Kerala Court August 1986 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Alice and Anr. Vs. Commissioner For Workmen's Compensation and Anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-14-1986
Reported in: I(1988)ACC446
K. John Mathew, J.1. Dependants of a deceased person are the appellants. Deceased Thomas was engaged by the 3rd respondent herein who was a contractor executing a work for the 2nd respondent On 3-1-1976 he died in an accident in the course of his employment. The 1st respondent, who is the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Trivan-drum assessed the compensation payable to his dependants at Rs. 9,720/-. The 2nd respondent deposited that amount for distribution to the dependants. The 1st respondent published a notification calling upon those who claim to be dependants to submit their claims. The appellants submitted their claim to the compensation. However, that was rejected by the 1st respondent and the amount was refunded to the 2nd respondent. The appellants are challenging that order.2. From the file it is seen that the 1st appellant filed the claim on 27-7-1981. In the said petition it is stated that the mother of deceased Thomas died immediately after delivering him. Thereafte...
Damodharan Vs. Meera
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-12-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ker78
ORDERM.M. Pareed Pillay, J.1. The revision petitioner challenges the order of the Sub-Court, Trichur in I.A. No, 1359 of 1985 in H.M.O.P. 28 of 1985. The respondent (wife) filed the petition claiming ad interim maintenance for herself and her two children and also litigation expenses from her husband. The learned Sub-Judge allowed that application and the husband was directed to pay Rs. 150/- per mensem as maintenance to his wife and Rs. 75/- per mensem each to his two children. He was also directed to pay Rs. 500/- towards the litigation expenses.2. The revision petitioner filed H.M.O.P. 28 of 1985 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent. Admittedly they have two children. The respondent filed I.A. 1359 of 1985 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act claiming ad interim maintenance of Rs. 1,300/- per month for herself and her two children and also a sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards litigation expenses.3. The main contention of t...
Chellappan Pillai Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-12-1986
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ855Ker
Radhakrishna Menon, J. 1. The short question arising for consideration is whether one party to an industrial dispute alone can maintain a petition under Section 10(2) of the I.D. Act for a reference of the dispute for adjudication The answer depends upon the construction of Section 10(2). Section 10(2):-'Where the parties to an industrial dispute apply in the prescribed manner, whether jointly or separately, for a reference of the dispute to a Board, Court, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal the appropriate Government, if satisfied that the persons applying represent the majority of each party, shall make the reference accordingly'.2. The section provides that for reference of the dispute to a Board, Court, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, the application must be made either jointly or separately and the appropriate Government if satisfied that the persons applying represent the majority of each party, shall make the reference.3. The conditions that should be satis...
Dr. T.T. Thomas Vs. Smt. Elisa and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-11-1986
Reported in: I(1987)ACC445; AIR1987Ker52
Thomas, J. 1. Devaluation of standards in professional ethics is a dangerous trend. Its proliferation in medical profession is more calamitous than in other professional or occupational areas. 'There can be few, if any, professions other than that of medicine about which it is possible to fashion a television series entitled 'Your Life in Their Hands' --(Mason and McCall Smith -- Law and Medical Ethics). Failure to make a proper diagnosis sometimes may be the consequence of human error. But when diagnosis is correctly made, the imperative duty of the medical man to take adequate and prompt curative steps need not be over-emphasised, for, any inertia on his side is at his risk as to all costs and consequences. If the allegations in this case are true, this would fall within the amplitude of the above proposition.2. The facts : The second plaintiffs husband was admitted in the General Hospital, Ernakulam as an inpatient at about 3.30 p.m. on 11-3-1974 for complaints of severe abdominal p...
Kochumariam and anr. Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum an ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-08-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ker136
ORDERM.P. Menon, J. 1. Mother and son are the petitioners. They are consumers of electricity, and are being supplied energy through a post standing in their property. The 4th respondent is their neighbour. In 1981 she got a motor-cum-pump set from the Anthikad NES Block, and applied for an (agricultural) electric connection for using it. The Asst. Engineer and the Asst. Executive Engineer of the K.S.E. Board at Peringottukara thought of giving this connection by drawing a line from the post standing in the first petitioner's property. But she would not agree to that course; in fact, she considered the 4th respondent'sdesire to get such a connection as a personal challenge (see para 3 of Ext. P6) to her. The officers of the Board considered the feasibility of drawing the line from another post standing on the side of the Puthenpeedika-Muttichoor Road; but here again, the line had to cross the property of one Smt. Rose, who too had objections to such drawing. The matter was accordingly r...
Kunjukutty Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-08-1986
Reported in: 1988CriLJ504
ORDERK. Sreedharan, J. 1. An interesting question arises for consideration in this case. Petitioner wanted to have her statement recorded by a Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short the Code. For the said purpose she filed a petition before the Magistrate who rejected the same stating 'it is not expedient to record her statement at this stage, as she can very well avail the opportunity to disclose the facts known to her, at the trial stage, if she desires.' This order is under challenge.2. Section 164(1) of the Code reads:Any Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate may, whether or not he has jurisdiction in the case, record any confession or statement made to him in the course of an investigation under this chapter or under any other law for the time being in force, or at any time afterwards before the commencement of the inquiry or trial:Provided that no confession shall be recorded by a police officer on whom any power of a Magistrate has bee...
Assistant Collector of Central Excise Vs. Mohammed
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-06-1986
Reported in: 1987(11)ECC26; 1987(30)ELT113(Ker)
K. Sreedharan, J.1. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise Integrated Divisional Office, Kozhikode filed a complaint against the respondent before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Tellicherry. That Court entertained the same as C.C. No. 79/74 for offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. Since the accused was absconding it was included in the long pending cases. Subsequently the accused surrendered before court on 17-2-1978. Thereupon the case was refiled as C.C. 38/78. Later, the case was transferred to the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kasaragod. There it was entertained as C.C. 559/79. After trial, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused. Hence this appeal.2. The allegations made by the complainant are as follows :-On information that contraband goods were concealed in godown No. KMC 10/196 at Talangara, Kasaragod the Superintendent of Central Excise, Special Customs Preventive Unit, Kasaragod searched the godown in the presence of its ...
Berely Vs. Xavier and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-06-1986
Reported in: 1988CriLJ90
U.L. Bhat, J.1. An affidavit was filed before the Sessions Judge alleging that he committed contempt of his own Court, with a request to make reference to the High Court under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act'). Learned Sessions Judge declined to make reference. This action is challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. Petitioner herein is one of the accused in Sessions Case 61/1985 of the Fourth Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam facing charges under Sections 302, 324 and 447 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. At the stage of examination of P.W. 2, petitioner filed Crl. M.C. 313/1986 in this Court seeking transfer of the case to one of the other benches of the Sessions Court. Learned Sessions Judge offered remarks, on being required to do so. This Court accepted his remarks, substantially found against the allegations levelled against him and dismissed the transfer petition with the expression of hope that learned defence counse...
Ouseph Vs. Thomas
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-05-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ker75
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. Defendant is the appellant. The suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the Munsiff, but decreed by the District Judge in appeal.2. Plaint A schedule property is the paddy field belonging to the plaintiff. East of it, defendant is having 27 1/2 cents of paddy field which is higher in level than the plaintiff's paddy field by 8 feet. In between the two paddy fields there is a canal and a bund together having a width of 5 feet. Plaint B schedule property is land measuring 20 feet in width out of the defendant's paddy field lying adjacent to that of the plaintiff. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant has dug pits in B schedule property for planting rubber. Alleging that the rubber plants when grown up will cause damage to his cultivation plaintiff prayed for an injunction restraining the defendant from planting rubber or other shady trees in B schedule property and from using B schedule property for any purpose damageous to the use of ...
Official Liquidator, South India Saw Mills P. Ltd. Vs. Ramakrishna Iye ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-05-1986
Reported in: [1988]64CompCas855(Ker)
V. Kalliath, J.1. The official liquidator files these two applications in a proceeding under Section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as ' the Act '.2. The liquidator filed MCA No. 12 of 1985 dated June 13, 1985, under Sections 542 and 543(1) of the Act for an order to direct the respondents in that application to contribute jointly and severally all such sums as they may be found liable to contribute to the assets of the company. There are five respondents in this application.Now, the official liquidator wants to implead the legal representatives of respondents Nos. 3 and 4. He has filed two applications. Application No. 269 of 1985 is to condone the delay in amending the cause title of the misfeasance application by bringing in the legal representatives of the deceased respondents Nos. 3 and 4. Application No. 270 of 1985 is for adding the names of the legal representatives of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 as additional respondents Nos. 6 to 9 in the misfeasance app...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »