therein. Though separate appeals were preferred against the judgment in S.T. No.718/02 they were dismissed. These revision petitions arise from the common judgment in Crl. Appeal Nos.255/2006 and 256/2006 filed respectively by the first and second accused. Therefore, they were clubbed together, heard simultaneously and disposed of by this order. The revision petitioners are referred to hereafter in this order according to their status before the trial court, and in such manner to suit the situation. 2. The first accused is a salesman in ‘Girikrishna Restaurant’ Neyyattinkara runs by the second accused. On 27.06.2002 at about 1 p.m. the Food Inspector, Neyyattinkara Circle who was in charge of Neyyattinkara Municipality, visited ‘Girikrish...

A. Panner Selvam and Others Vs. P.J. Jacob and Others

Court: Kerala

1. The claimants are in appeal. 2. The appellants are the aged parents and minor sister of one Joseph Madhavan, a 21-year-old helper, who met with his death on 04.04.2000 under a concrete pillar, which was hit down by an excavator belonging to the contractor (1st respondent) under whom he was working. Allegedly, the accident was due to the negligent operation of the excavator by the 2nd respondent, who was the driver. The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company was the insurer of the vehicle. 3. Against the claim of Rs.5,30,000/- the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,48,670/- as compensation attributing negligence against the 2nd respondent. However, the Insurance company was exonerated from paying the compensation on the ground that the deceased did not fall within the definition of ‘third party’ to get the insurance coverage under Ext.B1, which was an ‘act only’ policy. In this appeal, the appellants are challenging the adequacy of compensation as well as the fi...