Kerala Court July 1988 Judgments
State of Kerala Vs. Karthiyani
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-29-1988
Reported in: 1(1989)ACC390
P.K. Shamsuddin, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the State of Kerala, the officials of Irrigation Department and the District Collector Ernakulam, who are defendants in O.S. No. 2 of 1985, on the file of the court of Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam.2. The said suit was filed by the mother of one T.K. Jaison, who died on 7-10-1982 in an accident at the Minor Lift Irrigation Pump House situated on the banks of Muvattupuzha river at Kadathy Kare. Jaison was taking bath at about 1 p.m. near the pump house. On the western side of the pump house, there are stepping stones and people in and around the locality had free access to the steps and they used to take bath near the pump house. According to the plaintiff, at the time of occurrence, the pump operator started operating the pump without giving alarm or warning. Jaison was pulled with tremendous force towards the mouth of the pump and sustained grievous injuries and died. It was alleged in the plaint that in spile of the fact that the...
Tag this Judgment!Ramadas Movies House Vs. Trichur Municipal Council and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-28-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Ker232
Malimath, C.J. 1. The petitioner owns an air-conditioned theatre in Trichur. The Licencee competent to supply electric energy within the limits of Trichur Municipality is the Trichur Municipal Council, the 1st respondent. Electric energy is being supplied by the first respondent from the year 1971. It is the case of the petitioner that till May. 1982 electricity charges were being fixed by the first respondent at the same rate at which the Kerala State Electricity Board was prescribing from time to time. In May 1982 the first respondent increased the maximum demand charge from Rs. 30 per KVA per month per month to Rs. 50/- per KVA per month. The same was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 95/-with effect from 1-12-1982. The petitioner has challenged the said enhancement in this writ petition. 2. The principal contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the first respondent had no competence to increase the tariff without due authorisation in this behalf from the State Govern...
Tag this Judgment!Gopalkrishna Kammath Vs. R. Bhaskar Rao
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-28-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Ker251
ORDERK.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J.1. The second defendant (oneof the judgment-debtors) is the revision petitioner.2. The petitioner filed EA. 404 of 1986 complaining to the execution court that while delivering the property in execution of the decree obtained by the respondent, certain movables belonging to him were also delivered wrongly and therefore he is entitled to have them delivered back to him. The executing court dismissed the application. Relevant portion of the order reads : -'The counsel for the petitioner argued that the movables delivered have not been mentioned in the decree schedule and hence those articles should be re-delivered. Counsel for the counter-petitioner argued that since the E.P. has already been closed, the petition is not maintainable and the proper remedy of the petitioner is to file a suit for re-delivery of the articles or the damages thereof, in view of the decision reported in Panchoo Jolaha v. Muhammad Ismail, AIR 1949 All 263. On a perusal of the E.P....
Tag this Judgment!Dr. M.K. James and anr. Vs. George Joseph and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-26-1988
Reported in: 1(1989)ACC457
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The claimants in O.P. No. 886 of 1980, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam (in short, 'the Tribunal') are the appellants. The respondents before the Tribunal are the respondents in this appeal also. The said O.P. was tried alongwith O.P. No. 885 of 1980 and a common award dated 31-3-1982 was passed by the Tribunal. The 1st petitioner in OP. No. 886 of 1980 is the sole petitioner in O.P. No. 885 of 1980. The 2nd petitioner in O.P. No. 886 of 1980 is the wife of the 1st petitioner. The petitioners were travelling in their car KRF 1389 with two children and a servant on Kottayam-Ernakulam route on 7-1-1979. At a place on the northern side of the Appanchira bridge, within the jurisdiction of the Kaduthuruthy Police Station, lorry bearing registration No. KLO 4239, driven by the 1st respondent hit against the front right half of the car. The force of impact was great. The lorry was a petrol tanker. The 3rd respondent is the owner of the petrol tanker...
Tag this Judgment!Velayudha Pillai Raman Nair Vs. Krishnan Asari Many
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-22-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Ker263
Balakrishna Menon, J.1. Even though this second appeal by the defendant is admitted on as many as seven QUESTIONS of law formulated in the memorandum of appeal,the only point urged before us is on the question of res judicata covered by the order of reference of the case for decision by a Division Bench.2. The suit is for redemption of Ext. AI mortgage executed by one Krishnan Asary to the defendant on 20-11-1958. Krishnan Asary died in 1964 and the plaintiff sues as his legal heir. Several pleas were raised in defence to the suit. It is not necessary to advert to all such pleas except the following : (1) There was a previous suit O.S. 586 of 1967on the file of the Munsiffs Court, Neyyattinkara for redemption of Ext. Al mortgage filed by the two wives and nine children of the deceased Krishnan Asary and that suit was dismissed as per Ext. B2 judgment on the finding that the transaction evidenced by Ext. Al being an otti kuzhikanam is a lease and not a redeemable mortgage. The present s...
Tag this Judgment!Metro Freight Carriers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the National Insurance Co. and or ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-22-1988
Reported in: II(1989)ACC89
P.K. Shamsuddin, J.1. The 1st defendant in O.S. No. 55 of 1986 on the file of the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge's of Cochin is the Appellant in this Appeal. The suit was for recovery of damages. The lower court after considering the evidence passed a decree in favour of the 1st plaintiff for realisation of a sum of Rs. 34,684.34 from the 1st defendant with interest at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realisation and with proportionate costs of the suit.2. The 1st Plaintiff is a Government company which is engaged in General Insurance Business. On 9-10-1985 the 1st plaintiff issued a policy of insurance for the goods consigned by the 2nd plaintiff to the 2nd defendant. The goods insured consisted of one load of coconut oil dispatched by the 2nd plaintiff to the 2nd defendant, through the 1st defendant under lorry receipt No. 10472 dated 8-10-1985 issued by the 1st defendant. The goods weighed 10,840 Kgs. and the value of the goods was Rs. 2,00,000/-. The 1st ...
Tag this Judgment!Canara Bank Vs. K. Muhammed Kunhi and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-18-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Ker239; [1991]70CompCas284(Ker)
Balakrishna Menon, J.1. The only point for decision in this appeal by the plaintiff viz. the Canara Bank is relating to the rate of interest chargeable on the loan advanced by it to the defendant under a promissory note Ext. A1 dt. 7-11-1977.2. The promissory note Ext. A1 is for the repayment of a loan of Rs. 9,000/- advanced by the plaintiff bank to the defendant. Ext. A1 provides for interest at 3 1/2% per annum above the Reserve Bank of India rate or at 12 1/2% per annum whichever is higher. The interest is to be compounded periodically as provided for in Ext. A1. The plaintiff has produced Ext. A2 accounts as per which the total sum payable is Rs. 13199.50. The accounts show that the interest had been added to the capital every six months.3. The defendant admitted the execution of the promissory note. The only defence to the suit is that no compound interest is leviable by virtue of the provisions of the Usurious Loans Act, 1918. The court below, following the decision of a Divisio...
Tag this Judgment!K. Abdul Rahiman and ors. Vs. Divisional Forest Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-15-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Ker1
Bhaskaran Nambiar, J. 1. Twoconfessed defaulters seek redress under Article 226 of the Constitution in practically identical circumstances in these two writ petitions. For convenience, therefore, it is sufficient to refer to the petitioner and the facts in one writ petition. O.P. No. 3799 of 1981.2. The Divisional Forest Officer, Palghat, notified on 4th December. 1979 that the right of collection and removal of all timber and firewood except Teak. Rosewood and other enumerated categories of wood, in specified areas will be offered for sale in public auction subject to certain conditions. The auction was held on 26-12-1979 and the petitioner was permitted to bid after he made the earnest money deposit of Rs. 1,000/- and signed a copy of the sale notice in token of having accepted all the conditions. He was the highest bidder with a bid of Rs. 3,31,000.00. He also paid on the sale date Rs. 10,000/- less the earnest money deposit already paid. Within a week thereafter, on 8-1-1980, he, h...
Tag this Judgment!Mathew Koshy Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-15-1988
Reported in: 1(1989)ACC440
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. Claimant is the appellant. He filed a petition Under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation. The appellant was owner-cum-driver of an auto-rickshaw bearing registration No. KRP 1591. When the appellant was driving his auto-rickshaw through Chittoor-Manapullykavu Road, the vehicle fell into a ditch and capsized. The appellant was trapped underneath the auto-rickshaw and sustained bodily injuries. He was admitted in the District Hospital, Palghat as an inpatient. The appellant spent about Rs. 2,000/- towards medical treatment. In spite of the treatment the appellant is disabled. He is unable to move his left hand. He would not be in a position to drive the auto-rickshaw. His income has been considerably reduced. He suffered mental agony and pain. Appellant alleges that the respondent being the insurer of the auto-rickshaw is liable to compensate him.2. The respondent, insurance company, denied their liability. The policy issued by the respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Mathew Koshy Vs. the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-15-1988
Reported in: 2(1988)ACC504
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. Claimant is the appellant. He filed a petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation. The appellant was owner-cum-driver of an auto-rickshaw bearing registration No. K.R.P. 1591. When the appellant was driving his auto-rickshaw through Chittoor-Manapullykavu road, the vehicle fell into a ditch and capsized. The appellant was trapped underneath the auto-risckshaw and sustained bodily injuries. He was admitted in the District Hospital, Palghat as an inpatient. The appellant spent about Rs. 2000/- towards medical treatment. In spite of the treatment the appellant is disabled. He is unable to move his left hand. He would not be in a position to drive the auto-rickshaw. His income has been considerably reduced. He suffered mental agony and pain. Appellant alleges that the respondent being the insurer of the auto-risckshaw is liable to compensate him.2. The respondent, insurance company, denied their liability. The policy issued by the respond...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »