Kerala Court August 1982 Judgments
Assistant Collector of Central Excise Vs. Wilfred Sebastian and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-27-1982
Reported in: 1983LC47D(Kerala); 1983(12)ELT122(Ker)
S.K. Kader, J.1. The important question that arises for determination in this criminal appeal, filed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, is whether the illegality of a search conducted under Section 105 of the Customs Act, 52 of 1962, hereinafter referred to as the Act, will vitiate the seizure of the articles and the consequent trial of the case.2. On a complaint filed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise of the Integrated Divisional Office, Trivandrum, ten accused, including the respondents herein-who are respectively accused Nos. 1, 2 to 4 and 9, were tried by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Trivandrum, for an offence punishable under Section 135 of the Act, on the allegation that they acquired possession of the following articles of foreign origin, viz., (1) Cabin-All 8' Cinema Projector. SI. No. 128323-Made in Japan; (2) Car Casette stereo player kasuga Model K.C. 9316-Made in Japan; (3) Casette car stereo with AM. Radio-Model No. NR. 201A-...
Tag this Judgment!F.A.C.T. Employees' Association and Ors. Vs. Management of F.A.C.T. Lt ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-27-1982
Reported in: (1983)ILLJ240Ker
K.K. Narendran, J.1. Some nice questions in industrial law arise for consideration in this case. The questions are:(1) When there is already a conciliation settlement under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for short the Act, can there he an arbitration under Section 10A of the Act? (2) Is an arbitration under Section 10A possible without a written agreement signed by the management and all the unions? (3) If a conciliation settlement provides for an arbitration of the disputes and differences regarding interpretation and implementation of the settlement, what is the scope of that arbitration? (4) By such an informal arbitration can the settlement be annulled or its terms varied? and (5) For such an arbitration should all the unions make a joint request or is it enough that the aggrieved union alone need move for the same2. The simple facts of the case are: The petitioners and respondents 2 to 6 are the different unions of the employees of the 1st respondent - Fertilizer...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. I.K.J. Jacob Vs. K. Nandagopalan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-25-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Ker177
P. Subramonian Poti, Ag. C.J. 1. The right to lateral support is a right recognised in law as between owners of adjacent lands. No owner of a land can treat his land in such a manner as to remove the lateral support from the adjoining land or to impair it substantially so as to cause subsidence of land of the adjoining owner. Such subsidence would be caused by an owner of land removing the soil from his land on the boundary of his property to an appreciable degree unless it be that his property is in a higher level and the soil is removed therefrom so as to bring it down to a level of the land of the adjoining owner. Otherwise the removal of the soil would result in the caving in of the portions of the land of the adjoining owner and would infringe the right of lateral support of such owner. Any person who is threatened with injury to his right of lateral support could seek an injunction from a civil court to restrain such an act and in appropriate cases where the injury had already be...
Tag this Judgment!Divisional Forest Officer Vs. T.U. Cheriyan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-25-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Ker363
ORDERK.K. Narendran, J.1. The short point that arises for consideration in this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is whether the High Court has the power to review or reconsider an interlocutory order passed in an original petition under Article 226 of the Constitution pending the original petition, even if the order was passed after hearing the party seeking the review. The further point is whether the insertion of the Explanation to Section 141 of the Civil P. C., 1908 by the 1976 Amendment Act making the procedure provided in the Code not applicable to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, will in any way affect the powers of the High Court in this regard. This petition for review has beenfiled by the Divisional Forest Officer, Palghat, the 2nd respondent in the O. P.2. The short facts of the case, shorn of unnecessary details, are: The petitioner in the original petition, who is the counter-petitioner in the petition for review, got an assignment of 92 acres of land from on...
Tag this Judgment!N.P. Purushothaman and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-18-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Ker31
Subramonian Poti, Ag. C.J. 1. Chapter V of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 embodies rules for the regulation of opening and recognition of schools. New schools are to be opened and existing schools are to be upgraded only pursuant to orders on application made for that purpose under Rule 2A of Chap. V. That rule will arise for application only after the Director of public Instruction publishes a final list of areas where new schools are to be opened or existing schools are to be upgraded under sub-rule (4) of Rule 2 of Chap. V. The procedure for determining the areas where new schoolsare to be opened or existing schools upgraded is that laid down by Rule 2 of the rules. The Director is to prepare a report indicating the localities where new schools are to be so opened or the existing schools upgraded taking into account various matters such as the educational needs of the locality with reference to the habitation and backwardness of the area, the distance between the existing schools,...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. thekkeyil Rajan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-16-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Ker354; [1985]58CompCas40(Ker)
George Vadakkel, J. 1. This appeal is from a suit for compensation in respect of an accident involving bodily injury to the plaintiff. The accident arose out of the use of motor vehicle, a lorry with regis-tration number K.L.D. 4282, at a place called Thalayi. The accident was on 15-11-1973. At the time of the accident the plaintiff was sitting on a bicycle on the road-side far removed from tarred-portion resting his feet on the pround. While so the lorry hit him and he was knocked down. His right mandible was fractured and he lost a number of teeth. He underwent treatment in the Medical College Hospital. Calicut from 15-11-1973 to 4-12-1973. He claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 12,000/- against the driver of the lorry, the 1st defendant, its owner, the 2nd defendant and the National Insurance Company, the 3rd defendant who is the appellant before us. The lower Court decreed the suit for Rs. 4,250/- against all the defendants. The Insurance Company disputes its liability for comp...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Thomas Cherian and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-11-1982
Reported in: 1982CriLJ2303
Balakrishna Menon, J.1. This appeal is by the State against the acquittal of accused 1 to 3 in Sessions Case No. 61 of 1979 on the file of the Court of Session. Quilon. The accused were charged under Sections 120B, 302 and 392 read with Section 34, I.P.C. for having committed the murder of one Titus Jacob alias Babu (hereinafter referred to as Babu) on 6-3-1979 at about 6.45 p. m. at a place called Anavattakongal in Idamon Village, Quilon District.2. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them. The prosecution relied on the evidence of an approver P. W. 1. the circumstantial evidence and the alleged recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act of material objects said to have been used in connection with the crime.3. The lower court rejected the evidence of P. W. 1 as totally unreliable and disbelieved the evidence of witnesses examined to make out circumstantial evidence to connect the accused with the crime. The recovery of material objects relied on by ...
Tag this Judgment!Parvathy Antherjanam Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-10-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Ker366; [1984]56CompCas306(Ker)
1. The plaintiff is the appellant. Her son, Subramonian Namboodiri, died on 28-5-1974. The second defendant is his widow and the 3rd defendant is his daughter. The first defendant is the Life Insurance Corporation of India and has beea impleaded for the reason that the dispute between the plaintiff on the one hand and defendants 2 and 3 on the other concerns the life insurance policy, which Subramonian Namboodiri was holding at the time of his death. The said fife insurance policy was for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- with double accident benefit and E. D. B. It is common case that the amount secured by the policy and payable by the first defendant-Corporation totals a sum of Rs. 41,408/-- The plaintiff claims that she is entitled to a 1/3 thereof. The suit is for a declaration that the plaintiff is so entitled to a 1/3 of the amount of Rs. 41,408/- in the hands of the first defendant and to restrain the first defendant from paying to the second defendant and the second defendant from receivin...
Tag this Judgment!G. Gabriel Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-10-1982
Reported in: 1983CriLJ94
K. Bhaskaran, J.1. The appellant is Sri Gabriel, aged 27, son of Chinnaswamy the accused in Sessions Case No. 8 of 1981, on the file of the Sessions Court, Palghat. The case against him was that he had committed the murder of his mother, Parvar Ammal, aged 60, by giving her a blow with M. O. 1 spade and pushing her into the well in the property belonging to the deceased, at Colambara. The trial court accepted the prosecution case, and finding the accused guilty, convicted him under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. It is aggrieved by this conviction and sentence this criminal appeal has been preferred.2. The prosecution case briefly stated was as follows : - The accused is the son of deceased Parvar Ammal. He was married and had three children. They had some agricultural land. There used to be quarrel between the mother and the son on account of the laziness on the part of the son. On the morning of 2-12-1980 Parvar Ammal had scolded the accused, and had as...
Tag this Judgment!Vimal Printers Vs. Omana
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-09-1982
Reported in: (1983)ILLJ342Ker
M.P. Menon, J.1. Respondents (1) and (2) are compositors of the printing press belonging to the petitioner. In October, 1975 they filed a joint petition before the Labour Court, under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, claiming difference between wages actually paid and wages payable under the Minimum Wages Act. The 1st respondent's claim was for the period from 1.8.1967 to 30.9.1975 and the 2nd respondent's for the period from 1.2.1969 to 30.9.1975. Overruling the objections of the petitioner-employer, the Labour Court held that the respondents were entitled to get Rs. 3,405 and Rs. 1,596 respectively. This writ petition is directed against Ext. P6 order of the Labour Court.2. It was contended before the Labour Court that the petitioner was bound to pay wages only at the rates specified in Ext. P5 agreement of 1974. That contention was rightly rejected by the Court in the light of Section 25 of the Minimum Wages Act, which declares as void all contracts or agreements provi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »