Kerala Court December 1989 Judgments
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Annamma Babu and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-22-1989
Reported in: 1990ACJ909
B.M. Thulasidas, J. 1. The 2nd respondent in O.P. (M.V.) No. 55 of 1987 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Quilon, is the appellant.2. The above petition for compensation was filed by the wife, two minor children and the mother of deceased Babukutty, who died in a motor cycle accident that took place on 10.8.1986 around midnight at Punnala in Pathanapuram-Punnala Road. At the time of the accident, the deceased was travelling in motor cycle No. KRQ 8812 that belonged to him, as a pillion rider. The vehicle had been insured with the appellant, and at the time of the incident, it was driven by one M.K. Daniel, the 5th respondent in this appeal who was the 1st respondent before the Tribunal. An amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was claimed as compensation.3. The 5th respondent was ex parte. The appellant, 2nd respondent before the Tribunal, contended that there was collusion between the 1st respondent Daniel and the petitioners, and stated that the deceased, who was the owner of th...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Annamma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-22-1989
Reported in: II(1990)ACC101
Thulasidas, J.1. The 2nd respondent in O.P.(M.V.) No. 55 of 1987 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Quilon, is the appellant.2. The above petition for compensation was filed by the wife, two minor children and the mother of deceased Babukutty, who died in a motor cycle accident that took place on 10-8-1986 around mid-night at Punnala in Pathanapuram-Punnala road. At the time of accident, the deceased was travelling in Motor Cycle No. K.R.Q. 8812 that belonged to him, as a pillion rider. The vehicle had been insured with the appellant, and at the time of the incident, it was drivern by one M.K. Daniel, the 5th respondent in this appeal who was the 1st respondent before the Tribunal. An amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was claimed as compensation.3. The 5th respondent was ex-parte. The appellant-2nd respondent before the Tribunal contended that there was collusion between the 1st respondent-Daniel and the petitioners, and stated that the deceased, who was the owner of the vehicl...
Tag this Judgment!Ahammed Vs. Aysha
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-21-1989
Reported in: II(1990)DMC110
Jagannadha Raju, J.1. This is a revision filed by the former husband of the petitioner in M.C. No. 75 of 1987 on the file of the First Class Judicial Magistrate, Taliparamba. In this revision the husband complain that the order of the Magistrate directing him to pay Rs. 12,000/-towards reasonable and fair provision and maintenance during the iddat period and also a sum or Rs. 101/- towards mahar is illegal and not maintainable. The petitioner's counsel contends that in these proceedings which emanated on a petition under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (Act 25 of 1986) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), it is the bounden duty of the court to go into the question of means of the husband and then pass the orders as contemplated under the various sub-sections of Section 3. If the wife is in affluent circumstances when compared to the husband, there is no need to pass an order. In the present case the court passed a composite order without spe...
Tag this Judgment!Kandamath Cine Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. John Philipose
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-20-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ker198
K.G. Balakrishnan, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 56 of 1979 on the file of the 1st Additional Sub Judge, Trivandrum. The suit for specific performance of an agreement was decreed as prayed for and the defendant has filed this appeal.2. In broad but necessarily in precise terms the shape of this case is as follows: The defendant-company is the owner of 5 acres and 2 cents of land comprised in Sy Nos. 896, 897, 898 and 911 in Sreekariyam of Pangap-para village. The Managing Director of the defendant-company agreed to sell 1 acre of land out of the 5 acres and 2 cents of land to the plaintiff for a consideration of Ruppees 90,000/-. This property situate on the northern side of the public road which leads to the Government Engineering College. On 15-12-78 the plaintiff paid Rs. 10,000/- as advance amount and Ext. Al receipt was issued by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Apart from Ext. Al, there was no separate written agreement ...
Tag this Judgment!M. George and Brothers and anr. Vs. K.C. Cherian and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-20-1989
Reported in: [1990]68CompCas188(Ker)
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in a suit for realisation of money are the appellants. The plaintiff filed the suit alleging that he is a holder in due course in respect of exhibits A-1 and A-2 cheques drawn on the Kozhen-cherry Branch of the Federal Bank Ltd. The first defendant firm issued two post-dated cheques in favour of the third defendant who endorsed it in favour of the fourth defendant and who in turn discounted the same on February 1, 1977, and received the entire amount due thereunder. The plaintiff later presented these cheques for collection. The cheques were dishonoured by the bank stating that payment was stopped by the drawer. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant being the drawer and defendants Nos. 3 and 4 being the endorsees are jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff for the amount due under the two cheques.2. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 filed a joint written statement, wherein they urged the third defendant used to get the post-dated ch...
Tag this Judgment!George Mitran Vs. T.H. Gerfrude and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-20-1989
Reported in: I(1990)DMC582
S. Padmanabhan, J. 1. A suit for recovery of a building with the land appurtenent thereto on the strength of title was decreed by the TrialCourt but the decision was reversed in appeal and the suit was dismissed. Second Appeal is by the plaintiff.2. Sathyarthi, uncle of the appellant, was the owner. Along with his wife Judith he bequeathed the property to the appellant and his mother under Ext, Al. After the death of Sathuarthi, claiming to be the full owner as heir of her husband, Judith sold the property to the first defendant under Ext. B2 on 19-1-1964. She died in December 1965 or January, 1966. Appellant was entitled to possession only from that date on the strength of his title under Ext. Al because Judith had the right to enjoy till her death. .3. Claiming under Ext. Al and alleging first defendant to be a lessee under Judith, the appellant sued her in O.S. 451 of 1967 not for possession but for rent alone. Title and lease were doned and first defendant claimed full right and po...
Tag this Judgment!Rakka Dineshan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-20-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ1361
M.M. Pareed Pillay, J.1. Appellant is the accused in S.C. 61 of 1985 of the Sessions Court, Kalpetta. He was charged under Section 302, I.P.C. for having caused the death of Ayanikkad Narayanan on 9-7-1985 at 12 noon. Learned Sessions Judge found him guilty under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.2. Ayanikkad Narayanan (deceased) was deepening a channel on the boundary of his paddy field. It is the prosecution case that the accused hit him with a spade and inflicted injuries which proved to be fatal. P.W. 1 brother-in-law of the deceased went to Vellamunda Police Station and lodged Ext.P1 first information statement before P.W. 10 Sub-Inspector. P.W. 12 completed investigation and laid the charge before the Court.3. Accused filed statement pleading right of private defence. He stated that he saw the deceased destroying his boundary, that there ensued a verbal altercation between him and the deceased, that the deceased trespassed ...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Panicker Divakara Panicker of Pavana Veedu Vs. Bakari Hydrose, Ch ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-18-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ker295
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. Second appeal is by the plaintiff. Suit is for recovery of property on title. The Commissioner deputed to ascertain the properties could not do so with the help of the surveyor for want of necessary survey records. Appellant failed to supply the records as ordered. Commission was recalled and the case posted in the special list for trial to 1-10-1980. Appellant did not appear, but his Advocate moved an application to remove the case from the list. When it was rejected, he withdrew and said that the appellant is not prepared to proceed further. Suit was dismissed for default and not on merits. Appeal by the plaintiff was also dismissed as not maintainable.2. The crucial question is whether the decision is for default of non-appearance under Rule 2 or on the merits under Rule 3 of Order XVII. Disposal under Rule 2 could only be on any one of the methods under Order IX. If that is an ex parte decree against the defendant, it is appealable and a petition under Order IX...
Tag this Judgment!The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Cheenikkal Mohammed Koya and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-18-1989
Reported in: II(1990)ACC615
K.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J.1. The third respondent in M.A.C. 189 of 1983 before the M.A.C.T. Manjeri is the appellant.2. The award, making the appellant, the Insurance Company liable for the entire compensation amount, is under challenge.3. In proof of the contention that under the Act the appellant can be made liable to pay only a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation, the appellant has produced before this court a copy of the insurance policy and the relevant records in regard to registration particulars in respect of the car KLM 2029 involved in the accident.4. After hearing the arguments of the counsel representing the parties, we are of the view that the documents require to be looked into before any final order disposing of the above issue is passed.5. It is clear from the documents, particularly the document containing the registration particulars of the car that at the time of the accident it was a tourist taxi, the counsel for the appellant submits. If the vehicle was a tourist ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. 1. S. R. Patton. (i. T. R. No. 173 of 1 ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-15-1989
Reported in: (1992)92CTR(Ker)197; [1992]193ITR49(Ker); [1992]65TAXMAN472(Ker)
K. S. PARIPOORNAN J. - These are connected cases. The Revenue is the applicant at whose instance two questions of law have been referred for the decision on this court in each of these cases. They are as follows :Income-tax Reference No. 173 of 1985 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the salary of the assessee was not paid by FACT but by the foreign company, Messrs Davy Powergas Inc. ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the salary and living allowance received by the assessees were not assessable to tax under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'Income-tax Reference Nos. 52 to 55 of 1985 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the salary of the assesses was not paid by FACT/FEDO but by foreign company, Messers Davy Powergas GmbH., West Germany ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »