Kerala Court August 2012 Judgments

Ayshakunji Vs. the Tahsildar and Another

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(4)ILR(Ker)85; 2012(4)KLT193; 2012(4)KLJ217

Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. The question raised is whether use of part of the residential building for commercial purpose justifies exclusion of so much of the plinth area rented out from the residential house for the purpose of determining luxury tax liability under Section 5 A of the Kerala Building Tax Act. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and also Government Pleader for respondents. 3. The building in this case is second floor of a massive building wherein the residential apartment comprises of 291 sq. mts. There is no dispute that the building is a residential building. The appellant's family was in fact staying there. However, 58 sq. mts of the said building was let out for running an IT Academy under the name Jayaram Talent Media. Appellant's case is that once this area let out for commercial purpose is excluded, balance plinth area of the building will be less than 278.7 sq. mtrs and therefore the building does not attract luxury tax. Government Pleader supported...

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Chengannur Now Represented by ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(4)KLT84; 2012(4)KLJ235

Ramakrishna Pillai, J. 1. The Insurance Company is in appeal. 2. Respondents 1 to 4 approached the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal claiming compensation for the death of one Bhaskaran Pillai, who is said to have been killed in a road traffic accident on 10/10/1996. The allegation is that while the deceased was travelling by a bus, owned by the 5th respondent, he fell down and sustained fatal injuries. According to the claimants, the accident arose out of the use of the vehicle. Originally, the claim was filed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation. Subsequently, the claim was converted to one under Section 163A. 3. Against the claim of Rs. 2,50,000/-, the learned Tribunal passed an award for Rs. 1,42,500/- together with interest, directing the appellant company to pay the amount of compensation, as the vehicle said to have been involved in the accident was covered by a valid policy issued by it. 4. We have heard the learned senior counsel ...

T.R. Sreevalsalan Vs. Jaimon T. Kuruvilla and Others

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(4)ILR(Ker)103; 2012(4)KLJ104; 2012(4)KLT36(SN)(C.No.35)

Ramakrishna Pillai, J 1. The appellant, a 32 year old labourer approached the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal claiming a sum of `3 lakhs as compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident occurred on 28.5.1996. 2. Allegedly, the appellant, who was a pillion passenger of a scooter met with an accident as the scooter collided with a lorry coming from the opposite direction. The first respondent was at the wheels of the lorry. It was insured with the third respondent Insurance Company. 3. Against the claim, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of `65,580/- as compensation attributing negligence against the driver of the lorry and the rider of the scooter in the ratio 1:1. 4. In this appeal, the appellant is mainly challenging the adequacy of compensation awarded. In addition to that the appellant has taken a contention that the accident was due to the composite negligence of the driver of the lorry as well as the rider of the scooter and the appellant bei...

State of Kerala Vs. Balsara Hygiene Products

Court: Kerala

K. Vinod Chandran,J. The State is in revision, challenging the orders of the Tribunal for the assessment years 1998-1999 and 1999-2000. Two issues, one of classification and the other of the exigibility of the second sale conducted by the assessee within the State under Section 5(2) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", arises in the above revisions. The question with respect to classification is raised in S.T.Rev.Nos.353 of 2006 and 358 of 2006, while the other question emerges in S.T.Rev.Nos.367 of 2006 and 373 of 2006. 2. The assessee, a Company registered under the Companies Act, is engaged in the sale of consumer products, like toothpaste, moth repellents, etc. within the State. For the subject assessment years, the assessee classified its product "Odonil" as a moth repellent and claimed liability to tax at the rate of 8% being covered under Entry 85 of the First Schedule to the Act. With regard to the sale of its products "Promise", "Mes...

Janiz K. Thomas and Others Vs. State of Kerala and Others

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLJ852

ORDER The first accused in C.C.No.458 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Ernakulam Smt.Janiz K Thomas is the revision petitioner in Crl.R.P.No.1583 of 2012. She and her husband Sri.K.M.Thomas who are respectively accused Nos.2 and 1 in C.C.No.3176 of 2005 on the file of the same Court, have filed Crl.R.P.No.1584 of 2012. The said Smt.Janiz K Thomas and the said Sri.K.M.Thomas along with their co-accused in C.C.No.2867 of 2005 on the file of the same Court, have filed Crl.R.P.No.1585 of 2012. Crl.R.P.No.1586 of 2012 has been filed by the said Sri.K.M.Thomas and his co-accused Nos.2, 3 and 5 in C.C.No.3486 of 2006 on the file of the same Court. The petitioners in Crl.R.P.Nos.1583 and 1586 of 2012 are indicted for offences under sections 406, 420 and 477 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioners in the other two revision petitions are charge sheeted alleging commission of offences under sections 406 and 420 read with section 34 I...

The Regional Provident Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organiza ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER Aggrieved by the order dated: 24.02.02 in CC No. 327/07 on the file of CDRF, Kollam, the opposite parties came up in this appeal. The Forum below allowed the complaint in part and directed the 2nd opposite party to pay Rs.265/- as monthly pension from 03.07.1997 along with 9% interest and further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as cost of the proceedings to the complainant. 2. When this appeal came up for hearing the learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party submitted that the complainant died as on 26.12.2011 while the said complaint was pending for disposal before the CDRF, Kollam. The legal heirs were not impleaded in the party array after the death of the complainant. More over, the death of the complainant was not brought to the notice of the Forum below. The final hearing of the complaint was on 14.02.02 which was after the death of the complainant. The order passed on 24.02.2012 was in favour of the complainant who was a de...

Annamma Earnest Vs. Prince Engineering Co. 35/2132, Rep. by Its Managi ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER Dissatisfied by the order of dismissal passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam in C.C. 451/05 the complainant /appellant came up in this appeal. 2. The complainant purchased a pappad manufacturing unit at a price of 5,54,000/- availing a loan from Canara Bank. It is the case of the complainant that the machinery supplied was of inferior quality and defective. The motor supplied was not as per the specification and supplied 3.75HP motor. It is also alleged that the machines were not working properly and were not semi automatic and without any cooler. It is also the allegation that the complainant was charged extra 40% for the machine as against the prevailing market rate and huge bill was issued to him. By delivering inferior quality and defective machine to the complainant the opposite party committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The act of the opposite parties caused loss and damages and hence filed complaint before the Forum below praying for Rs. 5,54...

The General Manager, Royal Enfiled, (a Unit of Eicher Motor Ltd) and A ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER This appeal is preferred from the order of CDRF, Ernakulam in CC No. 533/2010 by the opposite parties. The Forum below ordered the 1st opposite party to replace the engine of the bike with new one at their cost and provide fresh warranty for one year and further direction is to change the relevant RC records and insurance pertaining to the engine under dispute. It is also awarded litigation charges of Rs.1,500/- . 2. The case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased a bullet standard 350 UCE motor bike for Rs.85,233/- on 07.08.2010 from the 2nd opposite party which was manufactured by the 1st opposite party. From the fourth day of purchase the bullet could not be started and showed kicker jam and the rear wheel struck. It was informed to the 2nd opposite party and the vehicle was taken on 16.08.2010 for servicing. It is the case of the complainant that their service staff had broken the engine seal and found a piece of aluminum stud inside the engine ...

Lis Deepasthambham Project, Rep. by Its Managing Trustee Administrativ ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER This appeal is preferred by the opposite parties against the order passed by the CDRF, Alappuzha in C.C. No. 193/2011 wherein the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to return the accepted amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- with 24% interest from the date of acceptance and also for compensation of Rs. 25,000/-along with cost of Rs. 2,500/- 2. The case of the complainant is that the complainant deposited a total sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with the opposite parties on 19/12/2005 for which a Certificate was issued and the project offered to fetch a minimum of twice the entrusted amount along with the commission. As per the offer the complainant was entitled to get the double amount with the statutory benefit offered after the expiry date. The opposite parties had also sent magazines. When the complainant contacted the opposite parties for getting the deposited amount with interest it was turned down and they evaded from the assurance. The complainant sought ...

Aneesh Kumar, Adtech Computer Consultancy Vs. Mrs. Joyes

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellant was the 2nd opposite party in CC.No.18/11 in the CDRF, Pathanamthitta. The 1st respondent was the complainant. He alleged that he was running an institution named Phoenix Systems, doing the work of photocopying, STD booth etc. The 1st opposite party is the authorized agent of Canon photocopier and the 2nd opposite party is the agent of the 1st opposite party at Pathanamthitta. The 2nd opposite party approached the complainant as the agent of the 1st opposite party and persuaded the complainant to purchase Canon photocopier machine. Attracted by the words of the opposite parties the complainant purchased a photocopier machine by remitting Rs.10900/- in the account of the 1st opposite party in SBT as per their instruction. After remitting the amount the 2nd opposite party brought the machine to the complainant. They assured that 750 copies will be taken from the 1st load of cartridge. But on working the machine the complainant rece...