Kerala Court June 2012 Judgments

Vinu C. Chacko and Others Vs. Tahsildar, Thalappilly Taluk and Others

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(4)ILR(Ker)36; 2012(4)KLJ56; 2012(4)KLT171

1. The area occupied by a 'car porch' is not liable to be reckoned as plinth area under section 2(k) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, by virtue of exclusion under the proviso to Section 6 of the Act and also by virtue of the law declared by a Division Bench of this Court in Subhashchandrababu v. State of Kerala (2006 (2) KLT 189). Question is, will it tilt the balance in any manner, if the owner of the building is having 'two garages' attached to the building and whether the respondents are justified in saying that only 'one' of the two garages will be eligible for exemption. Yet another question involved is whether the assessment finalised by the concerned authorities is liable to be re-opened, merely on the basis of the 'audit objection', when the assessment was completed in a different manner. 2. The petitioners are joint owners of the property and the building constructed therein. It is stated that altogether 8 members were there in the family, pursuing independent avocations of the...

P.K. Thyagarajan, H.S.A.(Malayalam) Vs. Santhosh T. Alexander S/O. T.M ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)ILR(Ker)90; 2012(3)KLT101; 2012(3)KLJ97

RamachandranNair, J. The question raised in the connected Writ Appeals filed by one and the same person is whether the appellant who joined four years earlier than the contesting respondent as a High School Teacher will lose his seniority for promotion as Headmaster by virtue of his redeployment in a Government High School on account of loss of division for a period of less than two years. The parties, facts and documents referred to in this judgment are those contained in W.A.No.257/2012. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, learned Government Pleader for respondents 2 to 5 and learned Standing Counsel for the Management. 3. The facts leading to the controversy are the following:- The appellant was appointed as a High School Teacher in Malayalam in the 6th respondent School on 14/07/1987. The 1st respondent joined the School as a Teacher in Hindi on 08/07/1991 i.e. almost four years after the appellant joined the School ...

Raveendran. K.V. Vs. M/S. Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., and ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT437; 2012(3)KLJ409

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1.Heard appellant's learned counsel on the maintainability ofthis appeal filed to the High Court against an order of thearbitral tribunal granting an interim measure under section17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2.Section 37(2) of the Act provides an appeal against an orderin the nature of the one impugned. That appeal lies to a"court". Section 2(1)(e) in Part I of that Act, which relates toArbitration, states that "court" means the Principal CivilCourt of original jurisdiction in a district, and includes theHigh Court in exercise of its ordinary original civiljurisdiction, having jurisdiction to decide the questionsforming the subject-matter of the arbitration if the same hadbeen the subject-matter of a suit, but does not include anycivil court of a grade inferior to such principal Civil Court, orany Court of Small Causes. Learned counsel for theappellant submits that, notwithstanding such statutorydefinition, the term 'court' in sub-se...

State of Kerala, Represented by Its Chief Secretary to Government and ...

Court: Kerala

Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. Review Petition is filed by the State seeking review of our judgment in W.P.(C) No.13630/2012 dated 14.6.2012 whereunder we disposed of a public interest litigation directing the State to enforce the prohibitory orders issued banning distribution and sale of Gutkha and panmasala after expiry of the extended time granted by the Government which was upto 15.6.2012. In fact, the Advocate General himself concedes that State has no grievance against our judgment because the direction issued was only to enforce Government's Order. However, Advocate General appearing in the Review Petition submitted that petitioners in three Writ Petitions who are manufacturers/distributors of the banned items namely, Gutkha and panmasala represented before another Division Bench that fraud was committed by the petitioner in the Public Interest Litigation in collusion with the State in getting our judgment now sought to be reviewed without informing this court about the pendency of th...

The Proprietor, Panasonic Authorised Service Centre Vs. P.K. Bhaveesh

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER This appeal is filed by the opposite party in CC.495/11 before the CDRF, Kozhikkode. As per the impugned order, the opposite party is under directions to rectify the defects of the CD player and pay compensation of Rs.5000/- and cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the order. 2. Before the Forum below the complainant submitted that he had entrusted a video CD player worth Rs.23,000/- to the opposite party for repairs and that the repairs were not carried out by the opposite party on the ground of non availability of spare parts. It is his case that even though he had approached the opposite party several times, the CD player was not repaired and alleging deficiency in service the complaint was filed praying for directions to refund the price of Rs.23,000/- and compensation for the mental agony, the complainant had undergone. 3. Though notice was sent the opposite party, the opposite party remained absent an...

P.K. Sreelekha Vs. B.K. Manoj

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT54

Ramachandran Nair, J: 1. The question raised in the connected appeals is one and the same. Therefore we heard both the cases together and proceed to dispose the same by this common judgment. Parties arrayed and documents referred to are those in W.A No.978/2012. The 1st respondent in the writ appeal was appointed by the 6th respondent in their school in an additional division vacancy on regular basis on 12-07-2004. Even though appointment was on regular basis on monthly pay the educational authorities declined to approve the appointment for the reason that Ext.R6(b) Government order dated 15-06-2004 prohibits appointment of teachers for less than one academic year on a regular basis and the Government order permits such appointment on daily wage basis only. After the 1st respondent's appointment was approved by the Government on daily wage basis, a vacancy arose on 02-06-2008 which was filled up by the Manager. This was questioned by the 1st respondent in this court contending that he ...

Mathew Sam Vs. State of Kerala and Others

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT251; 2012(3)ILR(Ker)338; 2012(3)KLJ27

The auction cancelled, forfeiting the initial bid amount satisfied by the petitioner for non-satisfaction of the balance amount, invoking the power and jurisdiction under Section 49(3) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, is the issue involved in this writ petition. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, on coming across the sale notified by the revenue authorities, the petitioner participated in the auction and bid the concerned property in the auction held on 18.03.2010. In tune with the relevant terms of the notification and the provisions of law, the petitioner deposited 15% of the bid amount and was to satisfy the remaining 2/3rd within thirty days. But, since the mother of the petitioner was hospitalised, he could not effect the balance payment within time. Later, when the petitioner approached the 4th respondent on 22.04.2010 with the balance amount, it was refused to be accepted, saying that there was a delay of 'three' days. Since the representation preferred by the petitioner,...