.....for the appellants seeks a remand of the matter to the motor accidents claims tribunal, to try the luck of the appellants to get the claim amended to suit either under section 163-a or section 166 of the motor vehicles act.6. in view of the above submission, we remand o.p. (mv) no. 1196/2003 to the motor accidents claims tribunal, punalur, for fresh consideration in accordance with law. but, we make it abundantly clear that we have not pronounced on the contention of the appellants that they are entitled to restrict the annual income of the deceased below rs. 40,000/- for maintaining the claim under section 163-a. it is for the tribunal to decide that question and other questions that may be raised by the parties, in accordance with law. it would also be open to the appellant m.a.c.a. no. 1443 of 2008 -:4. :- to seek permission of the tribunal to amend the claim petition, which also shall be considered by the tribunal in accordance with law. the parties shall appear before the tribunal for fresh proceedings in the o.p. on 26.8.2013. the appeal is dispose of as above. sd/- s. siri jagan, judge. sd/- k. ramakrishnan, judge. tds/ [true copy] p.s to judge.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....wp(c) no. 18028 of 201.------------------------------------ dated this the 24th day of july, 2013 judgment the grievance of the petitioner is that his property covered by ext.p3 title deed and exts.p4 and p5 tax receipts are being proceeded against for the dues of his mother. it appears that the mother of the petitioner is indebted to the canara bank, sulthanpet branch, palakkad as a loanee as well as a surety. the remedy if any of the petitioner is to lay a claim for release of his property from attachment under section 46 of the kerala revenue recovery act. the representation if any filed shall be dealt with by the second respondent after notice to the petitioner, the canara bank, sulthanpet branch, palakkad as well as the concerned debtors. the writ petition is disposed of. v. chitambaresh judge ncd
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....by government pleader smt.sobhaannamma eapen this writ petition (civil) having come up for admission on 24-07-2013, the court on the same day delivered the following: wp(c).no. 17072 of 2013 (h) appendix petitioner(s)' exhibits exhibit-p1: the true copy of the notice of sale of petitioners property dated 3 6.2013 under kerala revenue recovery act. exhibit-p2: the true photo copy of the receipt of payment of property tax of the petitioners property. exhibit-p3: the true photo copy of the returns for the period 2010 2011 submitted by the petitioner showing payment of tax. exhibit-p4: the true photo copy of the demand notice issued under the kerala value added tax rules 200 for the period 2011 2012. respondent(s)' exhibits : nil /true copy/ p.a. to judge. v. chitambaresh, j -------------------------------- wp(c) no. 17072 of 201.------------------------------------ dated this the 24th day of july, 2013 judgment the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. v. chitambaresh judge ncd
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....that on earlier occasion by virtue of ext.p5 this court directed the parties to go before the arbitrator for adjudicating the disputed questions of fact in the light of above circumstances. however, the parties have subjected themselves even to a contempt proceedings which came to be closed. the fact remains, a bill along with ext.p6 representation was submitted to the railway authorities by the appellant and according to the railway authorities, this is not the proper format of submission of bill, therefore, they cannot look into the matter. according to the appellant, whatever claim made by them is reflected in ext.p6 and the same has to be considered. even the controversy with regard to the bill, whether it is a proper bill or not that can also be adjudicated before the arbitrator. all along, the appellant was claiming for arbitration and now the appellant seeks intervention of this court to settle the dispute between the parties. as the controversy involves consideration of factual issues with regard to the contract and other correspondence, we are of the opinion, the controversy w.a.no.1074 of 2013 -:3:- between the parties could be adjudicated before the arbitrator rather.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....granted. the act has been promulgated with the purpose and object to tackle certain kinds of undesirable activities. but at the same time, the other factors which are relevant also cannot be ignored. it is pointed out that petitioners 2 and 3 are aged only 19 years and as per the fis as read out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, one among the four is alleged to have uttered obscene words to the victim. the names of the assailants were gathered later on. it is not clear from the b.a. no.5108/2013 -4- fis as to who among the petitioners had actually uttered the obscene words. at any rate, there is no case of the prosecution that petitioners 2 and 3 have criminal antecedents or there are any adverse reports against them.8. under such circumstances, it will not be inappropriate to show some indulgence to petitioners 2 and 3 who are of young age. as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it is possible that if they are associated with other criminals, it may have an adverse impact on them. considering the above facts, this petition is disposed as follows: the petition is dismissed as far as the first petitioner is concerned. the petition is.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTin the high court of kerala at ernakulam present: the honourable mr.justice v.k.mohanan wednesday, the 24th day of july2013/2nd sravana, 193 wp(c).no. 5722 of 2013 (m) --------------------------- (crime no.1386 of 201.of aranmula police station) .... petitioner(s): -------------------------- manesh mohan,aged 3 years, s/o.mohandas, kuttiyil house, cherukulanji.p.o., ranni, pathanamthitta district. by advs.sri.m.t.sureshkumar sri.v.v.raja respondent(s): ---------------------------- 1. state of kerala, represented by principal secretary, department of home, government secretariate, thiruvananthapuram”001. 2. state police chief, police head quarters, thiruvananthapuram”001. 3. district police chief, office of the superintendant of police, makkakunnu.p.o., pathanamthitta”645. 4. deputy superintendant of police,pathanamthitta”645. 5. circle inspector of police, kozhencherry, pathanamthitta”501. 6. d.samuel, sub inspector of police, aranmula police station, pathanamthitta district”501. 7. station house officer, aranmula police station, pathanamthitta district”501. r1 to r5 & r7 by government pleader smt.s.hyma this writ petition (civil) having come up for admission on 2
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....mandamus or such other writ or direction directing the respondents to include the petitioner in the obc list for mbbs/bds course considering by complaint as applied as per ext.p8 and p7. ii. issue any other writ or direction that this hon'ble court may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case." 2. when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the subsequent developments, the petitioner has already been included in the obc rank list for mbbs/bds for the current academic year 2013-2014 and that no further orders are necessary. accordingly, the writ petition is closed as no further orders are called for in the writ petition. p.r.ramachandra menon judge sv.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....18 becomes necessary. it reads as follows: w.p.(c)no. 15852 of 201.5 "18. declarations on pre-packaged commodities:- (1) no person shall manufacture, pack, sell, import, distribute, deliver, offer, expose or possess for sale any pre-packaged commodity unless such package is in such standard quantities or number and bears thereon such declarations and particulars in such manner as may be prescribed. (2) any advertisement mentioning the retail sale price of a pre-packaged commodity shall contain a declaration as to the net quantity or number of the commodity contained in the package in such form and manner as may be prescribed. sub-section (1) of section 18 imposes a prohibition in the manufacture, packing, selling etc of a pre-packaged commodity, unless it is in such standard quantities or number and bears the declarations and particulars as prescribed. sub-section (1) of section 18, itself is an indicator, to show that the retail sale price of a pre-packaged commodity is with reference to the standard quantity/number and there is a bounden duty to give a declaration and particulars with regard to the standard w.p.(c)no. 15852 of 201.6 quantity/number. now comes.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....on record would show that an incident has occurred. a deeper probe into the veracity of the allegations is not warranted at this point of time. the fact remains that the petitioner has been in custody from 24.06.2013 onwards and a good part of the investigation must have been completed by now. his continued custody appears to be unnecessary. b.a. no.4730/2013 -3- the petition is allowed as follows: i) the petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of ` 25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court concerned. ii) the court concerned shall ensure the identity of the sureties and also the veracity of the tax receipts before granting bail. iii) the petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer on every wednesday between 9 am and 10 am until further orders. iv) the petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witness. v) if any one of the conditions is violated, the bail granted shall stand cancelled and the court b.a. no.4730/2013 -4- concerned on being satisfied of the said fact, may take such proceedings as are.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....first class magistrate court-vii, ernakulam. this revision petition is filed challenging the impugned judgment dismissing he complaint under section 204(4) of the code of criminal procedure.2. the above complaint was filed under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act (for short 'the ni act') on an allegation that in discharge of a legally enforceable debt, the accused issued a cheque for an amount of rs.5,00,000/- (rupees five lakhs only) to the revision petitioner and the same has been dishonoured and returned for want of sufficient funds and thereby the accused has committed the crl.rp.no.1506/2013. 2 offence punishable under section 138 of the ni act.3. the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that even though the complainant had taken steps for issuing notice to the accused in number of times, the accused willfully evaded the process of the court below. in the meantime, unexpectedly the advocate who was appearing for the complainant before the trial court died. though the complainant approached the office of the counsel to get the case bundle, the same could not be traced out as it was misplaced. unfortunately, during the time in search of the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT