Kerala Court March 1990 Judgments
Bhaskaran Vs. Ravindran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-09-1990
Reported in: I(1991)ACC129
U.L. Bhat, J.1. Petitioner in M.A.C. No. 654 of 1981 of the M.A.C. Tribunal, Tellicherry has filed this appeal challenging the dismissal of the claim petition.2. Appellant was injured in an accident involving bus K.L.C. 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 while giving way to another bus coming from the opposite direction that the bus collided with the pillar of the bridge and the appellant who was still on the foot board 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 appellant in a r...
Tag this Judgment!Mukkathil Bhaskaran Vs. Ravindran and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-09-1990
Reported in: II(1990)ACC68
U.L. Bhat, J.1. Petitioner in M.A.C. No. 654 of 1981 of the M.A.C. Tribunal, Tellicherry has filed this appeal challenging the dismissal of the claim .petition.2. Appellant was injured in an accident involving bus K.L.C. 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 while giving way to another bus coming from the opposite direction that the bus collided with the pillar of the bridge and the appellant who was still on the foot board 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 as and the bus was proceeding slowly appellant in rec...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala Transport Company, Calicut Vs. C.R. Anandavalli Amma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-08-1990
Reported in: AIR1990Ker330
ORDERK.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J. 1. The Rent Controller allowed the application of the respondents/landlords under Sections 11(2) and 11(3) of The Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, for short The Act and ordered eviction of the petitioner from the building; but only on the ground of bona fide need. This order was rendered on 31-7-1989. Thereupon the petitioner filed R.C.A.11/89 before the Appellate Authority namely, the Subordinate Judge, Thodupuzha on 16-10-1989. This Appeal was well within the prescribed time. On 17-10-1989 the petitioner moved an application for of stay execution of the order of eviction. On the request of the respondents, the said application was posted to 21-10-1989 to enable them to file their objection. The hearing was adjourned to 24-10-1989. In the meantime on 26-9-1989, the Notification conferring on the District Judge the powers of Appellate Authority was published in the Gazette. Pursuant to the Notification, the High Court issued an Offic...
Tag this Judgment!Knanaya Catholic Congress, Kottayam Vs. Biju Uthup
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-02-1990
Reported in: AIR1990Ker239
ORDERK.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J. 1. The revision petitioner filed I.A. 42/90 in O.S. 923/89 before the Additional MunsifPs Court, Kottayam to get himself impleaded as additional third defendant in that suit. This petition stands dismissed by the order under challenge.2. Facts relevant and requisite to decide the question, whether the petitioner is entitled to get himself impleaded as an additional defendant in the suit, can briefly be stated thus :-- The petitioner is the Knanaya Catholic Congress having its head office at Kottayam. The Congress is the only laity and secular organisation of the Knanaya Catholic Community and as such responsible to protect the lay interest of the community at large. The Congress therefore is entitled to get itself impleaded as an additional defendant in the suit where the plaintiff has prayed for the issue of a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to issue to him the 'vivahakuri' for the conduct of his betrothal and marriage. The facts stated i...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala State Electricity Board Represented by Its Secretary Vs. Kali a ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-02-1990
Reported in: II(1990)ACC428; 1991ACJ64
Varghese Kalliath, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant. Defendant is the Kerala State Electricity Board, represented by its Secretary, Trivandrum. Plaintiffs are the widow and children of one Ayyappan. Ayyappan died on 12.10.1977 as a result of electrocution. The accident occurred as a direct result of the rash and negligent acts and omissions on the part of the defendant.2. On 12.10.1977, at about 6 a.m. deceased Ayyappan was proceeding to his place of work. He came into contact with a live wire lying across the road and that resulted in the death of Ayyappan. The fact that a live wire was lying across the road, which would cause injury to those who are walking across the road, was intimated to the Mala Division of the first defendant, Electricity Board, by the local citizens on 10th and 11th. The servants of the Board did not switch off the supply when the incident took place.3. Deceased Ayyappan was earning an income of Rs. 20/- per day, being a daily labourer. He was aged 57 an...
Tag this Judgment!Puthalath Chathu Vs. Nambukkudi Jayasree and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-02-1990
Reported in: AIR1990Ker306; II(1991)DMC42
Thomas, J.1. Has the wife condoned her husband's matrimonial delinquency? If the answer is in the affirmative, her petition for a decree of divorce under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') is liable to be dismissed. The court below answered the question in the negative and granted the decree prayed for by her. Hence this appeal by the husband.2. There is no dispute that the marriage between the appellant and 1st respondent was solemnised on 4-3-1968 and that no issues were born in the wedlock. First respondent alleged that her husband married another lady (2nd respondent) later and begetted three children through that lady. Further allegation is that on all occasions when she questioned him about the said relationship, the husband snorted out and scoffed at her, on many such occasions he thrashed her down. Though the appellant denied the allegation that he married 2nd respondent, he had the temerity to admit, perhaps since he could not help it, that he ...
Tag this Judgment!Benny Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-01-1990
Reported in: II(1990)ACC305; 1991ACJ182
K.T. Thomas, J.1. The appellant is the owner of a vehicle (Trekker) in which passengers are carried for hire and reward. The said vehicle met with an accident on 5.5.1985 around 9 a.m. In the accident a pedestrian was knocked down. He sustained injuries and later died due to the said injuries. His widow and children made a claim against the appellant and the driver of the vehicle as well as the insurer for compensation in respect of the death of the deceased. Claims Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- as compensation. However, the Claims Tribunal limited the liability of the insurance company to Rs. 50,000/-. Interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum was allowed from the date of the claim petition. This appeal is hence filed by the owner of the vehicle in challenge of the quantum of compensation fixed as well as the limit of insurer's liability.2. There is no dispute that the accident happened involving the Trekker KEE 8339. There is no dispute that the appellant was the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›