Kerala Court May 1995 Judgments
Vediyeri Chandroth Reghunathan Nambiar Vs. Alora Janu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-31-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Ker334
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. A plaintiff whose suit was dismissed in the court of the first instance filed an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the first appellate Court. The appeal was accompanied by a certified copy of the decree appealed from and a certified copy of the judgment. An application was filed for time to produce the printed copy of the judgment of the court of first instance since under Rule 258 of the Civil Rules of Practice, the judgment of the trial court required to be printed. The appellate Court granted the plaintiff time to produce the printed copy of the judgment and provisionally accepted the appeal filed by the plaintiff.2. The plaintiff did not produce the printed copy of the judgment within the time granted. Consequently the appellate court on 16-3-1992 dismissed the appeal for default on the ground that the printed copy of the judgment was not produced.3. The court of first instance had dismissed the suit on the plaintiff on 2-3-199...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Appukuttan and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-31-1995
Reported in: 1995ACJ888; [1995]84CompCas686(Ker)
K.T. Thomas, J. 1. This appeal is by an insurance company in challenge of a direction contained in the award of a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal ('the Claims Tribunal' for short) that the compensation amount granted should be paid by the insurance company.2. The claim was made in respect of a motor accident which happened on June 2, 1993. The claimant was the pillion rider on a scooter (KRB 4171) which collided with another vehicle. He fell down and sustained some injuries. He claimed compensation from the rider of the scooter as well as from his insurer.3. Two points were raised by the appellant. One was that the first respondent had no licence to ride the scooter and the other was that the pillion rider was not a third party and hence his risk was not covered by the insurance policy. The first contention does not appear to have been pursued before the Claims Tribunal and the second point was found against the appellant. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal passed the award in a sum of R...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala, Represented by the Secretary, Irrigation Department G ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-30-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Ker327
Thomas, J. 1. These appeals arise apparently from two different awards passed by the same arbitrator, but they have sprouted from one contract work the amplitude of which grew much wider during the period of its execution. That contract work, with different shades of details, was undertaken by one contractor. When disputes arose between him and the Government, such disputes were referred to one arbitrator who passed three different awards upon the same evidence. We find it convenient to deal with these two appeals in one common judgment. The remaining third award was passed by the same arbitrator on certain disputes which sprouted from the same contract work undertaken by the same contractor. But, that is subject matter of another appeal (M.F.A. No. 89/95). After hearing both sides, we deem it more convenient to dispose of the said appeal by a separate judgment. Hence we have delinked that appeal from these two. All the same, we may perhaps make some reference to the said appeal also i...
Tag this Judgment!B. Rajalakshmi Vs. K. Arumughan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-30-1995
Reported in: I(1996)ACC510; 1995ACJ903
V.V. Kamat, J.1. In regard to a collision of Jayanti Janata Express and a motor bus on 9.5.1979 a petition for compensation [O.P. (MV) No. 1332 of 1980] was filed by the present petitioner's husband before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Boatjetty, Ernakulam (respondent No. 5). The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal passed an award on 28.2.1986. While examining the case with regard to the liability of compensation the Tribunal has made the following observations:The petitioner and his wife are the legal heirs of the deceased boy. But the petition is filed only by the father. The wife of the petitioner who was examined as PW 2 is also entitled to half of the amount. There is no averment in the petition that the petition is filed for and on behalf of the wife also. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled only to half of the amount awarded, viz., Rs. 17.500/-.2. Therefore, the Tribunal finding that there is no averment in the petition that the petition is filed for and on behalf of the w...
Tag this Judgment!Rosamma Joseph Vs. P.C. Sebastian
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-26-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Ker113
ORDERP.A. Mohammed, J. 1. The petitioner in O.P.(T.P.) No. 25 of 1994 on the file of the District Court, Kottayam, is the revision-petitioner. This petition was filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking for an order withdrawing O.S. No. 319 of 1992 from the file of the Munsiff's Court, Changanacherry and transferring the same to the Sub-Court, Kottayam, to be tried along with O.S. No. 811 of 1992. After the enquiry the above petition was dismissed by the Court below as per order dated 30-5-1994. The present revision is filed against the said order passed by the District Judge, Kottayam. 2. The facts involved in this case can be summarised thus: O.S. No. 319 of 1992 was filed by the respondent in this revision petition, before the Munsiff's Court, Changanacherry, in which the petitioner is the first defendant. That was a suit for redemption of the possessory mortgage and relief is sought only against the petitioner. The second defendant in that suit is the daughter ...
Tag this Judgment!Ananda Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-05-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Ker302
Narayanan Nambiar, J. 1. The first respondent, Kerala Minerals and Metals Limited, a Government of Kerala undertaking, issued Ext.P1 tender notice dated 21-11-1994 inviting tenders from experienced contractors for construction of additional polishing pond for the Effluent Treatment System. The appellant, the fourth respondent and three others submitted tenders. The tenders thus received were scrutinised by the Consultant of the first respondent-Company and thereafter he submitted a report on 27-12-1994. The tenders received were also considered by the Tender Committee consisting of General Manager (Technical), Deputy General Manager (Technical), Senior Manager (Internal Audit), Accounts Officer and Sri T. K. Chandy, Consultant of the first respondent who had also supervised in the past the construction of the existing settling and polishing ponds attached to the first respondent-company. The tenders submitted by all others except the appellant and the fourth respondent were rejected as...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›