.....have been taken judicial notice of by the learned magistrate magistrate, the failure on the part of the learned magistrate to put this incriminating fact to the notice to the accused under s.313(1) (b) of the code of criminal procedure is a serious irregularity crl.r.p.no.873 of 2004 :9. : which vitiates the trial. by stealthily relying on a notification which was found in the case bundle and without verifying whether the said notification related to the reserve forest in question with the prosecutor and the officers concerned, the learned magistrate could not have found the accused guilty. as held in chacko pyli and others vs state of kerala [1966 klt102, this is a case where either the notification or a copy thereof was not produced before court and no attempt was made to prove the same. i am of the considered view that its extremely unfair for a magistrate to rely on a circumstance as being incriminating without giving the accused notice of it and without giving an opportunity of explaining the circumstance. there was total absence of materials to hold that the items seized from the property of the first accused were teak logs which were cut from the reserved forest. in the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....-:4:- respondent or in the alternative, the petitioner is liable to remit the amount as per the kerala motor transport workers' welfare fund act. it is stated that as per section 10(2) of the motor transport workers' welfare fund (amendment) act, 2005 where an employer transfer his vehicle before paying welfare fund contribution due under this act in respect of the vehicle, the liability acquired before the date of transfer, such amount shall be a charge on the vehicle so transferred. since the third respondent has transferred the above vehicle without having the welfare fund contribution towards this respondent, the petitioner is liable to pay welfare fund contribution in respect of the period during which the third respondent was in ownership.4. arguments have been heard.5. when the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the second respondent invited my attention to a decision of this court in ummar v. joint regional transport officer [2014 (4) klt358 wherein it was held that the in case of transfers effected after 7.6.2005, the transferee of the vehicle would be liable to discharge the liability of the erstwhile owner of the vehicle in respect of the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....(ena).2. on 05.11.2010, the lorry transporting the ena from tamil nadu to the petitioner distillery met with an accident near kozhikode, kerala. in fact, the circle inspector of excise, kozhikode, prepared a mahazar and reported that 15,122 bulk litres of ena was lost because of the accident. nevertheless, the circle inspector of excise, the 4th respondent, issued ext.p7 notice demanding the petitioner to pay the fine on the excess wastage.3. as is evident from the record, based on the mahazar prepared by the 4th respondent, soon after the accident on 05.11.2010, the second respondent, the commissioner of excise, submitted ext.p9 communication to the government that the wastage had not been due to the petitioner's negligence, and that it w.p.(c). no. 4631/2012 -2- should be exempted from paying the fine demanded through ext.p7.4. when no steps had been taken by the government despite ext.p9 recommendation by the second respondent, the petitioner filed w.p.(c) no. 8835 of 2011 and obtained ext.p10 interim order to have the petitioner's licence renewed without reference to ext.p7 demand notice.5. it is further evident from the record that through ext.p11, the second respondent,.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....have been taken judicial notice of by the learned magistrate magistrate, the failure on the part of the learned magistrate to put this incriminating fact to the notice to the accused under s.313(1) (b) of the code of criminal procedure is a serious irregularity crl.r.p.no.873 of 2004 :9. : which vitiates the trial. by stealthily relying on a notification which was found in the case bundle and without verifying whether the said notification related to the reserve forest in question with the prosecutor and the officers concerned, the learned magistrate could not have found the accused guilty. as held in chacko pyli and others vs state of kerala [1966 klt102, this is a case where either the notification or a copy thereof was not produced before court and no attempt was made to prove the same. i am of the considered view that its extremely unfair for a magistrate to rely on a circumstance as being incriminating without giving the accused notice of it and without giving an opportunity of explaining the circumstance. there was total absence of materials to hold that the items seized from the property of the first accused were teak logs which were cut from the reserved forest. in the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....was produced, it is only a certificate allegedly issued from a private firm. even though pw2 was examined, no document produced to corroborate the fact that such a firm is functioning or this person is working therein. it is also the submission made by the learned counsel for the insurance company that even though it is alleged that he sustained very severe head injury and was having a disability of 65%, he was not examined by the medical board. under such circumstances, even the disability claimed by the appellant is not reliable.4. after hearing the learned counsel, we have perused the award passed by the tribunal. it can be seen that the appellant sustained very severe head injury. he was having subdural haemorrhage and there was fronto parietal subdural bleed with mass effect. it is also disclosed by ct scan report that there was gliotic changes in bilateral frontal and temporal lobes anteriorly. it is further seen that even though the accident occurred on 22.8.2007, he was treated as inpatient till 5.10.2007. as per the submission of the learned m.a.c.a.no.2587/2010 4 counsel for the appellant, he was under ventilation for about 28 days. the learned counsel for the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....imprisonment. 2.the brief case of the prosecution is as follows; the deceased rajarajeswaran has worked as deputy general manager of ramco cement factory at r.r.nagar, virudhunagar and the accused ganeshan has also worked as fitter of the said factory and thereafter, the appellant/accused has been suspended by the management of the said factory and hence, he has thought that the deceased is the root cause for his suspension. on 12.04.2012 at 8.15p.m, the accused has gone to the deceased house, in his two wheeler and at that time, when the deceased and p.w.1 anandhi, namely, the wife of the deceased are there, the accused has assaulted the deceased rajarajeswaran with the help of aruval and also he has assaulted the p.w.1, who has prevented the deceased from assaulting the deceased and the accused has assaulted the deceased grievously on his head and various parts of his body and the deceased died, when he has been taken to the hospital and thereby, the appellant / accused committed the offences liable for punishment under sections 449, 302 and 307 i.p.c. 2.1. in order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined 27 witnesses as p.w.1 to p.w.27 and also.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....as per ext.r3(h), which was made on the ground that the petitioner had not produced the certificate of his qualification. the petitioner, in fact was appointed as per ext.r3(a), purely on a contract basis for one year. an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent corporation produced at ext.r3(b). the petitioner's appointment commenced from 1995 and was as the secretary and finance manager of the corporation and was to continue for one year, i.e, till 27.12.1996.2. the petitioner was once, earlier to ext.r3(h), terminated by the managing director which was challenged in o.p no. 4059/1996 produced at ext.p1. the judgment dated 06.06.1996 wpc.no.23417/2006 :2. : found that the petitioner would have the protection available to any other employee during the period of contract and any termination to be effected within that period would have to be in accordance with the law applicable. it was subsequent to ext.p1 judgment that ext.r3(h) was passed on 27.07.1996.3. the petitioner is said to have initiated various litigations in the intervening period; the last of which was w.p(c) 19082/2004, the judgment of which is produced at ext.p5. before the writ.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....o.p.'s son is gainfully employed, hence, fastening the liability for providing the maintenance only upon this petitioner is not tenable in law or on facts. it is submitted that in view of the exposited facts and the judicial pronouncement, the impugned order is fit to be set aside. per contra learned counsel for o.p. no.2 argued that the question 'whether the step mother is entitled to maintenance under the provisions of section 125 cr.p.c has been considered and discussed in the impugned order/judgment and reference has been made to the decision in the case of kritikant vrs. state of gujrat, wherein the hon'ble apex court has observed that step mother is also entitled to maintenance under section 125cr.p.c. that there is evidence on record that the petitioner is drawing a salary of rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand). it is admitted that he had got the employment on compassionate ground and he had given an undertaking to maintain the o.p. i.e. his step mother. it is further submitted that till date, the petitioner has not paid any money towards maintenance despite the order of the learned trial court. heard. perused the decision reported in 1986, cri.l.j., m.p, 282 relied on by.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....the purported television rights agreement dated 16th september, 2010 to the respondent no.1 and seeks various other reliefs. some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:- 2. on 15th october, 2009, the petitioner and respondent no.1 entered into the said mrla for broadcasting international cricket matches (tests, odis and twenty20s) for the years 2010 to 2014, rights period commencing from 1st april, 2010 until 31st march, 2014. under the said agreement, the respondent no.1 had agreed to deliver to the petitioner an irrevocable and unconditional bank guarantee for the purpose of securing its obligation to pay, the rights fee payable in accordance with clause 7 of the said agreement to the petitioner. the said agreement provided for payment schedule and various other rights and obligation of the parties. clause 28 of the said agreement provides for an arbitration agreement. 3. on 21st october, 2009, the petitioner and respondent no.1 executed an addendum to the said agreement dated 15th october, 2009. it was provided that the said addendum will prevail over the said agreement dated 15th october, 2009. 4. the respondent no.1 became liable to.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....exh.76 dated 28.03.1980 was prepared by the consolidation officer and possession of 19 r new gat no. 1620 was given to the defendant and these facts were not denied by the plaintiff. 10. the learned counsel for the defendant submits that the plaintiff in civil suit no. 333 of 1980 prayed for injunction restraining defendant from disturbing his possession in respect of gat nos. 33 and 40 without specifying the area and inspite of that, the trial court at the time of passing the decree recorded that defendant should not disturb the plaintiff's possession in respect of 9 guntas of land from gat no. 40 and land admeasuring 41 guntas from gat no. 33 which is contrary to the pleading on record. hence, both the decrees passed by the courts below required to be set aside. 11. on the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiff vehemently opposed the present second appeal. she submits that there is concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the courts below on the basis of pleadings and documents on record. hence, there is no question of allowing the present second appeal. she further submits that initially the plaintiff filed regular civil suit no. 6 of 1968 in the court of.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT