Kerala Court November 1998 Judgments
United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. P.N. Thomas and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-27-1998
Reported in: 2000ACJ536
Mohammed, J.1. This batch of Civil Revision Petitions are coming before us on a reference made by the learned single Judge as per order dated 18-9-1998. According to the learned Judge, a considered opinion of a Division Bench is required in this case in view of the nature of the questions involved. The main question that arises for decision is whether the suits claiming damages filed before the Court below are maintainable on the facts of these cases.2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended before the learned single Judge that after the decision of the Supreme Court in Shivaji Dayanu Patil v. Vatschala Uttam More, (1991) 3 SCC 530 : (AIR 1991 SC 1769) it was no longer res integra that compensation for any accident occurring as a result of the use of a motor vehicle was to be claimed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal as per Section 165 read with Section 175 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). What was pleaded before the learn...
Tag this Judgment!Kurikattil Rubber Industries and ors. Vs. Kerala State Electricity Boa ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-27-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Ker254
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Petitioners are aggrieved by the demand made by the Kerala State Electricity Board, hereinafter called the 'Board', for payment of additional security deposit as per Regulation 14(d) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy.2. Petitioners include LT commercial consumers and domestic consumers. Board has demanded security deposit equal to three months' probable current charge of the consumer, computed by the Assistant Engineer or Assistant Executive Engineer. In the case of EHT and HT consumers, the amount of security deposit demanded by the Board is equal to the months' probable current charge of the consumer, as decided by the Chief Engineer and Deputy Chief Engineer. In the case of EHT consumers the security deposit shall be either by cash, D.D. or bank guarantee. Security deposit in respect of other categories of consumers is either by cash or demand draft.3. Counsel for the petitioners contended that the classification made between LT consumers...
Tag this Judgment!South Malabar GramIn Bank Vs. Co-ordination Committee of S.M.G.B. Empl ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-1998
Reported in: (1999)ILLJ1280Ker
Ar. Lakshmanan, J.1. Heard Mr. T.R.G. Wariyar for appellant, Mr. P.O. Parameswara Panicker for respondents 1 to 3 Mr. Benny Gervacis for respondent No. 4 and Mr. Alexander Thomas, Government Pleader for respondent No. 5 in W.A. 1547/1998. Heard Mr. Benny Gervacis for appellant, Mr. P.G. Parameswara Panicker for respondents 1 to 3, Mr.T.R.G. Wariyar for respondent No. 4 and Mr. Alexander Thomas, Government Pleader for respondent No. 5 in W.A. 1553/1998.2. Writ Appeals were filed by the South Malabar Gramin Bank and the Union of India against the judgment in O.P. 1871/1997 whereby the appellant bank was directed to extend the benefits of the VI Bipartite Settlement to the employees of the Bank within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. The Original petition was filed by the Co-ordination Committee of South Malabar Gramin Bank Employees' Union and South Malabar Gramin Bank Officers' Federation and two others. They preferred the same for a declaration...
Tag this Judgment!Vallikadan Assainar Vs. P.K. Moideenkutty and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-24-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ4228
ORDERP.V. Narayanan Nambiar, J.1. The order in C.M.P. No. 14 of 1997 of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tirur purportedly made under Section 138(2), Cr.P.C. is challenged by the counter petitioner therein. As per the impugned order, the factory of the counter petitioner was ordered to be closed down within five days from the date of receipt of the order till a whole proof scientific effluent treatment system is established and functioned properly and it is got certified by the Senior Environmental Engineer of the Kerala State Pollution Control Board, Thiruvananthapuram and also obtaining the required licence from the Grama Panchayat and other concerned authorities, if any, after satisfying all the pre-requisite conditions for functioning the leather unit.'2. The leather factory of the revision petitioner is situated in his property measuring 1.90 acres. According to him, business is being conducted there for more than 60 years. The Thirunavaya Grama Panchayat has issued a licence for th...
Tag this Judgment!Abraham Chacko and Co. anr. Vs. Kalleppuram Metals and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-24-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)ALT(Cri)137; 1999CriLJ2478
ORDERD. Sreedevi, J. 1. This Crl. M.C. is filed praying to quash Annexure-I complaint in C.C.No. 638 of 1996 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam and to direct the respondent to accept the demand-drafts Annexures-IV and V and to compound the offence and settle the case and also to stay the proceedings in C.C.No. 638 of 1996 mentioned above.2. The second petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. Abraham Chacko and Company and represents the first petitioner. The first respondent filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, alleging offence punishable Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioners. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence and registered the case as C.C.No. 638 of 1996. Annexure-I is the copy of the complaint. The allegation in the complaint is that on 1 -8-1995 the second petitioner came to the first respondent's office at Ernakulam and purchased materials and delivered cheque No. 738948 d...
Tag this Judgment!T.K. Chandran Vs. Dakshina Bharatha Hindi Prachar Sabha and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-23-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Ker158
ORDERC.S. Rajan, J.1. The petitioner was the Managing Trustee of the first respondent. He was removed from the office of the Managing Trustee as per Exhibit P-7. It is Exhibit P-7 that is under challenge in this is Original Petition.2. Sri Jacob Varghese, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has taken the preliminary objection that the first respondent is neither a State nor an instrumentality of the State as understood in Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore, is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.3. According to the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, the first respondent is a society registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act. Therefore, according to the respondents, the character of the first respondent is only that of a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The learned counsel also relied on the following decisio...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Khader Vs. Sub-inspector of Police and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-23-1998
Reported in: [1999]240ITR489(Ker)
P. Shanmugam, J. 1. The original petition is filed praying for an order to declare that the warrant issued under Section 132A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Commissioner of Income-tax and the seizure of the gold from the first respondent is without jurisdiction and for a further direction to the fourth respondent--Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thiru-vananthapuram, to pass an appropriate direction or order directing the third respondent to return the gold seized referred to in exhibit P-4 communication of the Commissioner of Income-tax.2. The petitioner is a resident of Kallachi, Kozhikode District. He returned from a Gulf country along with his friend one Shri V. Ahmed, who was carrying 5,597 grams of gold. The said Ahmed paid the duty for the gold before the Customs Department and thereupon entrusted the gold to the petitioner to be kept in his custody. While the petitioner was carrying the said gold, the security police on duty arrested him and seized the gold under ...
Tag this Judgment!Sea Pearl Industries Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-20-1998
Reported in: [1999]240ITR417(Ker)
Om Prakash, C.J.1. By this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee requires us to direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the following questions relating to the assessment year 1986-87 for the opinion of this court :'(i) The Tribunal having admitted the contract between the assessee and the export house should not have the Tribunal held categorically that the assessee is the exporter entitled to deduction under Section 80HHC ? (ii) The Tribunal is correct in their finding that the assessee having done the physical export and also having done anything and everything connected therewith and having brought into and received in India convertible foreign exchange they are not entitled to deduction under Section 80HHC unless they also file disclaimer from the export house ?(iii) The Tribunal is correct in their finding that the entitlement of deduction under Section 80HHC depends upon the terms of the contract alone between the assessee and the e...
Tag this Judgment!Muraleedharan Nair Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-20-1998
Reported in: (1999)ILLJ978Ker
Ar. Lakshmanan, J. 1. By consent of all parties, both the Original Petition and the Writ Appeals were taken up for final disposal. Aggrieved by the order issued by that respondents in the Original Petition removing him from service solely for the reason that he was convicted in a criminal case, against which an appeal is pending and sentence suspended, the petitioner, B. Muraleedharan Nair, preferred the above original petition. The petitioner is the appellant in both the Writ Appeals. The appeals are preferred against interim orders passed by the learned single Judge in O.P. 16834 of 1997 filed by on Mr. K. Mohanan, who is the first respondent in both the Writ Appeals.2. While working as Sub Inspector of Police, Mannar Police Station, a private, complaint was filed against the petitioner before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chengannur alleging offences punishable under Sections 341, 324 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was numbered as CC 91 of 1992 . The learned...
Tag this Judgment!Parappuram Milk Producers Co-operative Society Vs. Deputy Directory, D ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-19-1998
Reported in: (1999)ILLJ1199Ker
J.B. Koshy, J.1. The appellant who is the President of a Milk Producers 'Co-operative Society challenges Ext. P7 order of the Deputy Director of Dairy Development, Ernakulam passed by him exercising his powers as Joint Registrar under Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules)' The society initiated disciplinary action against the second respondent employee of the society (hereinafter referred to as 'the employee'). Ext.P1 is the charge sheet issued against her. In pursuance of the charges, a domestic enquiry was conducted. Employee remained exparte. She filed an application for adjournment as correctness of her suspension pending enquiry is the subject-matter of a writ petition before this Court. Her suspension was rescinded by the Joint Registrar under Rule 176 of the Rules and the society has challenged the same before the Court. Her adjournment application was rejected and an enquiry was conducted exparte, Since the misconducts...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »