Kerala Court July 1994 Judgments
P.N. Menon and anr. Vs. Corporation of Calicut and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-28-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Ker136
Thomas, J. 1. A bottleneck on the National Highway No. 17, located at Mu-thalakulam Junction (in Kozhikode City) is a traffic construction. With the cramming of motor vehicles on the road, particularly during peak hours, the aforesaid bottleneck aggravates the traffic sqeeze. Suggestions were mooted for widening the road at the site. Shopkeepers at this location naturally became apprehensive of its adverse impact on their trade. So they moved the authorities and they succeeded in averting evacuation for a long time, despite the efforts made by the Government earlier to acquire land for widening the road at this site. 2. Government issued a notification on 29-10-1991 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act'). It was a composite notification containing a proposal to exercise emergency powers under Section 17(4) of the Act also. It was challenged by different -persons including some of the petitioners herein and this court quashed the notification as per the jud...
Tag this Judgment!V. Kalpakam Amma Vs. Muthurama Iyer Muthurkrishna Iyer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-28-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Ker99
Subramani, J.1. Deceased 1st defendant in O.S. 69 of 1980 of the Munsiffs Court, Trivandrum and who was the respondent in A.S. No. 271 of 1983 of the District Court, Trivandrum, is the appellant. Pending appeal she died and the second respondent, i.e. son of the appellant was transposed as additional appellant.2. This appeal is on a reference by a learned single Judge of this court, P. Krishnamoorthy, J.3. The substantial question of law which arise for consideration in this appeal are;(i) Whether the court below is correct in finding that the destruction of the subject matter of the lease will automatically terminate the lease without considering the question of option exercised by the lessee as per Section 108(e) of the Transfer of Property Act?(ii) Alternatively whether the court below is correct in applying the decision of the Hon'ble Court in Sidharthan v. Ramadasan, 1984 Ker LT 538 : (AIR 1984 Kerala 181) and whether it is correctly decided in view of the decision of the Supreme ...
Tag this Judgment!Chellappan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-26-1994
Reported in: 1994(2)ALT(Cri)497; 1995CriLJ150
K. Sreedharan, J. 1. These matters have come up before us on reference made by two learned Single Judges of this Court. One of the reference orders states that a deadlock has been created by two varying decisions rendered by two learned Single Judges on the same subject matter. Consequently, these matters have been referred for solving the said deadlock.2. Short facts necessary for the disposal of these matters are as follows. - Petitioners in Crl. MC 1144/1989, and Crl. MC 566/1993 were co-accused in a large number of cases. In majority of those cases, they were charged with offences punishable under Section 457, 380 or 392 read with Section 34, of the Penal Code. In one case, namely SC 32/198,6 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Irinjalakuda, the offences charged against them were under Section 376(g), 380, 392, 451, and 465 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. Learned Sessions Judge convicted them in thai case and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisoment for ten y...
Tag this Judgment!Shajan Vs. N. Raman Pillai and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-22-1994
Reported in: II(1994)ACC500; 1995ACJ80
K.J. Joseph, J1. The claimant in O.P. (M.V.) No. 255 of 1984 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, is the appellant. The first respondent is the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, viz., KRE 982. The second respondent is the driver of the said bus and the third respondent is the insurance company with whom first respondent owner had entered into a contract of insurance in respect of his vehicle bearing registration No. KRE 982.2. It is the case of the appellant that he sustained injuries on 3.12.1982 at 12.00 noon at the age of 26. He was a door-checker in the stage carriage bearing registration No. KRE 982. When the bus driven by the second respondent was passing a bridge at Tripunithura on 3.12.1982 he sustained injuries. According to the appellant, the side of the bus brushed aside of an electric post. Hearing the sound, the appellant who was standing on the footboard peeped out. Then his head struck against the post and thereby he sustained sever...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Murugan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-22-1994
Reported in: II(1994)ACC544; 1995ACJ164
M.M. Pareed Pillay, J.1. Second respondent in O.P. (MV) 526 of 1987 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam, has filed the appeal challenging the award of compensation of Rs. 12,000/- in favour of claimant (first respondent) mainly on the ground that the Tribunal overlooked Section 142 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Contention of the appellant is that the injuries sustained by the first respondent would not come under Section 140 of the Act. It is also contended by the appellant that at any rate the award of compensation calls for interference as the Claims Tribunal went wrong in awarding Rs. 12,000/- as compensation instead of the legally permissible amount of Rs. 7.500/-.2. Appellant's first contention is that the injuries sustained by the first respondent would not attract Section 140 of the Act and hence the Tribunal went wrong in awarding compensation. It is pointed out by the counsel for the appellant that Section 140 can be invoked only in a case of death or permanent disable...
Tag this Judgment!The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Murugan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-22-1994
Reported in: I(1995)ACC55
M.M. Pareed Pillay, J.1. Second respondent in O.P. (MV) 526 of 1987 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kollam has filed the appeal challenging the award of compensation of Rs. 12,000/- in favour of claimant (1st respondent) mainly on the ground that the Tribunal overlooked Section 142 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Contention of the appellant is that the injuries sustained by the first respondent would not come under Section 142 of the Act. It is also contended by the appellant that at any rate the award of compensation calls for interference as the Tribunal went wrong in awarding Rs. 12,000/- as compensation instead of the legally permissible amount of Rs. 7,500/-.2. Appellant's first contention is that the injuries sustained by the first respondent would not attract Section 142 of the Act and hence the Tribunal went wrong in awarding compensation. It is pointed out by the Counsel for the appellant that Section 142 can be invoked only in a case of death or permanent disablement of any...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Temples in the Erstwhile Malabar Area
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-21-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Ker172
Balanarayana Marar, J. 1. Malabar, that part of the west coast between mala (hill) and bar (sea), was a neglected area while it was part of the erstwhile State of Madras. After the formation of the Kerala State, Malabar merged in that State. From thereafter the neglect continued. The temples in Malabar and their employees are no exception. Though reasonable remuneration is received by the temple employees in the erstwhile Travancore and Cochin areas of the State, the temple employees in Malabar are getting only a pittance. The plight of the employees was highlighted in a news item which appeared in the Hindu daily dt. 27-12-1991 under the caption 'A raw deal for temple staff.2. A Division Bench of this Court treated this news item as a public interest litigation and by order dt. 3-1-1992 this Court directed notice to be issued to the State of Kerala represented by the Chief Secretary and the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments Commission, to show cause why the above matter should ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. CochIn Refineries Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-21-1994
Reported in: [1994]210ITR1060(Ker)
Sujata V. Manohar, C.J.1. The Department desires the following questions to be directed to be raised by the Tribunal and referred to us for determination :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction on the ocean loss of Rs. 4,46,92,480 in the assessment for the assessment year 1981-82 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding : (i) 'the liability to bear ocean loss in excess of 0.5 per cent. by the refineries was determined and fastened on the refineries ?' (ii) the obligation to refund the amount of ocean loss in excess of 0.5 per cent. to the Shipping Corporation of India arose in this year, i.e., as on March 31, 1981/February 5, 1981 ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to deduction for the donation of Rs. 10,000 made to the Medical Aid Society ? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances o...
Tag this Judgment!Abu Vs. Subaida
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-21-1994
Reported in: 1994CriLJ3672; II(1994)DMC528
S. Subramani, J.1. Plaintiff in a suit filed by him before the Family Court, Ernakulam, is the appellant. The suit was not numbered and the same was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. The same is challenged in this appeal. The appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act.2. When the appeal came up for admission, the maintainability of the suit was doubted and arguments were heard. The reliefs sought in the plaint are, to declare that the order passed by the Family Court, Ernakulam in M.C. 343/1992 (Original No. M.C. 13/92 before the Judicial First Class, Magistrate Court, Fort Cochin) is null and void; and to issue a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from realising any amount on the basis of the said order. A relief is also sought to declare that the plaintiff is not liable to pay maintenance to the defendant and that the defendant is not entitled to any maintenance from the plaintiff.3. The relevant facts seen from the plaint are as follows : D...
Tag this Judgment!George Sebastian Alias Joy Vs. Molly Joseph Alias Nish
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-20-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Ker16; II(1995)DMC168
Thomas, J.1. One of the incidental questions surfaced to the fore in this matrimonial dispute is the relevance of an order of annulment of marriage passed by an 'Ecclesiastical Tribunal.' As we cannot dispose of this case without deciding the said question, we heard counsel on both sides in extenso regarding that question.2. We shall now state as to how the matter came before us. A petition was filed by one husband for a decree either for divorce or for nullity of his marriage with the respondent. Parties are Christians, and they belong to Roman Catholic Church. For the decree of divorce, petitioner alleged that respondent is guilty of incestuous adultery. For the decree of nullity of marriage petitioner ad opted two separate grounds. First is that respondent was insane and continued to be so till the date of marriage. Second is that respondent had a previous marriage with one Prince Joseph.3. A child was born to the respondent in her wedlock with the petitioner and the child is now wi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »