Kerala Court June 2012 Judgments

Dr. T. Leelamony Vs. Manager, S.N. Trust and Another

Court: Kerala

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan,J. 1. These matters relate to a teacher employed in a private college under a corporate management governed by the provisions of the Kerala Universities Act, 1974, for short, the `Act', and the statutes framed thereunder. Hereinafter, we refer to her as 'the teacher'. 2. The teacher's husband, while Principal of a college under the same management faced disciplinary proceedings. He got a favourable interlocutory judicial order and approached the management requesting to give effect to it. Allegedly, he was subjected to some physical restraint. That appears to have led his wife, the teacher, to go over to the headquarters of the management. The allegation is that she behaved in a rude and unruly manner by making some utterances against the management and by creating a scene by detaining some of the officials of the management. It appears that the husband's demotion from the category of Principal to that of Selection Grade Lecturer was interfered with by this ...

The Chief Manager Lic of India, Mavelikkara Branch Vs. G. Shyamaprakas ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR JUDICIAL MEMBER The opposite party in CC 252/08 in CDRF, Alappuzha is the appellant. The complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party as follows: While working as conductor in KSRTC, Mavelikkara depot on the basis of the proposal dated 27.4.01 two insurance policies were issued to the complainant. As per the agreement premium was paid by way of deductions from the salary. Such deductions were effected upto October 2002. Thereafter due to illness the complainant could not attend office and so he could not pay the premium in time. He took VRS from the department on 30.4.03. Based on the condition in the policy he contacted the appellant for revival of the policy on 29.5.03. Since there was no positive attitude on the part of the appellant he contacted higher authorities including the Ombudsman. On 4.6.06 the opposite party intimated the complainant that policy can be revived subject to certain conditions. Only eight months were left...

Dr. K.M. Mehaboob, Calicut Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kozh ...

Court: Kerala

1. This batch of writ petitions have been filed with the prayer to quash the Assessment Orders passed by the respondent under Section 144 read with Sections 153C and 153A of the Income Tax Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) for the Assessments Years 2003-04 to 2009-10. 2. Issues raised in these writ petitions being connected these cases were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment, treating W.P.(C) No.2954/2011 as the leading case and referring to the documents produced therein. 3. According to the petitioner, he had received Ex.P9 summons dated 26.03.2009 issued under Section 131 of the Act from the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Investigation). Mangalore requiring him to appear at the Income Tax Office, Mangalore on the 25th April 2009 with various details and documents. Petitioner submits that thereupon, he made enquiries and came to know that on 17/3/2009, a search was conducted by the Income Tax Department in the premises of...

Southern Refineries Limited Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by the Se ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT101(SN)(C.NO.101)

K. Vinod Chandran,J: The petitioner is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Act (for short 'KGST Act') and is aggrieved by the reduction of the period of exemption, by the assessing officer, as confirmed by the first appellate authority and the Tribunal. 2. The petitioner/assessee is a medium scale industrial unit, which commenced commercial production on 1.9.1993. The petitioner claims to have been granted exemption under SRO.1729/1993 for an amount of Rs.3,66,44,000/- for a period of seven years from 1.9.1993 to 31.08.2000. The petitioner has produced Annexure-A order of exemption dated 24.11.1995 which, along with Annexure-B, shows the eligibility to exemption, the period, quantum and the goods in respect of which exemption is granted. The bone of contention is only with respect to the period of exemption granted as per Annexure-A order. The petitioner claims that Annexure-A exemption order under SRO.1729/1993 prescribes exemption for a period of seven years with respect to th...

C.K. Moosa and Others Vs. Bank of Baroda

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)ILR(Ker)61; 2012(3)KLT47; 2012(3)KLJ368

ORDER 1. Is a foreign judgment conclusive between the parties where it has not been given on the merits of the case and the proceedings therein are opposed to natural justice? This is the question frequently asked by the Gulf returnees in the State of Kerala when confronted with the steps by the bank after their business had floundered abroad. 2. The respondent Bank instituted Case No. 2173/90 on the file of the Abu Dhabi Court against the loanees who included the revision petitioners. The case was decreed for a sum of Dirhams 199728.21 (approximately about Rs. 20 lakhs) with interest thereon at 9% per annum. The Bank thereafter filed a suit as O.S. No. 43/1993 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Thalassery. The court below has by the order impugned held that the foreign judgment is conclusive between the parties. Resultantly the suit was transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal since the plaint claim exceeded a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs. The order holding the foreign judgm...

Sukumar N. Oommen S/O. Late Samuel Oommen Vs. Secretary to the Governm ...

Court: Kerala

RamachandranNair, J. The appellant, an IAS Officer in the Tripura-Manippur cadre, who has also served on deputation in Government of India and also in Kerala, was selected by the Public Enterprises Selection Board as Chairman cum Managing Director of a Central Public Sector Company, namely M/s.Madras Fertilizers Limited(hereinafter referred to as the Company for short) located at Chennai. His selection was for appointment on permanent absorption basis. He was relieved from the State service on 04/09/2002 and joined as the Chairman cum Managing Director of the Company on 06/09/2002. He completed his 5 year tenure on 05/09/2007 and was allowed to retire from the Company. The appellant's terms of appointment as CMD of the Company was issued only after six months of his joining the service i.e. on 31/03/2003. There was no provision in the terms of appointment to give him transfer allowance from Tripura to Madras. He claimed a total sum of Rs.1.07 lakhs towards transfer allowance from the C...

P. Rasheed Vs. the Thrissur Corporation, M.O. Road, Thrissur, Rep. by ...

Court: Kerala

1. The petitioner along with two other co-owners had obtained Ext.P1 permit from the respondent Corporation for construction of a building (Dormitory) in a property owned by them situated within the limits of the respondent Corporation. Subsequently Ext.P2 revised building permit was issued on 02-12-2010. The petitioner again applied for revision of the permit in order to convert the nature of the construction as a commercial building. Exhibit P4 application submitted in this regard was rejected through Ext.P5 letter issued by the respondent Corporation assigning the reason that the occupancy change cannot be permitted in view of the classification of the area as "residence zone" under the DTP scheme. Petitioner is challenging Ext.P5 in this writ petition. 2. It is contended that the area wherein the property is situated is fully developed as commercial area, surrounded by a lot of commercial buildings. According to the petitioner, the DTP scheme in question namely 'Thekkinkad Scheme' ...

Kerala Head Load Workers, Welfare Fund Board, Rep.by the Chief Executi ...

Court: Kerala

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. The Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Fund Board challenges an award of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner made in favour of a headload worker. 2. The incident is not in dispute. A shop owner Sri.K.G.Sajan utilised the services of headload workers allotted by the appellants. One worker, Prakasan, was injured in the course of that work. That led to the impugned award. 3. The liability of the Board to pay compensation is disputed only on the plea that Sajan had not paid 2% additional levy in terms of Section 29 A of the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983 and that therefore, the Board cannot be mulcted with the liability. 4. Forone thing, the liability under the   Workmen's Compensation Act is one that cannot be impinged by the provisions of the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983. The provision for collection of additional levy in terms of clause 29 A of that S...

B. Dileeb Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Kerala

The petitioner, who is presently employed as Senior Assistant in the Kerala State Electricity Board, (hereinafter referred to as the Board for short), has filed this writ petition for an order directing the respondents to reckon the service rendered by him in All India Radio under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting during the period from 24.7.1992 to 31.3.1994, for the purpose of computing the length of qualifying service for pension. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 2. The petitioner was formerly employed as Lower Division Clerk in All India Radio, New Delhi under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting during the period from 24.7.1992 to 31.3.1994. He resigned from service to take up employment as Cashier in the Board and was relieved from All India Radio, New Delhi on 31.3.1994. After he was relieved from All India Radio, New Delhi on 31.3.1994, he joined service as Cashier in the Board on 4.4.1994. Long after he entered service, the Board issued Ext.P2 ord...

The Manager, Letchmi Estate, M/S. Tata Tea Limited, Munnar (Now Owned ...

Court: Kerala

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan,J: 1. This appeal is by the employer. Under challenge is an order of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. 2. The workman, Murugan, sustained injury to his left index finger while operating a vibrating machine. The Chief Medical Officer of the employer assessed the disability at 3%. The Medical Board of the Idukki District issued Exhibit A1 certificate, assessing the permanent physical disability due to the injury at 10%. The workman gave evidence as A.W.1. His testimony was corroborated by A.W.2. There is no contra evidence by the management. The monthly earnings of the workman was proved. The Commissioner took it as Rs.1,700/- per month. 3. The first aspect of the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Commissioner acted contrary to law in adopting 10% as the loss of earning capacity. It is pithily pointed out that the determination of 10% as the permanent physical disability by the Medical Board cannot, by itself, suffic...