Kerala Court May 1988 Judgments
P. Jwalini Devi Addwa and ors. Vs. K. Pathumma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-31-1988
Reported in: 1990ACJ161
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. These two appeals are preferred against the judgment in M.C.A. No. 2074 of 1980 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode dated 30.10.1985. M.FA No. 441 of 1986 is the appeal preferred by respondent Nos. 3 to 6 in the claim petition and M.F.A. No. 143 of 1986 is the one preferred by the 7th respondent (insurer) in the said claim petition. One Abdurahiman initially filed the claim. He claimed compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- against the 1st respondent (owner of the vehicle) and second respondent, who was driving the motor cycle at the time of the accident. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, Abdurahiman died. His legal heirs (wife and children) were impleaded as additional petitioner Nos. P 2 to P 6. The 1st respondent (owner of the motor cycle) also died. Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 were impleaded as the legal heirs of the 1st respondent. Abdurahiman was walking through the side of the main road on 27.9.1979. At that time the motor cycle, dri...
Tag this Judgment!K. Surendranathan Vs. Kerala Financial Corpn. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-26-1988
Reported in: AIR1988Ker330
Bhaskaran Nambiar, J. 1. Thepetitioner challenges the validity of Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (for short, the Act) under the Following circumstances. He obtained a loan of Rs. 99,752/- from the Kerala Financial Corporation for purchasing machinery for a mini industry in the Mini Industrial Estate at Koduvayur, by hypothecating his properties and executing an agreement on 7-9-1977. He, however, defaulted in the payment of the instalments due to the Corporation and the Corporation therefore demanded by a written notice the payment of the balance amountswith interest and also warned the petitioner that on his failure to comply with the demand, possession of the premises would be taken over by the Corporation and assets disposed of under the provisions of the Act. The petitioner did not pay the arrears demanded; nor did he show his willingness even to pay any portion of the debt. Instead he replied that the steps may be dropped for a further period of six month...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Jacob C.V. and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-25-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Ker136
ORDERK.T. Thomas, J.1. Petitioners in all these original petitions are medical graduates. They applied for admission in Post Graduate Courses of medical education and they appeared in the entrance examination conducted by the Commissioner of Entrance Examination (for short' the Commissioner') who is an officer of the Government of Kerala. 10 per cent seats in each subject of the post graduate course have been earmarked for candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe as per the prospectus issued by the Directorate of Medical Education. Reservations were made for certain other categories of medical graduates, but those reservations are not relevant for the purpose of these cases. Standards have been laid down in the prospectus for the eligibility to be included in the list to be prepared by the Commissioner. It had been specified in the prospectus that candidates securing less than 40% marks in the case of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe in the Entrance Examination shall not ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Kutty Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-25-1988
Reported in: (1989)IILLJ435Ker
Sivaraman Nair, J.1. The 4 petitioners were appointed under Rule 9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules as Junior Instructors in various subjects in the Industrial Training Institute, Area code. Such appointments were on 2nd April, 1982, 1st April, 1982, 25th October, 1982 and 27th May, 1983 respectively. The scale of salary applicable to Junior Instructors in the Industrial Training Institute was Rs. 420-720. On completion of one year of service, each of the petitioners was given annual increments of Rs. 13/-. This entailed enhancement in dearness allowance as well. Petitioners 1 and 2 have obtained two annual increments, whereas petitioners 3 and 4 have obtained only one each. In Ext. P2, the third respondent required the petitioners to refund the amount of increments, which, according to him, were not due to the petitioners. It was, therefore, ordered that recovery of the excess amount would be effected from the salary of the petitioners from November, 1984 onwar...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›