Kerala Court August 1981 Judgments
Pavithran Madukkani and ors. Vs. Konjukochu and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-14-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ103
ORDERKhalid, J.1. There is considerable confusion among the executive Magistrates dealing with petitions Under Section 133, Cr. P. C. as to the procedure to be adopted and as to the circumstances in which a preliminary order passed could be made absolute. I feel it necessary to afford guidelines in this behalf in the light of the provisions in the Code and decided cases.2. The petitioners are the B parties in M. C. No. 23 of 1979. The 1st. respondent was the A party. Proceedings were; initiated before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kottayam by the 1st respondent by a petition dated 8-6-1971 Under Section 133, Cr. P. C. on the ground that the B parties obstructed a public pathway. On receipt of this petition the learned Magistrate directed the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kottayam East Police Station to make a local inspection and to file a report. On the report of the Sub-Inspector a preliminary order Under Section 133 was passed by the Magistrate directing the B parties to remove the obst...
Tag this Judgment!Narayanan and anr. Vs. Mathan Mathai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-13-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Ker238
G. Balagangadharan Nair, J.1. Respondents instituted a suit against the appellants (defendants 3 and 4) and two others for damages and injunction. The suit property belongs to the plaintiff by a village pathway. At the request of the defendants and other local people the plaintiff surrendered necessary land to expand the pathway into a 12 feet wide road. The road was constructed. The plaintiff thereupon erected a fence on the north side of the new road for the protection of his property. The plaintiff states that with the idea of widening the road still further the defendants with certain others demolished the fence and cut down 4 coconut trees, 3 are coconut palms and 1 plantain from his property causing him a loss of Rs. 1,500/-. This was on Dec. 3, 1972. The plaintiff thereupon brought the suit for a decree for damages in Rs. 1,500/- and for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from trespassing or cutting any road or committing any waste upon the property or altering it...
Tag this Judgment!R.C. Mathew Vs. K.M. Jose and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-12-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Ker71
George Vadakkel, J.1. Can, a Claims Tribunal constituted under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter, the Act) adjudicate upon a claim for compensation in respect of an accident which arose on 26-5-1976 (i. e. prior to the introduction of Clause (aa) in Section 110-A (1) of the Act) out of the use of a motor vehicle but involving only damages to property and not involving death of or bodily injury to any person? This is the question that falls for decision in this case.2. It is not disputed that under Section 110 of the Act the State Government can constitute one or more Claims Tribunal for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents arising out of the use of motor vehicles, if such accidents involve the death of, or bodily injury to persons or damages to any property of a third party, or both, and that this provision is disjunctive wherefore a Claims Tribunal so constituted has adjudicatory jurisdiction to determine compensation ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Chandran Vs. B. Jagadamma and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-12-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ100
ORDERP. Subramonian Poti, Ag. C.J.1. The petitioner in this petition which is Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is the husband of the 1st respondent and father of the minor 2nd respondent. Respondents claimed maintenance under S, 125 Cr. P. C. According to the petitioner who was the respondent in that petition, his wife vas refusing to live with him without justifiable cause and he had not refused or neglected to maintain. The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Trivan-drum found against this plea and awarded maintenance to the mother and the child. That was confirmed in a revision filed by the petitioner before the Sessions Court, Trivandrum. That is being challenged in this petition. According to the petitioner the courts below went wrong in awarding separate maintenance since grounds to justify it had not been established. Whether there was wilful neglect or refusal to maintain has not, according to the petitioner, been found. That is not correct. That has ...
Tag this Judgment!Food Inspector, Cororatiion of CochIn Vs. U.K.K. Hassan and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-12-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1750
P. Subramonian Poti, Ag. C.J.1. This is an appeal by the Food Inspector of the Cochin Corporation against the acquittal of the respondents under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Food Inspector filed the complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Emakulam charging the two accused with offences under Sections 2 (is), (m). 7(i) and 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The case was that on 26-5-1976 at about 1 P. M. the Food Inspector took a sample of ice cream by purchasing 900 grams from the quantity exposed for sale in hotel Blue Nile under the management of the first accused. Such purchase for sampling was made from the second accused. The sample, on analysis, was found to be adulterated in that it did not conform to the standards prescribed for ice cream under the Act. Though it is the second accused who actually sold the ice cream the first accused was sought to be made liable for the charge as a person running the hotel. On the evid...
Tag this Judgment!Thattarathu Matathil Kootheri Karunakaran Nambiar Vs. the Taluk Land B ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-07-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Ker212
ORDERP.C. Balakrishna Menon, J. 1. The Taluk Land Board, Tellicherry by its order dt. 13-9-1979 has directed the petitioner to surrender 10.80 acres of land as excess land in the possession of his family consisting of himself and his wife. The Taluk Land Board has found that the family owned and possessed 33.60 acres of land out of which an extent of 7.50 acres is to be excluded as covered by a valid gift-deed executed by the petitioner. An extent of 30 cents is exempted as house-site under Sec, 81 of the Act. The family is found entitled to retain 15 seres and the petitioner is directed to surrender the aforesaid extent of 10.80 acres as excess land in the possession of his family.2. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the family of the petitioner consists of not merely himself and his wife but also five minor children born in his first wife who died prior to 1-1-1970. The Taluk Land Board in lis order states as follows :--'The records of enqui...
Tag this Judgment!P. Indira Devi Vs. Kumaran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-06-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Ker78
Subramonian Poti, Ag. C.J. 1. Apetition for dissolution of marriage under S. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act stands allowed by the order of the learned District Judge of Kozhikode by the judgment which is under appeal here. The appeal is at the instance of the wife who objected to the petition for divorce. We shall refer to the parties as they are arrayed in the petition for divorce. The petitioner, K. Kumaran, married the respondent P. Indira Devi on 6-4-1975 and in that marriage they have a child. On 1-9-1975, when the wife was pregnant, she is said to have left for her father's home along with the father but without getting the consent of the petitioner. She delivered a child there and thereafter the petitioner tried to take her back to his house but she refused. She instituted proceeding for maintenance before the Chief Judicial Magistrate as M. C. No. 108 of 1977 complaining that the husband was neglecting to maintain her and the child. When those proceedings came up, the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Mariyumma and anr. Vs. C. Muhammad MoyIn and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-06-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1888
Kochu Thommen, J.1. The 1st respondent in these appeals were some of the passengers who travelled by the 1st appellant's bus K. L.D. 8083 which operated between Nilambur and Kozhi-kode via. Manjari. The 2nd appellant who is an employee of the 1st appellant was the driver of the bus. The 1st respondents boarded the bus at Manjari at 1981 about 5.30 p. m. on 15-1-1977. When the bus reached Vemboor it suddenly swerved out of the road and dashed against a mango tree which stood on the left hand side of the road at a distance about 8 yards. The bus was extensively damaged and a number of passengers including the 1st respondents (the 'claimants') sustained injuries. They lodged their claims with the Tribunal constituted under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for compensation in re-pect of the injuries suffered by them as a result of the accident. The Tribunal by separate orders held that the claimants were entitled to be compensated for the injuries suffered by them and that the ...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M. Jayarama Naik and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-06-1981
Reported in: [1983]54CompCas595(Ker); (1984)ILLJ171Ker
George Vadakkel, J.1. The second respondent is the owner of a goods vehicle. At the relevant time the 1st respondent was its driver. While the latter was driving the goods vehicle on June 8, 1977, a bus collided against it. As a result thereof the 1st respondent sustained personal injury. He, therefore, claimed compensation under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter 'the Act'). The appellant-insurance company was the 2nd respondent in these proceedings, the owner of the goods vehicle being the 1st respondent before the Commissioner. There appears to have been no dispute that the accident arose out of and in the course of the 1st respondent's (applicant's) employment. The two issues raised therein concerned the salary drawn by the applicant--1st respondent and the nature of his disablement--whether it was permanent or partial. The Commissioner found that the applicant--1st respondent's salary was Rs. 600 per mensem and that the disability was permanent and...
Tag this Judgment!Mammutty Vs. Beepathumma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-05-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1355
ORDERK.K. Narendran Jain, J.1. The short points that arise in this case are: (1) What can be a sufficient reason for a wife living in separation to refuse the company offered by her husband and to get an order for maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal P.C, 1973 and (2) Whether an offer made by the husband to maintain his wife if she lives with him after the filing of the petition for maintenance, is a belated offer Mammutty, who was only short, of one for a hat-trick in divorce, marred Beepathumma. daughter of Assankutty. The matrimony was shortlived. After the first separation, they were united through mediation. But that was also soon followed by a separation,2. Beepathumma approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode, with a petition under Section 125 of the Criminal P.C. The husband Mammutty contested, He also offered to maintain Beepathumma if she was prepared to go and stay with him. The offer was rejected on the ground that she could not any more suffer the ill-tr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »