Kerala Court November 1988 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.
Leo Construction Contractors Vs. Govt. of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-11-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Ker241
Sivaraman Nair, J. 1. The appellant is the Managing Partner of a registered firm of contractors. He had filed O.S. No. 411 of 1981 under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. That suit was dismissed on the finding that the contract which the appellant had entered into with the respondents did not provide for reference to the arbitrator. Hence this appeal2. The appellant had submitted a tender for construction of a building for the Government Secondary School, Quilandy. Consequent on the acceptance of his tender, he executed an agreement on 18-11-1978 with the second respondent. According to the appellant, Clause 14 of the Form of Tender and Clauses 24, 24(a) and 44 of Form No. 83 were expressly made part of the agreement. These clauses were to the effect, that in case of any dispute or difference that may arise in the working of the contract, the same should be referred to arbitration before the Government Arbitrator, at the instance of either party. Several disputes arose between the par...
Sobhana Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-11-1988
Reported in: [1989(58)FLR693]; (1990)ILLJ491Ker
Sreedharan, J.1. Petitioners challenge the appointment given to respondents 3 to 11 in the service under the 2nd respondent, Kerala Tourism Development Corporation.2. The material averments made by the petitioners are as follows: Petitioners are unemployed graduates. They are fully qualified to be appointed as Tourist Guides, Information Assistants or other similar posts under the Corporation. Second respondent is a Corporation fully owned, controlled and administered by the Government of Kerala. In 1967 the 2nd respondent has framed and published rules called Kerala Tourism Development Corporation Service Rules, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' to define and regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of its employees. As per Rule 8, recruitment to the service shall be made by direct appointment, promotion or deputation from other services. Direct appointments are to be made from out of the names sent on request of the Corporation by the Employment Exchange or S.S. and A....
M. Rama Warrier and ors. Vs. Coir Board
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-10-1988
Reported in: [1989(59)FLR198]; (1990)ILLJ544Ker
Shamsuddin, J.1.The plaintiff in O.P. No. 104 of 1975 on the file of the Court of the III Additional Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam, is the appellant.2. The suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 40,000 as damages alleging that the appellant was wrongfully dismissed by the defendant. The appellant was a class IV employee of the defendant, Coir Board, Ernakulam. He was dismissed from service as per order dated 13th April, 1972. The disciplinary proceedings which culminated in his dismissal were taken against him alleging that he contacted M/s. Liberty Sales Agencies, Bangalore, who wanted to purchase coir carpets from the defendant's show room and sales depot in Bangalore and told them that the price of new carpets had gone up considerably and that four pieces of carpets they possessed could very well be repaired and dyed and they could save unnecessary expenses and that for such repair and redyeing, an amount of Rs. 100 was fixed by the appellant and an amount of Rs. 60 was received by him a...
Marikar (Motors) Ltd., Trivandrum Vs. M.i. Rayikumar and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-04-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Ker244
ORDERK.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J. 1. A very interesting question; can a counsel representing a party in a suit or any legal proceedings akin thereto, be directed by the Presiding Officer to relinquish vakalatnama, so that he can be summoned as a witness by the opposite party.2. The Court below by the order under challenge has directed the counsel representing the defendant in the suit to relinquish vakalatnama, entering the finding that he has been cited as a witness by the plaintiff.3. Interpretation of Rule 13 of Chapter II of Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules gives the answer to the question. This rule reads : --'An advocate should not accept a brief or appear in a case in which he has reason to believe that he will be a witness and if being engaged in a case, it becomes apparent that he is a witness on a material question of fact, he should not continue to appear as an advocate if he can retire without jeopardising his client's interest'.The first part of the Rule provides t...
State Bank of Travancore, Tirupur Branch Vs. K. Vinayachandran and anr ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-02-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Ker302; [1991]72CompCas329(Ker)
ORDERK.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J.1. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. 91/81, a suit recovery of Rs. 13,13,726.85 with interest thereon at 15.10% per annum and costs.2. The suit was decreed on 24-8-1982. The Court below however, decreed future interest only at 6% notwithstanding the provisions contained in the proviso to Section 34, C.P.C. This proviso was introduced with effect from 26-6-1977. Though the petitioner-Bank had brought this aspect to the notice of the Court, the Court below rejected the same on the ground that the petitioner failed to prove the Notification bringing the proviso into force. According to the petitioner, the petitioner came to know of this finding of the Court below only on 20-12-1982. He thereupon moved LA. 214/83 under Order 47, Rule 1 for review of the judgment and decree. Since the petition was filed out of time, I. A. 213/83 to condone the delay in filing the petition was also filed.3. The Court below dismissed both the petitions; and the r...
Smt. Zohara A. Sait Vs. Indian Airlines Corporation and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-01-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Ker159
ORDERK. Sreedharan, J.1. Petitioner is the proprietrix of International Trade Links carrying on business in export of goods. The petitioner's concern is stated to have obtained confirmed orders from Male for export of fresh vegetables, meat items and eggs. In order to have the goods air-lifted to Male, she approached the Indian Airlines for getting space, for accommodating 800 kilograms, allotted. That request was not conceded by the respondents. The petitioner was directed to keep goods ready and to send it by their flights depending on the availability of space in the aircraft. The petitioner challenges the above stand taken by the respondents. According to, her, the 2nd respondent is allotting space to M/s. (i) S & J Sales Corporation, (ii) Sunbeam Industries, (iii) Pan Novowles and (iv) Abad Foods in the flights to Male and that they are being allotted an area for about 2000 Kgms. It is the petitioner's case that the respondents being a Public Sector concern has got a duty to allot...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›