Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1984)ILLJ526Ker
Bhaskaran Nambiar, J.1. Can a workman employed in an industry and retrenched from service, to give place to a candidate advised by the Public Service Commission, claim protection under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act? This, in short, is the question raised in these two writ appeals,2. Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act confers very valuable rights to workman in an industry. Several Departments of the Government and many statutory corporations have to be treated as 'industry' in view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the Bangalore Water Supply v. A. Rajappa 1978-II L.L.J. 73, and the ruling of a Full Bench of this Court in Umayammal v. State of Kerala 1983-I L.L.J. 267. Thereafter this court had to consider the competing claims of the candidates advised for appointment by the Public Service Commission and the workmen retrenched under the Industrial Disputes Act. This court in Viswambharan v. State of Kerala 1983 K.L.T. 635 observed thus:The provisions of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1985Ker120
ORDERS.K. Kader, J.1. This revision filed by the 1st defendant in O.S. No. 170 of 1977 against an order passed in execution dismissing E.A. No. 108 of 1983 in E.P. No. 267 of 1979 raises an important question whether a decree for damages passed, in a suit where the plaintiff has abandoned the relief for specific performance of contract without making the necessary averment in the plaint initially or by amendment subsequently including the relief for damages, is null and void or non est.2. A few facts necessary for the disposal of this revision may now be stated. The suit was instituted by the respondent herein against defendants, five in number, including the revision petitioner as the 1st defendant for specific performance of a contract for sale and in the alternative for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,15,000/- from the defendants jointly and severally as damages for breach of contract. The respondent and the revision petitioner will hereinafter be referred to respectively as plaintiff an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1984Ker195; [1987]61CompCas140(Ker)
Balagangadharan Nair, J. 1. Respondents 1 and 2 applied before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernaculam under Section 110-A, Motor Vehicles Act for compensation for damages caused to their building in an accident by a bus, KLR 7785 driven by the 4th respondent. The Tribunal allowed their application and granted them compensation of Rs. 1546/- with interest from 21-12-1976 and costs from respondents 1 and 2 and the appellant, the Insurance Company which was the 3rd respondent. The Tribunal also directed that the Insurance Company would deposit the amount and that its liability would be limited to Rupees 2000/- if the amount exceeded it. The appellant has brought this appeal challenging its liability. Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 raised a preliminary objection that the appeal would not lie under Section 110-D (2) on the ground that the amount in dispute in the appeal is lessthan two thousand rupees. Counsel pointed out that the amount allowed by the Tribunal was only Rs. 1546/- ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1984Ker181
Balagangadharan Nair, J. 1. The short facts under which this appeal-by the plaintiff arises can be stated thus:2. The plaintiff-appellant let a shop room to the defendant-respondent under Ext. A-1 dt. 10-2-1969 for his business. On 5-12-1973 a lorry KLD 689 which came along the adjoining road dashed against the shop room and damaged it completely. C schedule in the plaint is the site of the shop room. The defendant attempted to construct a shop room at the site of the old room. The plaintiff thereupon brought the suit for an injunction to stop the construction. He obtained an order of temporary injunction to the same effect. However in breach of the injunction the defendant proceeded with the construction even extending beyond the original site. The D schedule is the area upon which the construction was thus extended. This extension was however demolished under the order of the Calicut Corporation within whose limits the land lies. The plaintiff then amended the plaint into one for rec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1984Ker237
Balagangadharan Nair, J.1. In execution of a decree for money the first respondent-decree-holder attached a property on 20-10-1982. The appellant who is a stranger preferred a claim under Order 21, Rule 58, C.P.C., objecting to the attachment. In the claim it was stated that she knew about the attachment only on 28-10-1983 when she came to the property covered by the attachment. The learned Judge noted that the attachment was made in the presence of the manager of the lodge (which was the subject of attachment) and other persons and it was not possible to believe that she did not get information about it from the manager. Holding that the claim was designedly and unnecessarily delayed the learned Judge dismissed it. The petitioner has brought this appeal challenging the order.2. Counsel for the 3rd respondent raised a preliminary objection contending ' that as the claim was dismissed for the reasons mentioned in the order without investigation the appeal was incompetent under Rule 58 o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1987]61CompCas420(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, J. 1. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Certain papers were filed by the company through its advocates under Section 141 read with Section 135 of the Companies Act, 1956, and rules 36 and 38 of the Company Law Board (Bench) Rules, 1975 (see exhibits P-1 and P-2). These were returned to the company's advocates by the Bench Officer, Southern Region of the office of the Company Law Board Bench. The reason for returning the papers is stated in exhibit P-3: '...... As far as the Company Law Board Bench is concerned, theRules prescribed that memorandum of appearance should be in FormNo. 4 of Appendix I to the Company Law Board (Bench) Rules, 1975. In accordance with Rule 28 and para. 4, the mode of authorisation is by way of board resolution. Therefore, you are requested to follow the said procedure. In this connection, your attention is once again invited to this office letter No. 385 of 1981 dated February 24, 1981.' (emphasis* supplied...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1985Ker24
Bhat, J.1. First petitioner is a medical practitioner in Cochin city. He is the President of the second petitioner-association called the 'Legal Forum to uphold Public Causes' formed with the object of upholding public causes through litigation. They have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in relation to an order passed by the State Government G. O. Rt. No. 58/83/TD Taxes(A) Departmentdt. 24-1-1983. under which the Government directed that pending formation of a corporation for supply of arrack in sealed containers with a view to ensure quality and prevent adulteration, supply of arrack in sealed containers will be undertaken by the three public sector enterprises namely, M/s. Mannam Sugars and Chemicals Ltd., The Co-operative Sugars. Chitloor Ltd., and Travancore Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. The Government further directed that the supply of arrack will be either in 750 ML or pint sealed bottles and in 100 ML Polythene bags, with effect from 1-4-1983 (Exts...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1984)IILLJ203Ker; 1984KLT590
Kochu Thommen, J.1. The petitioner was working as a Constable attached to the Central Reserve Police Force, Pallipuram near Trivandrum. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on the basis of four charges as contained in Exts. PI and PI(a) dated 19th June, 1979. He pleaded not guilty. An enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was found guilty of all the four charges. Ext. P3(a) is the enquiry report. The punishment of removal from service was imposed upon the petitioner by the 5th respondent by Ext. P5 dated 17th January, 1980. This order was confirmed in appeal by the 4th respondent by Ext. P7 dated 22nd April, 1980. Ext. P7 was affirmed in revision by the 3rd respondent by Ext. P9 dated 26th September, 1980 and again by the 2nd respondent by Ext. PI 1 dated 5th October, 1981. The petitioner challenges Exts. P5, P7, P9 and P11.2. The charges read as follows:Article I: That the said No. 700300537 Ct. P.B. Roch while functioning as Constable in CC, CRPF, Pallipuram committ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1984Ker191
ORDERS.K. Kader, J. 1. Thiruvampadi Rubber Co. Ltd., the defendant in O. S. 569 of 1982 on the file of the Munsiff, Kozhikode-II, is the revision petitioner and the revision is directed against an order passed by that court on I. A. 3750 of 1983 refusing the request made therein to hear issues Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6 before hearing and deciding issue No. 3. The said application was filed under Order 14, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil P. C. 2. The respondents herein instituted the above said suit against the revision petitioner for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property on the ground that the period of the registered lease deed had expired. The revision petitioner resisted the suit filing a written statement mainly contending that he had sent the necessary premium of Rupees 693.75 before the expiry of the initial period of 36 years as stipulated In the lease deed, which was refused by the respondents herein, that by tendering the premium in time by virtue of the relevant clause t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1984CriLJ874
M. Fathima Beevi, J.1. The appellant the accused in S. C. No. 16/1978 of the Sessions Court, Kottayam was convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The conviction and sentence are under challenge in this appeal.2. The charge against the appellant Rajan (30) an agricultural labourer was that he committed murder by causing the death of Biju the three year old son of his elder brother Chellappan (P. W. 5) by cutting the child with a sickle and severing the head, at about 4.30 P.M. on 6-1-1978 at the courtyard of the house of P. W. 5 in the presence of P. W. 1 Narayani the maternal grandmother of the child, while P. W. 5 and his wife were away in the farm. According to the prosecution the aroused who had some grudge against P. W. 5 has wreaked his revenge in thus causing the death of the child.3. The prosecution case briefly stated is this: The appellant was staying with his brother P. W. 5 until three months prior to the incident. He then moved to ...
Tag this Judgment!