Kerala Court June 2012 Judgments

Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. K.V. Anna, Yogiya Veedu

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Alappuzha in CC No. 220/2010 dated: 30.4.2011. The appellant is the opposite party and the respondent is the complainant. The appellant prefers this appeal from the order passed by the Forum below; direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,70,000/- to the complainant with 9% interest p.a from the date of the complainant; claiming the policy amount with the opposite party till its recovery. It also directed the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant and cost of Rs.5,000/-which will serve the purpose. 2. In brief, the complainant insured a Tata Indica Car with opposite party insurance company. The vehicle met with an accident on 2.10.2010 and was damaged. On the claim preferred by the respondent it was agreed to settle the claim for Rs.80,000/ on cash loss basis by both parties. But the opposite party did not accept the registered letter of the appellant for the ab...

M/S. Krishna Traders K3/767, Near Trucker Stand, Neyyattinkara Road Vs ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : HON. MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Trivandrum in C.C. No. 219/11 filed on 24.6.2011; ordered on 30.9.2011. The appellant is the first opposite party. Respondents are the complainant and the second opposite party respectively in the above C.C. The complainant is having a case that he had purchased a Onix T.V in exchange of his old Sharp TV which was valued at Rs. 1,500/- Onix was purchased by the payment of Rs. 5,500/- after adjusting Rs. 1,500/- for the value of the old T.V. The complainant further alleged that the Onix T.V also ceased to work from the very next day of purchase and it was informed to the first respondent and first respondent was given an assurance that the proper and necessary service will be provided on the same date, but it was not done and hence alleged negligence on the part of the appellant. It is alleged that inspite of repeated requests the defect was not cured and the complainants request for replacing o...

Kamalakshi Amma Vs. Sangeetha and Others

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)ILR(Ker)45; 2012(3)KLT264; 2012(3)KLJ30

Heard. Admit. 2. The following substantial questions of law are framed: (i) Could a person who is neither the executant of the deed nor bound under any circumstance by the executant request to deliver up and cancel the deed? (ii) Were the courts below justified in overlooking the fact that even as per the admitted partition deed, appellant is entitled to get more than 9 cents and also 2/3rd of the excess land? 3. Respondents 1 and 2 appear through counsel. 4. Since I have perused a copy of Ext.A1, partition deed No.1122 of 1959 dated 07.04.1959 based on which parties hereto claim right, title, interest and possession, in view of the substantial questions framed for a decision and as agreed by the learned counsel on both sides, it is not necessary to call for entire records of the case. 5. According to the appellant/plaintiff, plaint A schedule belongs to her exclusively as per Ext.A1, partition deed. Plaint B schedule was allotted to her sister, the late Lakshmikutty Amma in the said p...

Bineesh Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT51; 2012(2)KHC876; 2012(3)ILR(Ker)57; 2012(3)KLJ94

This revision petition has been filed against the judgment of the Court of the Additional District and Sessions (Ad-Hoc) Judge, Mavelikkara in Criminal Appeal No.415 of 2009. There is concurrent verdict of conviction and sentence against the revision petitioners under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Pending the revision petition the revision petitioners and the defacto complainant, the person on whom hurt was caused, compromised the case that ultimately led to the conviction and sentence of the revision petitioners. The compromise duly verified by the parties is brought on record by filing Crl.M.A.No.2665 of 2012 which carries the prayer for permission to compound the offence under section 324 IPC. 3. The question is whether the said petition for permission to compound the offence under section 324 IPC is allowable after the coming into force of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 (Act 25 of 2005) from 31.12.2009. If the answer is in the affirmative it would s...

Manathankandiyil Nani and Another Vs. Kuniyil Gangadharan

Court: Kerala

P. Bhavadasan, J. 1. The twin questions that arise for consideration in this Second Appeal are (i) whether a murderer who secured an acquittal by virtue of the defence set up under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code is disqualified under Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act from inheriting the estate of the murderer and (ii) how is the separate estate of the murderer to devolve consequent on his death? 2. The facts fall within a very narrow compass and are not really in dispute. Plaint items 1 to 5 were acquired under Exts.A1, A2, A4, A5 and A7. The properties jointly belonged to Karthiyani and her son Mohandas. Ext.A6 relating to item No.6 of the plaint schedule is the property which Mohandas obtained by assignment from Kalliani, who was the second defendant in the suit. Mohandas was the only child of Karthiyani. Karthiyani, her husband and Mohandas died on 1983, 1959 and 1988 respectively. The plaintiffs are the paternal sisters of Mohandas. At the time of the death of Mohandas he...

The Manager, A. Jayanthakumar, R.V.S.M.H.S.S, Vs. the State of Kerala, ...

Court: Kerala

Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. Appellant is an educational agency which is running a school forthe last around 70 years. The school was initially started as a combinedUpper Primary and High School which was in the Aided sector whereinsalary is paid by the Government to the staff and teachers. When Pre-degree was abolished, Government allowed the appellant-school to beupgraded to Higher Secondary School with Standards 11 and 12 whichis also given in the Aided sector i.e. by Government funding forpayment of salary to staff and teachers.Twenty years back theappellant started Kindergarten sections and also Primary School in theUnaided sector i.e. without any Government assistance for payment ofsalary to staff and teachers. The self-financed Primary school run bythe appellant which has around 500 students is the only EnglishMedium school in a village area in the backward District of Alleppey.The advantage for students in the appellant's school is that from LowerKindergarten to 12th Standard they ...

Thiruvepathi Mills Labour Union (intuc), Represented by Its Secretary ...

Court: Kerala

P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. 1. The petitioners are registered trade unions representing 531 workers of Thiruvepathi Mills Private Ltd, Kannur, presently under liquidation. They have filed this writ petition claiming unemployment allowance under the Rajiv Gandhi Shramik Kalyan Yojana Scheme, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P3 along with the writ petition. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 2. Thiruvepathi Mills Private Ltd, Kannur had 531 workers on its rolls as on 16.2.1998. The management of the company stopped work with effect from 17.2.1998 and thereafter closed the factory with effect from 15.4.1998. The workmen thereupon raised a dispute and it was referred for adjudication to Industrial Tribunal, Kozhikode by the State Government as per G.O.(Rt) No. 1643/99/LBR dated 1/6/1999. The issue referred for adjudication was: "Whether the work stoppage with effect from 17.2.1998 and closure with effect from 15.4.1998 of Thiruvepathi Mill is justifiable or not. If not, what are the reli...

Susamma Thomas Vs. the State of Kerala Represented by Its Secretary Ge ...

Court: Kerala

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. The appellant was the seniormost teacher in the High School run by the 4th respondent when the vacancy of Headmistress arose on 1.4.2004. Going by Rule 43 of the K.E.R. appellant being the seniormost teacher should have been appointed as the Headmistress of the school. However, it so happened that the 4th respondent is a minority institution run by nuns which by virtue of the privilege available under Article 30(1) of the Constitution is free to choose a Headmistress of their choice from among qualified teachers. The practice of the management as stated by counsel is to appoint always a nun as the Headmistress of the school so that the financial benefits earned by the Headmistress goes to the congregation which is the management. However, when the vacancy of Headmistress arose on 1.4.2004, the management did not get a qualified nun for appointment as Headmistress either from the very same school or from outside. In fact, the 5th respondent who is a nun select...

M.J. Babu Vs. Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and Another

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(4)KLJ53; 2012(4)KLT55

1. The question to be considered in this writ petition is whether the assessee, who is challenging an order passed under Section 17D of the KGST Act by way of appeal, is liable to deposit the entire arrears due in respect of the said assessment year i.e. by way of tax, interest etc., by virtue of sub section (5) of Section 17D or will it be enough, if the tax portion alone is satisfied, so as to maintain the appeal under Section 39 of the KGST Act. 2. The petitioner was the Managing Partner of a firm, which was being run under the name and style as M/s. Best Traders, Kalpetta. The said firm was closed down because of the adverse circumstances in the year 2005. In respect of the assessment year 2004-05, the assessment proceedings came to be finalised by resorting to the course and procedure under Section 17D of the KGST Act, leading to Ext.P1 assessment order, fixing the tax liability as Rs.2,55,111/- and showing the interest due as Rs.1,53,067/-. 3. Pursuant to Ext.P1 order, the petiti...

M. Mohammed Haji Manachithodi Agencies, Palakkad Vs. State of Kerala R ...

Court: Kerala

K. Vinod Chandran, J. Revision petitioner is an assessee engaged in the business of Cement dealership and having registration under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). For the year 2007-08 the dealer had filed returns and on finding that certain purchases of Cement from the Malabar Cements has not been reflected in the returns; the books of accounts were called for and examined. On scrutiny of the books of accounts it was revealed that cement purchases from April to August 2007 totaling about Rs.3,39,015/- was suppressed from the books of accounts. In the circumstances, notice was issued contemplating best judgment assessment and after considering the objections of the dealer the proposals in the notice were confirmed. Assessment was completed making an addition of unaccounted purchase with Gross Profit estimate at the rate of 2% and a further addition of 10% of the total turnover, including that returned and unaccounted for probable omissions and suppr...