Kerala Court June 2012 Judgments

C.P. Mohammed Abdul Basheer Vs. State of Kerala and Another

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT86

C.K. Abdul Rehim, J. 1. Application for building permit submitted by the petitioner was rejected through Ext.P4 on the ground that the description of the property in the possession certificate is shown as wet land. The petitioner had produced Ext.P2 series photographs which will indicate that there is a hollow brick manufacturing unit functioning in the property in an open shed and the property contains coconut trees and other grown up trees having the age of approximately 15 to 20 years. Ext.P3 licence issued by the Panchayat indicates that the hollow brick manufacturing unit was permitted to function in the property. According to the petitioner, the property in question remains converted long back prior to enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act 2008 and hence the rejection merely on the basis of the description contained in the possession certificate or revenue records, cannot be sustained. 2. Heard; counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Plead...

Abdul Kabeer Vs. Malappuram Municipality

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT106

1. In all these Writ Petitions challenge is against rejection of Building Permits by the respective Municipalities/Corporations on the ground of zonal classifications under the Detailed Town Planning scheme (DTP scheme) formulated either under the Town Planning Act, 1939 or under the Madras Town Planning Act, 1920. The petitioners applied for building permits for construction of residential / commercial buildings. In one case the application is by a Devaswom for construction of a ‘Kalyanamandapam’ attached to a temple. The reason for rejection of building permit mentioned in the impugned orders are that, the properties where the constructions are proposed are included either in the ‘residential zone’ or in the ‘paddy field zone’ (agricultural zone) or in the ‘dry cultivation area’ etc. In most of the cases the DTP scheme in question was formulated long back, two or three decades ago. In some case there are revised DTP schemes submitted in...

Sibi K. Thomas Vs. the Kerala State Electricity Board, Represented by ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT285

The petitioner is a consumer of electricity under the Kerala State Electricity Board. The Anti Power Theft Squad of the Board inspected the electrical installation of the petitioner and prepared Ext.P1 mahazar. In the same, it was found that the seals of the meter were intact. But one of the three phases of the electricity meter was running in the opposite direction, resulting in non-recording of the actual consumption of electrical energy by the petitioner. Assuming that the wrong connection inside the meter happened at the time of installation in November 2002, Ext.P2 additional bill for electricity charges was raised on the petitioner for the period from 11/2002 to 12/2003. The petitioner filed an appeal against the demand, which was dismissed by Ext.P3 order. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: "i) a writ of mandamus or other appropriate order or direction calling for the record leading to the issuance of E...

P.K. Thampi Raj, Kollam and Another Vs. the State Bank of Travancore, ...

Court: Kerala

(Prayer: Prayer for interim relief in the Writ Appeal stating that in the circumstances stated in the appeal memorandum the High Court be pleased to stay the operation and implementation of the impugned judgment of the Learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.32911/2011 till the disposal of this Writ Appeal.) Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. Appellants, both husband and wife, borrowed `15,000/- nearly 30 years back from State Bank of Travancore, Chalai Branch. On default in payment, the Bank filed civil suit and obtained a money decree against appellants for `19,500/-. The mortgaged property was notified for sale on 06.08.1990 and since there was no purchaser, the Bank itself purchased the property with the permission of the Court. The Bank in fact got delivery of the possession of the property only on 24.06.1996. The Bank let out the building and collected rent of `1,41,600/-. Even though the rent collected by itself may absorb the entire decree amount and future interest, the Bank sold Appellants&...

Mohandas Vs. Jayanthi and Others

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT43; 2012(3)KLJ374

A convict, who is undergoing the sentence of imprisonment on account of the default committed in paying the maintenance ordered under section 125 Cr.P.C. in M.C.No.775 of 2007 by the Family Court, Malappuram has filed this revision petition. In fact, it has been sent from jail. As per order dated 21.12.2007 the said M.C was allowed and the revision petitioner herein was directed to pay monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- to the first petitioner and Rs.500 each to petitioners 2 to 4 therein from the date of filing of the said M.C. and the first petitioner therein was authorised to receive/collect it. For enforcing the order of maintenance, the petitioners therein filed a petition under section 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Subsequently, the respondent therein/the revision petitioner herein was arrested and was produced before the Court. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year as per the impugned order passed thereon. 2. As this petition has been sent fro...

M/S. U.K. Monu Timbers Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(4)KLT17(SN)(C.No.19)

K. Vinod Chandran,J: 1. Interesting questions regarding the scope and ambit of circulars issued with the purpose of plugging evasion, in deciding the question of tax liability and the invocation of powers of estimation of turnover and the resultant quantification of tax evaded for the purposes of determining penalty are raised in the above revision. 2. The facts are not in dispute and suffice it to say that the dealer, engaged in the business of purchase and sale of timber, imports the same into the State of Kerala and sells it within the State. At the entry check post, as is prescribed by Circular No.28/2008 dated 19.06.2008 of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, each consignment is required to be cleared after payment of advance tax at the floor rate prescribed therein for each variety of timber. The assessee having paid the same, brought it to the business premises/yards from where subsequent sales were effected within the State of Kerala, attracting tax under the Kerala Value Add...

Manoj Nair Vs. Manju Manosh and Another

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : HON. ACTING PRESIDENT This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam in CC No.94/2010 dated : 21.07.2011. The appellant is the 2nd opposite party, and the respondents are the complainant and 1st opposite party in the above OP. The appellant prefers this appeal under the direction of the Forum below that; directed the 1st opposite party bank shall issue duplicates of the FD receipt and key of the locker to the complainant after complying with the necessary formalities. 2. In short, the complainant opened a savings bank account with the 1st opposite party Bank dated: 12.08.2006, on the same day she availed herself of a locker facility from the bank. For the purpose of paying the rent of the locker she deposited a sum of Rs.4,000/- in the bank and requested the bank to collect the interest of the deposit towards rent of the locker. The original documents with the pass book, cheque leaves, fixed deposit receipt and the key of the locker were lost...

Baisil Attipetty @ Basil A.G. Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by Its ...

Court: Kerala

RamachandranNair, J. This is a public interest litigation filed for direction to implement Government's order dated 22.5.2012 prohibiting manufacture, sale and distribution of Gutkha and panmasala and like products containing tobacco or nicotin. Petitioner's case is that the order is not implemented though it came into force with effect from the date of order itself viz. 22.5.2012. Government Pleader on instructions submitted that Government has given time to the traders till 15th of this month to remove articles from the State 2. After hearing both sides what we notice is that though there is prohibition of manufacture, sale and distribution under the Government order with effect from 22.5.2012 there is nothing in the Government order authorising seizure and destruction of the stock held by the dealers. Since these products are not contraband all over India we feel Government rightly permitted transport of these items from the State. Since time is granted till 15.6.2012 the Government...

P.P. Alphonsa Vs. State of Kerala Rep. by the Joint Commissioner of Co ...

Court: Kerala

ORDER Ramachandran Nair, J: 1. Heard senior counsel Sri. A.K. Jayasankar Nambiar who appeared for Review petitioners and also special Government for respondents. Review petitions are filed to review the judgment for the reason that liability under Section 7 (1) (a) i.e., Payment of tax at compounded rates should be with reference to the preceding year's tax liability as reduced by exemption available under notification SRO No.1090/1999. On a plain reading of Section 7 (1) (a) it is clear that tax payable under the said provision is 200% of the highest amount from among the following. (1) Tax payable by the dealer as conceded in the return. (2) Tax payable based on accounts for the immediately preceding year. (3) The tax paid for the immediately preceding year. 2. It may so happen that the dealer would have conceded tax payable in the return at variance with the tax payable based on turnover of sales and purchases available in the accounts. So much so liability is the higher amount of t...

Narayana Reddiar and Others Vs. State of Kerala, Rep. by Public Prosec ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLJ103; 2012(3)KLT408; 2012(3)ILR(Ker)614

ORDER The short question that arises for consideration in all these petitions is whether the prosecution under the provisions of P.F.A. Act, 1954 and P.F.A. Rules, 1955 is sustainable in respect of offences detected on and after 29.7.2010. In all the aforesaid cases food samples were taken by the Food Inspector after 29.7.2010. The sampling, labelling and other procedures were done under the P.F.A. Act and Rules mentioned above and the complaints were filed under the aforesaid Act and Rules. The learned Magistrate took cognizance in all the aforesaid cases for offences under the P.F.A. Act 1954 and the P.F.A. Rules 1955. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that P.F.A. Act, 1954 was repealed by the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'F.S.S. Act' for short) and hence no prosecution can be launched against the petitioners under the P.F.A. Act, 1954 and P.F.A. Rules, 1955. The petitioners have relied upon the notification dated 29.7.20...