Kerala Court January 1998 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Rajesh and anr. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-19-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Ker258
ORDER1. Heard both sides.2. This original petition is filed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus decl ing that the petitioners are entitled to get a grace marks to the extent of 1% of total aggregate of 3600 marks and also to declare that by giving grace marks the first petitioner is to be declared 'passed' in the subjects, viz. E60IT Signal Processing and E603T Medical Electronics and the 2nd petitioner is to be declared 'passed' in the subjects C60IT Computure Architecture and C603T Computer Networks by giving grace marks. It is by now well settled that mandamus cannot be issued directing grant of grace marks. As is well known, mandamus is a discretionary relief granted to enforce a specific legal right. In the absence of rules or regulations in the matter of grace marks no legal right exists in the examinee for the award of those marks. To hold otherwise would be to confer a premium on arbitrariness both with regard to the cases where they are to be given as also the extent thereo...
V.K. Asokan and ors. Etc. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-19-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ1322
ORDERS. Sankarasubban, J.1. Excepting Crl. M. C. No. 4695/ 1997, all the other Crl. M. Cs. are for regular bail, while Crl. M. C. 4695/97 is for anticipatory bail.2. Crl. M. C. 4710/97 arises out of Crime No. 228/97 of Anthikkad Police Station. Crl. M. C. Nos. 4711/97 and 47 H797 arise out of Crime No. 230/97 of Irinjalakuda Police Station, while Crl. M. C. Nos. 4702/97 arid 4716/97 arise out of Excise Crime No. 14/79 of Excise Range Office, Charpu, while Crl. M. C. 4712/97 arises out of Crime No. 29/97 of Excise Range Office, Thrissur, while Crl. M. C. 4709/97 arises out of Crime No. 508/97 of Town East Police Station, Thrissur. The above crimes are registered for offences under the Kerala Abkari Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Abkari Act') and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act'). The petitioners before me are either Abkari contractors who have taken the licence for running toddy shops or the employees in their shops or g...
M.K. Velayudhan Vs. Sub-inspector of Police and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-19-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ1187
ORDERP.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. This Orginal Petition is filed by a person who alleges that he was sought to be poisoned. According to the petitioner he filed a complaint in that regard before the Sub Inspector of Police. Irinjalakkuda, respondent No.1 herein. According to the Petitioner since the information given by him was regarding a cognisable offence he bona fide expected that his complaint would be proceeded with in terms of the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But to his dismay, the petitioner found that the first respondent did not make any enquiry as contemplated. The petitioner therefore filed a petition before the Superintendent of Police. Though the receipt thereof was acknowledged with the information that the same was being forwarded to the Circle Inspector of Police, the petitioner finds that no proper investigation is being taken up or conducted. The petitioner therefore seeks the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the third respondent to condu...
Thottathil Thamasikkum Cherootty Alias Balan Vs. Puliyaratharayil Vela ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-16-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Ker164
D. Sreedevi, J. 1. This Second Appeal is directed against the decree and judgment in A.S. No. 97 of 1987 of the Sub Court, Kozhikode, which was tiled against the decree and judgment in O.S. No. 608 of 1983 of the Munsiff s Court, Kozhikode. The defendant is the appellant.2. The plaintiffs case is this : The plaint A schedule property originally belonged to Thekka Palangat tarwad, from whom the property devolved on Kayyalil Achuma. One Kunhirayan purchased the property from Kayyalil Achuma in the year 1959. He had put up a building and effected improvements. The plaintiff purchased the property in 1966 from Kunhirayan. Kunhirayan dismantled the building, which was in a dilapidated condition and put up a new one and started residing therein. The plaintiff and his predecessors in interest were using the B Schedule bund foringress and egress to the plaint A schedule item. The properties on either side of the B schedule belongs to the defendant. The A schedule property is lying on a lower l...
Thayil Radio and Electricals Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Erna ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-16-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Ker132
S. Marimuthu, J. 1. The plaintiff is the appellant before this Court. The plaintiff-Partnership firmfiled a suit in O.S. No. 71 of 1986 in the Court ofthe Principal Sub-Judge, Kochi for recovery of a sum of Rs. 22479.32 (a sum of Rs. 11058.21towards the damage caused to the articles due to rain water and a sum of Rs. 942l.11 towards articles stolen). The two branches of the United India are the defendants- respondents. The case of the appellant-plaintiff in short would be that on the night of 7-4-1985 (Sunday) the roof tiles of the shop room was opened by the thieves and committed they of articles and through the said opening in the roof rain water entered the room on that night and it also caused damage to some of the articles. Therefore, the loss incurred by the appellant due 10 the theft and due to the damage caused by the rain water was to the extent of Rs. 37243.27 for which on the next day namely 8-4-1985 the appellant made a claim to the Insurance Company. However a proper compr...
Commissioner of Gift Tax Vs. Smt. Stella High Court of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-16-1998
Reported in: (1999)151CTR(Ker)58
Om Prakash, C. J.Heard Counsel for the parties.2. The Tribunal by order dt. 9-5-1995 in compliance with the directions given by this Court by the judgment dated 15-11-1994, referred the following question for the opinion of this Court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that there is no gift involved in the facts of the present case?'3. The sole question canvassed before us by the learned senior standing counsel is whether there was a gift of the building being used by M/s. Cochin Tourist Home to run a hotel, when Smt. Stella converted her proprietary concern carrying on two businesses: (1) M/s. Cochin Tourist Home and (2) Pulickal Pharmaceutical Distributions, Ernakulam, into a partnership firm. The contention of learned counsel for the assessee-partnership firm is that the building being used by M/s. Cochin Tourist Home continued to be under the ownership of Smt. Stella and did not become an asset of the partnership firm and, ...
Rajendra Pai H. Vs. Canara Bank and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-14-1998
Reported in: (1998)ILLJ577Ker
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. The petitioner was an employee of the first respondent namely, Canara Bank. While working as Manager in the Kallekkad branch of the Bank, he was issued with charge sheet alleging certain misconduct. On the basis of the charge sheet and the enquiry conducted thereof, a punishment of removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment was imposed on the petitioner by the Bank with effect from June 29, 1984. Eventhough the petitioner had challenged these orders he was unsuccessful. The petitioner was not paid the terminal benefits namely, the Gratuity and the Provident Fund due to him. The petitioner was paid an amount of Rs. 11,923.49 as gratuity on January 22, 1990. According to him, this amount paid is much lower than what he is legally entitled to. The petitioner submits that the payment of gratuity in the respondent bank is governed by the Canara Bank Employees Gratuity Fund Rules & Regulations. According to the calculation of the p...
The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. the General Insurance ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-13-1998
Reported in: 1998ACJ900; AIR1998Ker184
ORDERS. Sankarasubban, J.1. Both these Original Petitions are concerned with the same matter. Hence, I heard and am disposing them together. The facts are referred with respect to O.P. 15479/1992.2. The petitioner in O.P. 15479/1992 is the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation represented by its Managing Director, hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'. The Corporation is a State Transport undertaking of the Government of Kerala, constituted as per the provisions of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950. It caters the need of the travelling public. Many important routes were nationalised and through the nationalised routes, only the Corporation is entitled to ply the buses.3. With the increase in number of vehicles, it is a well-known fact that there has been an increase in the road accidents. The Motor Vehicles Act creates a separate Tribunal for the rederssal of the grievances of the persons who are injured in such accidents and the legal representatives of the person who...
Vijayan Pillai Vs. E.S.i. Corporation
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-13-1998
Reported in: [1998(79)FLR969]; (1998)ILLJ1190Ker
Labour and Industrial - jurisdiction - Sections 2 (12), 75 and 77 of Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 and Employees' State Insurance (Amendment) Act, 1989 - where 20 or more persons employed in factory or establishment - factory becomes insurable unit and all employees shall be insured in view of Section 38 - no liability to pay contribution in respect of persons employed in case number of persons employed is less than 20 - jurisdiction of E.S.I. Corporation to demand contribution from factory or establishment depends on determination of total number of persons employed in unit....
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Annamma Abraham and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-09-1998
Reported in: 1998ACJ1131; [1998]92CompCas556(Ker)
Ar. Lakshmanan, J.1. Heard both sides. The appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alleppey, dated October 25, 1989, in O. P. (MV) No. 192 of 1985, on its file. The insurance company is the appellant. There is no dispute with regard to the accident which occurred and the insurance policy taken. Before the Tribunal it was argued by the insurance company that their liability is clear from the policy terms and that the limits of liability has been clearly mentioned in the policy itself that is such amount as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Therefore, it was argued that the liability of the insurance company in respect of third party personal injury is limited to statutory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Further, in respect of third party damage where an enhanced limit was agreed to in the contract of insurance, i.e., Rs. 50,000 as against the statutory requirement of Rs. 6,000. The enhanced limit was a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »