Kerala Court March 1990 Judgments
Bhaskaran Nair Alias Bhasy Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-19-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ23
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. The sole accused in Sessions Case No. 36 of 1986 was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, but convicted only under Sections 302 and 324. Sentences are life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment for one year. He is the appellant.2. Deceased Pappan and PW 2 Varghese were friends and residents of Pooyamkutty. Appellant went and settled there six months before the incident. Soon he gained friendship with Pappan and divulged to him his criminal antecedents in confidence. Pappan betrayed the confidence and conveyed this information to others. That was the starting point of enmity. In the absence of Pappan, the appellant brought one Mammy, a lady of bad virtues, and lived with her in Pappan's house. Pappan was annoyed at this. In this background, they met at 7.00 p.m. on 31-1-1986 at the arrack shop of PW 14 and had a quarrel. Appellant went away announcing his determination to mur...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Gopinathan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-19-1990
Reported in: II(1990)ACC383
Thomas, J.1. A claim was made by an injuured person before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for compensation. The motor accident had occurred on 26.12.1983 at about 7.30 a.m. in which the claimant sustained fracture of tibia and fibula, besides some other injuries. He was riding a moped (KLG 8830) along the public road which lies north to south. While he was overtaking a bus which was stopped on the western side of the road, a Flat car (KLG 7905) came from opposite direction and collided with the moped. Claims Tribunal found that both the claimant and the car driver were negligent. Claims Tribuunal which assessed total compensation due to the claimant at Rs. 65,200/- deducted one half there from on account of claimant's contribution of negligence in the accident and hence awarded a sum of Rs. 32600/-. The appellant-insurance company was directed to pay the said sum, besides fixing liability with the owner and driver of the Fiat Car. One of these appeals has been filed by the insurance c...
Tag this Judgment!Joseph Alias Kunjachan Vs. Sathyappan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-14-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ker120
ORDERK.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J.1. The judgment-debtor in O. S. 36/74 which was originally pending before the Alleppey Sub-Court and pending execution in Shertallai Sub-Court, is the revision petitioner.2. In execution of the decree six items of properties were sold in court auction and the decree-holder purchased the same. The sale was confirmed on 20-11-1981. The sale certificate was issued on 29-6-1982.3. The decree-holder purchaser thereafter applied for delivery of the properties. The petitioner at that stage filed E.A. 28/90 wherein he raised the following contentions :-- The petitioner is entitled to get only 1 /14 shares in the properties. That right alone was sold in public auction. The respondent thus has become the owner of the said right alone. As such the petitioner is only a co-owner in joint possession with the other co-owners. The decree-holder auction purchaser therefore can get only a symbolic delivery and not actual delivery of khas possession of the properties inclu...
Tag this Judgment!M.B. Prabhakaran Vs. Registrar of Co-operative Societies and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-14-1990
Reported in: [1991]71CompCas523(Ker)
K. Sreedharan, J.1. The petitioner is a dealer in pump sets, sprayers and other agro machineries. The second respondent, Regional Agro Industrial Cooperative Limited (RAIDCO), is also dealing in agricultural machineries like the petitioner. The first respondent, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, by exhibit P-2, Circular No. 18/89, dated February 30, 1989, directed all Land Development Banks, District Co-operative Banks and Service Co-operative Banks in the State to patronise RAIDCO in preference to private dealers. By this circular, according to the petitioner, agriculturists who are granted agricultural loans as per the scheme evolved by NABARD (National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development) are required to purchase agro machineries manufactured and marketed through second respondent. It is thus interfering with his fundamental rights to carry on business guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. It is also contended that the first respondent by exhibit P-2 i...
Tag this Judgment!H.M. Kassim and ors. Vs. the South Indian Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-13-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ker221
ORDERT.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. Counsel for the first respondent-plaintiff submits that the suit O. S. No. 193 of 1989 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Kottayam in which the petitioners sought to get themselves impleaded has been decreed on December 12, 1989. This is not disputed by counsel for the petitioners. The question whether the lower court was right in rejecting the application to implead does not, therefore, survive for consideration at this stage. The revision petition is liable to be dismissed on this preliminary ground itself. 2. But there is no merit either in the revision petition. The suit is one for recovery of an amount of over rupees thirtyone lakhs from respondents 2 and 3 by sale of the mortgaged properties, which include the establishment where the petitioners are stated to be working. This establishment is a factory 'manufacturing' coffee powder. The petitioners are not parties to the mortgagetransaction, nor are they liable for the whole or any portion of...
Tag this Judgment!M.P. Easo Vs. the Regional Transport Officer, Alleppey and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-13-1990
Reported in: AIR1990Ker308
ORDER1. Validity of Rule 302A of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the 1961 Rules, is the question that arises for consideration in these Original Petitions. When the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, hereinafter referred to as 'the 1989 Rules', came into force petitioners amended the Original Petitions including a prayer to quash Rule 270 of the 1989 Rules.2. Petitioners in O.P. Nos. 3961/86, 5624/86, 6509/86, 8798/86 and 103/87 are owners of Heay Contract carriages. The other Original Petitions are filed by owners of Hindustan Diesel Trukkers who are plying their vehicles as contract carriages. All vehicles involved in these proceedings were registered prior to 3-3-1986 on which day Rule 302A of the 1961 Rules was introduced. When the petitioners approached the Transport Authorities either for getting renewal of the permits or for getting fitness certificates to the vehicles, they were directed to increase the number of seats in the vehicles by virtu...
Tag this Judgment!Malabar Produce and Rubber Co. Ltd. Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-13-1990
Reported in: [1990]184ITR275(Ker)
K.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J. 1. The plaintiff in a suit for a decree restraining defendants Nos. 1 and 3 (respondents Nos. 1 and 3 herein) by a permanent injunction from evicting him from the building situated in the plaint schedule property otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, is the revision petitioner.2. The temporary injunction sought for was granted by the trial court. But it was reversed by the lower appellate court by the judgment under attack.3. A resume of facts requisite and relevant to decide the dispute is given hereunder. The fourth defendant, K. T. Thomas, was declared a defaulter within the meaning of the Income-tax Act (for short 'the Act') on his failure to pay the tax within the stipulated period. The assessing authority, thereupon, forwarded to the Tax Recovery Officer a certificate within the meaning of Section 222 of the Act, specifying the amount of arrears of tax due from the defaulter and the...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Alphonsa Cherian Vs. Additional Agricultural Income-tax and Sales ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-12-1990
Reported in: [1990]184ITR145(Ker)
K.A. Nayar, J. 1. The original petition is filed to quash exhibits P-3, P-4 and P-7. Exhibit P-3 is a notice dated May 29, 1985, issued by the first respondent to the petitioner stating that an amount of Rs. 13,299 will be recovered from her being the agricultural income-tax arrears due from one Rajagopal, the third respondent. Exhibit P-4 is a notice of attachment of immovable property issued to the petitioner and exhibit P-7 is the notice issued by the second respondent dated March 27, 1987, proposing to sell 3.40 acres of cardamom land belonging to the petitioner.2. The third respondent was an assessee on the file of the first respondent. The petitioner purchased from the third respondent 4.05 acres of land by exhibit P-1 sale deed dated July 2, 1979. Before purchasing the same, the petitioner obtained a certificate, exhibit P-2 dated December 17, 1979, certifying that Shri Rajagopal, S/o Chokkalinga Servai, Kuchanoor, is an assessee on the file of the Agricultural Income-tax and Sa...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. Represented by Its General Manager Vs. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-12-1990
Reported in: II(1990)ACC554; 1990ACJ1074
Varghese Kalliath, J. 1. This is an appeal by the first defendant in a suit for damages. The life of a young man, Dominic, was snapped away by the rash and negligent driving of a bus owned by the first defendant. The tragic event happened on 3.6.1973. Dominic was an able-bodied young man aged 22. He was going on a bicycle and he was keeping to his side. It is in evidence that he was on the left extremity of the road. This is so stated by the witnesses examined in the case. The witness said that the cyclist was not on the tarred portion of the road. Further the evidence in the case shows that the driver of the vehicle was negligent and rash in driving the bus and that was the reason for the accident. Anyhow, Dominic lost his life, thereby the plaintiff mother lost her son. The mother can approach the court only for compensation for the heavy loss which really cannot be compensated. Of course, the court can grant pecuniary damages for the irreversible damage caused to the mother of the d...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaskaran Vs. Ravindran and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-09-1990
Reported in: 1990ACJ1032
U.L. Bhat, J. 1. Petitioner in MAC. No. 654 of 1981 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tellicherry has filed this appeal challenging the dismissal of the claim petition.2. Appellant was injured in an accident involving bus KLC 6832 at about 8.30 a.m. on 3.2.1981. His case is that the bus stopped at Koduvally bus stop and he boarded it, the bus moved about hundred yards and when it entered the Koduvally bridge it was driven in such a rash and negligent manner that while giving way to another bus coming from the opposite direction the bus collided with the pillar of the bridge and the appellant who was still on the footboard of the bus was injured. He claimed Rs. 75,000/- from the driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle.3. The driver and owner of the vehicle filed written statement admitting the accident in which appellant sustained injuries. According to them, bus did not stop at Koduvally junction as it had full complement of passengers and as the bus was proceeding slowly, appel...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »