Kerala Court January 2002 Judgments
Abdul Azeez Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-04-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Ker188
K.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.1. In this O.P., the challenge is against Ext. P10 order passed by the secondrespondent refusing to refund Rs. 8103/- with interest.2. Petitioner is the owner of a small-scale industrial unit engaged in the manufacture of ice blocks. The unit was established in 1992 and the commercialproduction started from 3.9.1992. He was entitled to electrical energy tariff as perExt. P1 order passed by the first respondent, Electricity Board. Since there was acute shortage of electrical energy, the first respondent issued Ext. P3 notice dated25.3.1997, introducing 50% power cut to industrial consumers using 10 Kw of powerand above with effect from 18.3.1997 and accordingly fixed the monthly quota of thepetitioner from March 1997 at 12,625 (P) plus 126 (L) Kw with penal consequences.3. Subsequently Ext. P6 notice dated 17.6.97 was issued by the first respondentto the petitioner introducing 75% power cut to industrial consumers using 10 Kw ofpower and above with effect from 17.6...
Tag this Judgment!Eliamma Simon Vs. Seven Seas Transportation Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-04-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Ker219
K.K. Denesan, J. 1. Widow and minor child of one Mr. Simon Joseph who was employed by the firstdefendant as a sea-man filed O.S. No. 68 of 1986 in the Sub Court, Kochi claimingcompensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- from defendant 1 to 3 on the allegation that SimonJoseph was missing from the vessel 'm.v. Satya Kailash' owing to the wanton actsand gross negligence of the first defendant and its employees. 2. The first defendant denied liability to pay the compensation claimed by theplaintiffs. In the written statement it is contended, inter alia, that the suit is barred bylimitation. 3. The Court below found merit in the contentions of the defendants and dismissedthe suit. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs have come up in appeal. 4. According to the plaint averments, the facts that Simon Joseph was foundmissing from 25.5.1974 was communicated by the first respondent to the fourthrespondent - father of Simon Joseph - by letter dated 22.6.1974. This is the lastinformation about Simon Joseph and since he ...
Tag this Judgment!Abraham Vs. Joseph
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-03-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Ker1
P.R. Raman, J.1. Petitioner in both these civil revision petitions is the third defendant in O.S. 806 of 1987 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Kottayam, filed by the first respondent in these revision petitions as plaintiff.2. The suit is one for a petitioner and mandatory injunction against the defendants for the purpose of the construction of retension wall on the southern side of the property. The first defendant is the father of the revision petitioner herein and the second defendant is his wife. The suit was eventually decreed against which an appeal was preferred by the second respondent herein as A.S. 246 of 1993 and the petitioner herein was the second respondent in that appeal. Petitioner herein was declared ex parte in the said appeal. He filed an application as I.A. 1269/1999 for setting aside the ex parte order. That was filed on 6.12.1999. In para 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is averred that the appellant had actually no right over the propert...
Tag this Judgment!Nirmithi Kendra Employees Organisation Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-02-2002
Reported in: (2002)IIILLJ801Ker
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. The petitioner is an organisation of workers of Nirmithi Kendra. The petitioner has total misconception about the Writ Petition. This Original Petition is the result of such misconception of a trade union. Exts. P3, P5 and P7 are under challenge. Petitioner union seeks a direction to the respondents to deposit their money in Special Treasury Savings Bank Account. I am unable to conceive how a trade union can seek such a direction. Where an amount in the hands of a body is to be deposited is a matter for that body to decide. If it is a Government sector organisation, it shall be governed by Government Orders. The petitioner cannot be stated to be aggrieved with respect to the deposits of a Government organisation. Admittedly Nirmithi Kendra is a Government sponsored agency. Ext. P3 is a communication from the Government to that agency to ascertain whether that agency had deposited the fund available with that agency in the treasury. Ext. P4 is another communicat...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›