Kerala Court July 2001 Judgments
Mohammed Vs. CochIn Port Trust
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-06-2001
Reported in: 2002ACJ1039
R. Rajendra Babu, J. 1. The appellant, a workman of the respondent, sustained injuries in an accident out of and in the course of his employment on 20.5.1986. He was under treatment from 20.5.1986 till 31.12.1987. The Chief Medical Officer of the Cochin Port Trust assessed the partial permanent disability at 20%. The compensation was fixed for the partial permanent disablement at Rs. 12,833/-. The above amount was not paid as an amount of Rs. 17,356/- was paid towards the hospital leave salary during the period of treatment, relying on R. 39 of the Cochin Port Trust Employees Leave Regulation. Aggrieved by the above, the appellant filed an application before the Workmen's Compensation Court, Ernakulam under S. 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The above application was taken to file as WCC No. 59/88. The Workmen's Compensation Court accepted the contention of the employer that an amount of Rs. 17,356/- was paid towards hospital leave salary, though he was eligible for an amount of ...
Tag this Judgment!Unnikrishnan Vs. Divisional Inspector of Police
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-05-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4558
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Main question urged in these Original Petitions is whether powers of the ordinary criminal court are barred by detailed provisions contained in Part XII of the Mercantile Shipping Act.2. On 21.7.1990, at about 0050 hours, a fire was noticed in and around the Cochin Oil Terminal area. At the time of the unfortunate incident, two boats, belonging to a contractor engaged by the Cochin Port Trust for the use of the staff, were lying along the Cochin Oil Terminal at the rear side. On seeing the fire, employees of the boats untied the same and started the engines and tried to get away from the place of incident. But, they were not able to escape. The boats were completely burnt. Four men who were inside the boats also lost their lives in the incident. An FIR was filed by the police immediately, reporting the incident, before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam. Thereafter, by notification dated 8.1.1992, Government of India published notificatio...
Tag this Judgment!E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Purushothaman
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-03-2001
Reported in: 2002ACJ678; [2001(91)FLR148]; (2001)IILLJ988Ker
V.P. Mohankumar, J.1. The E.S.I. Corporation has filed this appeal. The only question is whether the employee sustained injuries int eh course of employment, who claim it be an employment injury and claim compensation. The applicant, on 3.9.1994 was travelling in the bus belonging to the employer after work hour and suffered an injury causing a temporary disablement from 4.9.1994 to 4.2.1995. Thereupon an application under S. 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act was made by the employee to claim compensation for employment injury. The contention of the ?Corporation was that the injury sustained by the worker is not an employment injury, in that he did not satisfy the requirement of S. 2(8) of the Act, ie., suffering of the injury caused out of and in the course of employment and, therefore, they are not liable to pay compensation for the injury sustained. Overruling the objections, the Employees Insurance Court passed the impugned award, which is challenged in the appeal.2. We have ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Sudhakaran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-03-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALT(Cri)82; 2001CriLJ3658
ORDERR. Rajendra Babu, J. 1. This revision is at the instance of the State challenging the order of the 1st Additional Sessions Court, Trivandrum dt. 20.11.1998 in Crl.M.C. 2081/97. An important question of law that has come up for consideration was whether S. 341 Cr.P.C. would contemplate an appeal at the instance of a person who has not filed any application to make a complaint under S. 340 Cr.P.C. and the court has dropped the proceedings initiated suo motu.2. The facts of the case briefly are as follows: On 12.4.95 Sri. E.P. Jayarajan, a sitting M.L.A. sustained injuries due to gunshot while he was travelling in Rajadhani Express from Delhi to Trivandrum. The Chirala Railway Police in Prakasam District of Andhra Pradesh registered Crime 14/95 for an offence under S. 307 IPC. The respondent herein Sri. K. Sudhakaran, another sitting M.L.A., was the 3rd accused in the above crime. The respondent filed Crl. Petition No. 3509/95 before the Andhra Pradesh High Court under S. 438 Cr.P.C....
Tag this Judgment!Mohandas Vs. Jayarajan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-03-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)ALT(Cri)213; 2001CriLJ3853
ORDERR. Rajendra Babu, J.1. Jayaran, the first respondent herein, filed the complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IV, Kozhikode alleging the commission of offences under Ss. 417 and 420 read with S. 34 IPC by the revision petitioners/accused. The court below took cognizance of the above offences, issued summons to the accused, the revision petitiones and they had entered appearance. On the side of the complainant PWs. 1 to 3 were examined. When the case reached the stage of framing charge, the revision petitioners (accused) filed CMP No. 3193/2000 under S. 182 Cr.P.C. raising a contention that the court below had no jurisdiction to try the above offence. After hearing both sides, the court below found that the court had jurisdiction to try the offence and accordingly the above CMP was dismissed. The above order is under challenge in this revision at the instance of the accused.2. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the r...
Tag this Judgment!Kuttappan Vs. C.K. Keshavan and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-03-2001
Reported in: [2001(90)FLR1139]; (2001)IILLJ1136Ker
V.P. Mohan Kumar, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner in W.C.C. No. 96/92. The applicant claims to be a headload worker of the first contesting respondent at the time of accident on October 18, 1991. The applicant carried a jar of acid on his head for the purpose of preparing rubber sheets as per the direction of the first respondent and was proceeding to the house of the first respondent. While so, the bottom of the jar gave way and the acid flowed on his head, shoulders and all over the body. He suffered burnt injury. The jar was broken, according to the worker, because the acid was kept in a very low quality jar owned by the first respondent. Immediately after the accident, the applicant was taken to various hospitals and treated. At the time of accident, he alleged that he was paid a monthly wages of Rs. 1,200/-. He claimed compensation accordingly.2. The respondents appeared before the Court and filed written statements...
Tag this Judgment!Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Purushothaman
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-03-2001
Reported in: III(2002)ACC414
V.P. Mohankumar, J.1. The E.S.I. Corporation has filed this appeal. The only question is whether the employee sustained injuries in the course of employment, who claims it to be an employment injury and claims compensation. The applicant, on 3.9.1994 was travelling in the bus belonging to the employer after work hour and suffered an injury causing a temporary disablement from 4.9.1994 to 4.2.1995. Thereupon an application under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act was made by the employee to claim compensation for employment injury. The contention of the Corporation was that the injury sustained by the worker is not an employment injury, in that he did not satisfy the requirement of Section 2(8) of the Act, i.e., suffering of the injury caused out of and in the course of employment and, therefore, they are not liable to pay compensation for the injury sustained. Overruling the objections, the Employees' Insurance Court passed the impugned award, which is challenged in the a...
Tag this Judgment!Action Council Vs. Benny Abraham
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-02-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Ker65
Kurian Joseph, J.1. The history of the case unfolds the pathetic plight of a young enterprising entrepreneur who has been languishing for half a decade, hoping to get a licence from the Panchayat for setting up an industrial unit. What is the scope-rather limitation of the power vested in a Panchayat/its President in the matter of granting permission and issuing licence to set up and conduct an industry? Once that is clearly understood by all, the petitioner and many other unfortunate entrepreneurs can smoothly get through the initial hurdles in their venture.2. Under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and the Rules framed thereunder it is the Panchayat which has to issue a licence for setting up an industrial unit. Certain guidelines are also prescribed in the matter. It is profitable to refer to S. 232 and sub-s. (1) of S. 233 of the Act which read as follows:'232. Purpose for which places may not be used without a licence.-(1) The village panchayat may notify that no place in the Pa...
Tag this Judgment!Vattaparambil Aboobacker and ors. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-02-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4453
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J.1. Petitioners were accused 1, 3 and 4 in S.T. No. 1444 of 1987, The charges were under Sections 7 and 8 of the Kerala Gaming Act. The prosecution case was that on 13-7-1987 at about 4.34 a.m. the accused were playing cards for unlawful gain in a room of the building owned and possessed by the first accused at Tirur. An amount of Rs. 4,436/-, 44 cards, cigarate packets, beedi packets, cigar lighter etc. were seized from the place as per Exts. P1 and P2 seizure mahazar. There were originally six accused. Two of them admitted the guilt and the present petitioners in the petition were acquitted. According to the prosecution, the accused were playing a game called 'Pullivali' with cards and money for unlawful gain. They were given the benefit of doubt and acquitted. Thereafter, petitioners claim to return the money seized from them. The lower Court found that they are not entitled to return the money under Section 452 of Criminal Procedure Code. Section 452 of the Crimin...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›