Kerala Court August 2012 Judgments

Chirag Enterprises Vs. Star Traders

Court: Kerala

K. Harilal, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.90/1999 on the file of the 2nd Additional Sub Judge, Kozhikode. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondents were defendants in the above suit. 2. The facts giving rise to this Appeal can be briefly summarised as follows (parties are referred to as in the trial court judgment) :- 3. The plaintiff is a business concern engaged in the wholesale business of boiled rice etc. The first defendant is a Partnership firm and the second defendant is the Managing Partner of the firm. They are customers of the plaintiff in rice business and the defendants owed Rs.1,95,730.55 towards credit purchase of rice as per proper books of accounts maintained by the plaintiff in the name of the first defendant as on 07.06.1996. Despite, demands at times, the defendants did not pay the amount. Hence the suit was filed for realisation of an amount of Rs.1,95,730.55 with interest from the defendants. 4. In written sta...

M/S. Tropical Farms Vs. the Assistant Commissioner (Audit Assessment) ...

Court: Kerala

Rejection of application opting to have registration under Section 6(5) of the KVAT Act, as a 'presumptive dealer' with liability to pay tax at lesser rate and the assessment finalised under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act, ordering to satisfy the liability under Section 6(1) of the Act, is mainly under challenge; simultaneously challenging the constitutional validity of Section 6(5), particularly with regard to the retrospective amendment (made on 28.08.2005) w.e.f. 01-04-2005. 2. The petitioner firm is running a 'poultry farm' engaged in the sale of broiler chicken, having registration, both under the KGST and CST Acts. In the course of business, the petitioner used to bring the live chicken and such other goods from outside the State, to be sold within the State. However, pursuant to the new enactment, i.e. KVAT Act, which was brought into force with effect from 01.04.2005, the petitioner decided to have the benefit of reduced rate of tax applicable to the 'presumptive dealers', who w...

Tata Motors Finance Ltd. Vs. N.P. Padmanabhan and Another

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER Aggrieved by the order passed by CDRF, Kannur in CC No. 264/2011 the 2nd opposite party/appellant came up in this appeal wherein the opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs. 24,380/- within 1 month from the date of the order failing which the complainant is entitled for interest @ 12% p.a from the date of filing the complaint. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant booked a Tata Nano Car on 25.04.09 from the Kannur booking centre. He booked for a yellow A/c car. As the complainant was not good in English the employees of the Tata office filled up the application form. The application form was purchased for Rs.350/- from the 1st opposite party and the filled up form was entrusted with the 2nd opposite party as instructed over telephone. The complainant went to the office of the 2nd opposite party and paid Rs.14,532/- along with DD for Rs.2,999/- on 14.07.09 for which receipt No.34365 was issued and it was on the assurance that they wi...

M. Aneesh Kumar Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT868; 2012(3)KHC702; 2012(3)KLT868

ThottathilB. Radhakrishnan. J. 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the appointment of the third respondent as the Administrator under Section 14 of the Guruvayur Devaswom Act, 1978, for short, the "Act". The specific ground of challenge is that though only an officer of Government not below the rank of Deputy Collector could be appointed as the Administrator, third respondent who is not an officer of Government has been appointed as the Administrator. The question whether he is one below the rank of Deputy collector would be relevant only if he is an officer of Government, it is contended and argued. 2. The defence set up by the Government and the third respondent and supported by the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee is that the third respondent was appointed by the Devaswom from among the panel forwarded by the Government and he, who was working as Deputy Registrar (Administration) of Kerala "Forest Research Institute, Peechi which is one of the institutions under the Ker...

Prahladan Vs. Varkala Kahar

Court: Kerala

The above election petition has been filed under Sections 80, 81, 83, 84 and 100(1)(c) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as the "Act" challenging the election of the respondent from No.127 of Varkala Legislative Assembly Constituency in the General Election held on 13.04.2011. 2. Petitioner, as a candidate, submitted two nomination papers, numbered as ARO-13 and ARO-14, to contest the election from the above Constituency. He submitted his nomination as a candidate of the Bahujan Samaj Party, for short, the 'BSP', a registered National Political Party. Scrutiny of the nomination papers were conducted by the Returning Officer on 28.03.2011. The Returning Officer rejected both the nomination papers of the petitioner holding that the affidavit in Form No.26, though signed by the Notary Public, was not duly attested since the stamp of the required value has not been affixed on such affidavit. Certified copy of the order rejecting the nomination paper ARO-13 ...

C.P. Udayadivakaran Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLJ835

Petitioner is one among the accused in a pending case on the file of the Sessions Court, Palakkad. He is being prosecuted with some others for offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, for short, 'the Act', on a complaint filed by the Drugs Inspector, Palakkad. Complaint was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad, who, after taking cognizance of the offences imputed, made over the case to the Judicial First Class Magistrate -II, Palakkad for trial. Pending the proceedings, the Act was amended, by which some offences under the Act are triable only by a Special Court. The Magistrate taking into account the amendment to the Act, committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial. 2. Annexure A1 is copy of the complaint, in which including the petitioner five persons are arrayed as accused for various offences under the Act. Crux of the allegation is that accused 1 to 3 and 5 conducted the sale of a drug which is not of standard quality, and the petitioner, A4, failed...

Jiji George Vs. George Varghese

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER In these revision petitions the orders passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam in IA Nos.169/2012 and 170/2012 in CC.No.11/12 are challenged. The revision petitioner was the opposite party/counter petitioner in those applications. IA.170/12 was filed by the complainant therein to permit him to continue with the construction of his residential building. The revision petitioner/opposite party had entered into an agreement with the complainant to effect the construction. Later disputes arose between the parties and it appears that revision petitioner had already approached the Sub Court, North Paravur to get the accounts settled. Whether the breach of agreement was on the part of the complainant or the revision petitioner, whether the settlement of accounts can be had and related questions will be settled in that suit. Obviously the revision petitioner stopped construction of the building and the complainant wanted to continue with the construction. IA No.17...

P.G. Rakesh Menon Vs. Homex Trade Links Pvt Ltd. Represented by Its Ma ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(4)KLT18; 2012(4)KLJ39

Pius C. Kuriakose, J. 1. Under challenge in this original petition filed by the landlord under Article 227 of the Constitution is Ext.P8 order passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority ( VIth Additional District Court, Ernakulam) in RCA No.20/2012. We find that under Ext.P8, the Hon'ble Rent Control Appellate Authority has extended the order of stay of execution passed in favour of the respondent/tenant against whom the Rent Control Court passed summary order of eviction under Section 11 (3) of the Act 2 of 1965. The ground raised by the original petitioner/landlord is that the Rent Control Appellate Authority has granted an absolute stay against the execution of the summary order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court against the respondent/tenant without imposing any conditions. Ext. P1 is the copy of the amended rent control petition. Ext.P4 is the statement of objections filed by the tenant to the Rent Control Petition. A careful reading of Exts.P1 and P4 will sh...

Thulaseedharan Vs. Stateof Kerala Rep. by the Chief Secretary to Gover ...

Court: Kerala

Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. This is a public interest litigation filed for direction to the State Government and its agencies to take effective measures to prevent illegal mining of clay from the properties belonging to party respondents 8 to 15. This writ petition happened to be posted before Division Bench along with several writ appeals and connected cases which are disposed of through separate judgment. 2. We heard counsel appearing for the petitioner, Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 7 and Senior Counsel Sri. Ranjith Thampan appearing for respondents 8,9,13 and 15. 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, Government Pleader submitted that the Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana ( 2012) 4 SCC 629) hasissued directions to the State Government to frame Rules for regulating mining and other activities affecting environment in the State. The basic idea is to first conduct a study on the impact of ecology on account of mining and other activities, so that, permissio...

Gijoosh Gopi, Alappuzha Vs. S. Sruthi, Alappuzha

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(4)KLT269

K.T. Sankaran, J. 1. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 24.4.2012. The parties are Hindus. On the date of marriage itself, they realized that they could not continue the marital relationship. The respondent expressed the view that she was not willing for the marriage and she wanted to marry another man. She also stated that she agreed for the marriage only due to the compulsion on the part of her parents. The marriage was not consummated. Mediators intervened. On 31.5.2012, an agreement was executed between the parties in the presence of the representatives of SNDP Sakhas in which the parties are members. On the same day, viz., 31.5.2012, the parties filed a petition under Section 13B of the Hindu marriage Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’) before the Family Court, Alappuzha. Since the application was filed before the expiry of the period of one year from the date of marriage, they filed an application under the proviso to Section 14 of t...