Kerala Court January 1997 Judgments
M.R. Pillai Vs. Executive Officer, Pathiyoor Panchayat, Kayamkulam and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-31-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Ker162
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J.1. This Original Petition is filed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate direction commanding the respondents to close down the fifth respondent cashew processing factory as according to the petitioner it creates pollution. According to the petitioner he is a very old aged, Chronic Astma patient and he is living within 200 meters of the factory. It is also contended that no licence as contemplated under the Kerala Panchayat (Licensing of Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules 1963 was obtained before starting the factory as can be seen from Ext. P. 2. Rule 3 of the Rules enjoins power of the Government to specify in schedule I of these rules the purpose and in their opinion are likely to be offensive or dangerous to- human life or health or property. Item 16 in the schedule reads:'16. Cashew nuts : Storing, Packing, Preparing or Manufacturing by any process whatever.'Rule 12 deals with the application to be made for construction, es...
Tag this Judgment!ishwara Bhat Vs. Annappa Naika
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-30-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Ker165
K.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.1. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 284/82 on the file of the Munsiffs Court, Kasaragod whose prayer for declaration of title and permanent prohibitory injunction in respect of plaint A schedule properties is rejected by the trial court as well as the first appellate court, is the appellant herein. Though the plaint A schedule properties consisted of four items, since in the written statement the respondent-defendant stated that he has no dispute with regard to items 2 to 4 of the plaint A schedule properties and confined his contention with regard to item No. 1 of an extent of 42 cents comprises in R. S. No. 201/3 of Enmakaje Village, the parties are in issue only with regard to that item one of the plaint schedule properties. Though the appellant contended that the plaint A schedule properties form part and parcel of R. S. No. 20l/2, which was obtained by him on darkast from the Government, subsequently it is admitted by both sides that the disputed property is Govern...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Vijayappan Nair Vs. J. Ammini Amma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-30-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Ker170; I(1997)DMC648
Sreedevi, J.1. This appeal is filed against the decree and judgment in H.M.O.P. No. 85 of 1985 on the file of the Sub Court, Ernakulam.2. The appellant's case is this: The appellant is the petitioner before the lower Court. His first wife passed away on 31-5-1978. He has three children in that wed-lock. Subsequently, he married the respondent on 2-2-1979. According to him, the relationship between him and the respondent got strained within a week, as the respondent did not like him showing any love and affection to his children. He therefore converted his residential building into a girls' hostel and his daughters were put up there. His son was admitted to a boarding school. He and the respondent shifted their residence and even after the said adjustment, the respondent did not change her attitude. According to him, the couple lived together till 15-7-1984, while the respondent would contend that she lived with him peacefully till 17th May, 1985. The appellant sued for a decree of divo...
Tag this Judgment!Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Sarathi Lines (P) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-29-1997
Reported in: (1998)ILLJ28Ker
Usha, J.1. In this appeal by the Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation the question of law raised is whether the respondent company is liable to remit contribution on account of remuneration paid to the Managing Director of the company. It is contended by the appellant that when salary is paid to the Managing Director he has a dual capacity both as employer and employee and therefore the company is liable to pay contribution on the salary paid to Managing Director. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant on the decision of the Supreme Court in Shri Ram Prasad v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi, AIR 1973 SC 637 and of the Madras High Court in Non -Ferrous Rotting Mills (P) Ltd. v. The Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Madras, 1977 Lab. I.C. 1706, respectively.2. The Employees' Insurance Court had taken the view that the remuneration paid to the Managing Director is not in the nature of wages paid to an employee and t...
Tag this Judgment!Chothy theyyathan Vs. John Thomas and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-28-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Ker249
ORDERP.K. Balasubramanyan, J. 1. The decree-holder challengesthe order of the Executing Court refusing to execute the decree for injunction obtained by him against judgment-debtors 1 and 2, against their assignees, impleaded as judgment-debtors 3 to 5. The decree restrained judgment-debtors 1 and 2 from blasting rock from the B Schedule property described in the decree. Judgment-debtors 3 and 4 are assignees of the decree B Schedule property. They violated the decree for injunction and the decree-holder sought to proceed against them under Order XXI, Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The transferees resisted execution by contending that though they are assignees of 'the property covered by the decree, they cannot be proceeded against in execution under Order XXI, Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure, since a decree for injunction is personal and affects only the original judgment-debtor and Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act has no application since there is no decree a...
Tag this Judgment!Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. David C.P.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-28-1997
Reported in: (1999)ILLJ941Ker
Kamat, J.1. The question that is required to be considered in this appeal is as to whether the employees of the original applicant 'Kothamangalam Aggregates' would be required under law to be insured in the manner provided by the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. By the Impugned order dt. April 6, 1988 in I.C. No. 82/1986, the Insurance Court has decided that the establishment cannot be covered under the provisions of the Employees' State insurance Scheme because there is a clear exemption provided Under Section 2(12) of the Act. The Insurance Court has reached the conclusion that the establishment cannot be understood to be a factory because explosives are used for mining operations, an activity covered under the provisions of the Mines Act.2. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant - Corporation with regard to its grievance as well as the learned counsel for the applicant-establishment, we find ourselves unable to agree with the conclusions for reasons to follow after...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Kareem Vs. Canara Bank
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-28-1997
Reported in: (1997)IILLJ21Ker
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. The petitioner is an employee in the service of the respondents. He has approached this court Challenging Exts.P1, P4, P6 and P9. Ext. P1 is the charge memo issued to him initiating disciplinary action. Ext. P4 is the order passed by the disciplinary authority imposing the punishment of 'censure' and recovery from pay or such other amount as may be due to him of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the bank by negligence', as envisaged under Regulation 4(a) and 4(d) respectively of the Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. Ext.P6 is the order passed by the appellate authority confirming Ext.P4. Ext.P9 is the order passed on a review petition again confirming Exts.P4 andP6. 2. In the enquiry conducted, the petitioner was found guilty of the charges contained in Ext. P1. Thus, on its basis, the punishment was imposed. 3. As mentioned above, the punishments imposed are censure and recovery from pay, in terms of Regu...
Tag this Judgment!E. Mohammed Vs. Velayudhan and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-27-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Ker173
K.A. Mohamed Shafi, J. 1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 118/ 80 on the file of the Munsiffs Court, Manjeri is the appellant herein. The suit is filed by the appellant claiming redemption of a mortage by conditional sale alleged to have created by him as per the document dated 7-4-1962 exected in favour of the 1st respon-dent-lst defendant.2. The 1st respondent has contended that the document dated 7-4-1962 executed by the appellant in his favour is not a mortgage by conditional sale and it is an outright sale with the condition to repurchase and therefore, the suit for redemption is not maintainable.3. The trial Court after trial found that the document dated 7-4-1962 marked as Ext. A1 in the suit is not a mortgage deed as contended by the appellant and dismissed the suit with costs. The appellant challenged the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court before the Sub Court, Manjeri in A.S. No. 1/1984. The lower appellate Court by judgment dated 19-10-1988 confirmed the judgment and de...
Tag this Judgment!Baskaran Pillai Vs. Devaswom Commissioner
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-27-1997
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ737Ker
Rajan, J.1. The petitioner was served with a memo of charges Ext. P-1 dated June 15, 1994. Later, by Ext. P-2 order dated September 8, 1994 he was suspended from service. Thereafter Ext. P-3 memo of charges dated January 18, 1995 was served on him. The petitioner filed the explanation. An enquiry was also conducted. Thereafter, the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on May 31, 1995 Ext. P-5 evidences the above fact. Subsequently, Ext. P-6 dated August 24, 1995 was passed as the final order passed in the disciplinary proceedings. By Ext. P-6, the petitioner was compulsorily retired with effect from the date of his suspension.2. Though the Original Petition was filed initially for disbursement of pensionary benefits and also for a direction to drop the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner on account of the fact that he retired after passing of Ext. P-6 order the petitioner has amended the Original Petition challenging Ext. P-6 orde...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sreenivasan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-27-1997
Reported in: 1999ACJ1406
P.A. Mohammed, J.1. These two appeals filed by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. are directed against the common judgment in O.P. (M.V.) Nos. 35 and 224 of 1986 of the M.A.C. Tribunal, Quilon, which arose from a motor accident which took place on 8.11.1985 in which two persons died, bike rider Suresh Babu and pillion rider Remanan. Legal representatives of the deceased filed the above applications before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by a common award granted a sum of Rs. 1,45,000 with interest at 6 per cent from 15.1.1986 till three months after the date of the award and 18 per cent interest thereafter till realisation in the former case. In the latter case the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,02,000 with 6 per cent interest from 22.3.86 till three months after the date of award and 18 per cent interest thereafter till realisation. The insurance company, the common appellant in these cases, is made liable for the amount awarded by the Tribunal. The appellant being aggrieved for making it fully ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »