//
archives

Ernakulam

This tag is associated with 8 posts

Appointments on compassionate basis are recognised as a permissible mode of induction into service under the Kerala Education Rules framed under the Kerala Education Act. Rule 9A appearing in Chapter XXIVA and Rule 51B appearing in Chapter XIVA of the said Rules are relevant in this regard. While Rule 9A deals with employment of dependants of the non- teaching staff of an aided school dying-in-harness, Rule 51B deals with employment of dependants of an aided school teacher dying-in-harness. The said rules are as under:- “9A: The manager shall give employment to a dependant of the non- teaching staff of an aided school dying in harness. Government orders relating to employment assistance to the dependents of Government servants dying in harness shall, mutatis mutandis, apply in the matter of such appointment.” (emphasis supplied) “51B: The Manager shall give employment to a dependant of an aided school teacher dying in harness. Government orders relating to employment assistance to the dependents of Government servants dying in harness shall mutatis mutandis, apply in the matter of such appointments.” “19. The time limit for preferring applications under the scheme will be 2 years from the date of death of govt. Servants. In the case of minor, the period will be within 3 years after attaining majority.” if an employee of the school died in harness and his legal representatives required any assistance in the form of compassionate appointment it is for them to approach the school in that regard by making an application in the manner prescribed. If the legal heirs did not do so, the Manager could reasonably assume that they were not in need of any assistance for otherwise they would ask for the same.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4848 OF 2012 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) 7556 of 2008   Shreejith L. …Appellant Versus Deputy Director (Education) Kerala & Ors. …Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4852, 4851, 4854, 4853, 4849-4850 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.4954/2009, SLP (C) … Continue reading

deficiency in service = According to the complainants, the contents of the Mahazar were not disclosed to them. But later on the complainants came to know that the Mahazar was prepared with an allegation that the house was being used as a guest house. On 28.09.2001, the OPs changed the electric meter without complying formalities. =the OPs failed to prove the two allegations, namely, running of the house as guest house and hence the use of energy being done unauthorisedly for commercial purposes and the non-functioning of two of the three phases of the meter thereby resulting in recording only 1/3 of the consumption. In view of this, the present case would not attract the ratio laid down in the case M/s. Swastic Industries (supra).

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI   REVISION PETITION  NO. 4607 OF 2010 (From the order dated 06.08.2010 in Appeal No. 554/2005 of Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) 1.  The Kerala State Electricity Board, Rep. by its Secretary, Vydhuthi Bhavan Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.   2.  The Asstt. Executive Engineer, K.S.E.B. Ponkunnam   3.  The Asstt. Engineer, K.S.E.B. Ponkunnam                                               …      Petitioner(s) … Continue reading

Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 – Entry 104 – Satilon/Tuflon coated cookware – Held: Classifiable under Entry 104 and not under Entry 5 – Such products cannot be treated as ordinary aluminium household utensils – Satilon/Tuflon coating makes the products non sticky and hence different from aluminium household utensil falling under Entry 5 – The amendment to Entry 104 in 1999 by which the word `non-stick’ cookware was added was merely clarificatory in nature. The questions which arose for consideration in these appeals were whether the satilon coated cookware and articles coated with tuflon are classifiable under Entry 5 of First Schedule under Kerela General Sales Tax Act, 1963 as `an aluminium household utensil made of utensil’ or whether these products would fall under Entry 104 which pertains to `pressure cooker, cook and serve ware to keep food warm, casseroles, water filters and similar home appliances not coming under any other entry’. The Assessing Authority classified the product under Entry 5. The Appellate Authority held that as the satilon coating made the goods non-stick, it would make it different from the aluminium household utensils made of aluminium covered under Entry 5 of the First Schedule. The Tribunal upheld the same. High Court held that the products were classifiable under the heading “similar home appliances” under Entry 104 of the Act and that the amendment to Entry 104 in the year 1999 by which the word “non-stick cookware” was added was only clarificatory in nature. Hence these appeals. =Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. The view taken by the Tribunal as well as the High Court that “satilon coated aluminium products” are not identical with “aluminium household utensils made of aluminium and aluminium alloys” is correct. The coating of satilon makes all the difference to the product. The Tribunal rightly recorded a finding that in trade parlance, no one would describe satilon coated aluminium products as aluminium household utensils. [Para 5] [80-F] 1.2. The satilon coated cookware cannot be treated as ordinary aluminium household utensils. Price of the satilon coated cookware is much more than the aluminium household utensils made of aluminium and its alloys. The Hawkins cookware sold by the assessee cannot be categorized as household utensils made of aluminium for the reasons that the satilon coating makes the goods non-sticky and hence different from the aluminium household utensils. In common parlance, Hawkins cookware with satilon coating is not understood as aluminium ware. The view taken by the High Court that the amendment to Entry 104 of the First Schedule is clarificatory in nature is also correct. [Para 6] [80-H; 81-A-B] Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors. (1989) 3 SCC 127; Metlex (I) (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi (2005) 1 SCC 271; Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin v. Apollo Tyres Ltd. (2005) 11 SCC 444 – distinguished. 2. Coating of tuflon also makes the article non-stick. [Para10] [81-G] T.L.V. Iyer, Gopal Jain, Kaushik Mishra, Bindu K. Nair, Sarika Singh, Ruby Singh Ahuja, K.R. Sasiprabhu, Krishan Venugopal, K. Varghese, Sidhartha, Naresh Kumar, G. Prakash, Beena Prakash, Varun Sarin (for Ramesh Babu M.R.) for the appearing parties.=, 2008(7 )SCR77 , , 2008(6 )SCALE657 , 2008(6 )JT237

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 6469-6470 of 2002 PETITIONER: Hawkins Cookers Limited RESPONDENT: State of Kerala DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29/04/2008 BENCH: ASHOK BHAN & DALVEER BHANDARI JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6469-6470 OF 2002 With Civil Appeal No. 7169 of 2004 Talent Marketing Agencies …..Appellant(s) – Versus – … Continue reading

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION=there is adequate credible evidence on record that the Respondent’s husband was suffering from tuberculosis and that he had suppressed this material fact. This has been established by the medical certificate of the District Tuberculosis Officer which we note, was supplied by the Respondent herself to the Petitioner/Insurance Company. Further, it is also on record and not disputed that the insuree had taken medical leave for long periods for his treatment of tuberculosis. Since, an insurance is a contract entered between the parties in “utmost good faith”, suppression of any material facts by the insuree(as was done in this case), entitled the Petitioner/Insurance Company to repudiate the claim as per the terms and conditions of the policy.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI   REVISION PETITION NO. 3050 of 2007 (Against order dated 07.05.2007 in Appeal No.295/2006 of the State Commission, H.P.) LIC of India & Ors.                                                        ……..Petitioners   Vs. Smt.Shakuntala Devi & Anr.                                       …….. Respondents  BEFORE:              HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT           HON’BLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER For the Petitioners                 :        Mr. Ashok Kashyap, Advocate For the Respondents             :        NEMO. Pronounced on 15th  November, 2011 … Continue reading

Non- compoundable cases , if compromised, can be quashed under inherent powers =It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable under Section 320 IPC is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. That power can in our opinion be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before the trial Court or in appeal on one hand and the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the other. While a Court trying an accused or hearing an appeal 14

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2094 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.9919 of 2010) Shiji @ Pappu and Ors. …Appellants Versus Radhika and Anr. …Respondents J U D G M E N T T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises out of an … Continue reading

The sole respondent, who is none other than the husband of the aggrieved person in an application filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to for short as ‘the Act’ only) is the revision petitioner. By order dated 19.5.2010 in M.P.No.6596 of 2008, the court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Thrissur allowed the petition in part granting the following reliefs, in favour of the aggrieved person/wife:- “1. The respondent is restrained from uttering obscene words and from making defamatory statements against the petitioner and also from committing any acts of violence in her working place. 2. The respondent is directed to remove himself from the shared house situated in the ‘A’ schedule property. 3. The respondent is restrained from committing any mischief to the ‘B’ schedule items kept in the ‘A’ schedule house. 4. The respondent is restrained from alienating or from encumbering the property having an extent of 6= cents comprised in survey No.598/1 of Thrissur village.”

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 338 of 2011() 1. VINCENT CHIRAYATH, AGED 57 YEARS, … Petitioner Vs 1. DR.P.L.MARY, AGED 55 YEARS, … Respondent 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY 3. THE UNION OF INDIA, For Petitioner :SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR For Respondent :SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI The Hon’ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN Dated … Continue reading

Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act as confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Ernakulam in Crl.R.P.No.28 of 2007. It is not disputed that petitioner married respondent No.1 on 08.12.1996, and on 08.07.1998 he divorced her. Respondent No.1 claimed various amounts including `.10,000/- as expenses during the period of iddat and Rupees five lakhs as reasonable and fair provision for future maintenance. She alleged that petitioner has fifty cents and a house and another one acre of land.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.MC.No. 851 of 2010() 1. ANAZ, S/O. MOIDEEN HAJI, … Petitioner Vs 1. SHEEBA, D/O. NAVOORKANI, … Respondent 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRSENTED BY For Petitioner :SRI.M.TRIPTEN For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Hon’ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH Dated :22/02/2011 O R D E R THOMAS P. JOSEPH, … Continue reading

How to determine common object – where general allegations are made against a large number of persons the court would categorically scrutinise the evidence and hesitate to convict the large number of persons if the evidence available on record is vague. It is obligatory on the part of the court to examine that if the offence committed is not in direct

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 162 of 2006 Ramachandran & Ors. Etc. …Appellants Versus State of Kerala …Respondent J U D G M E N T Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 7.4.2005 passed by the High … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,884,333 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com