Kerala Court December 2002 Judgments
Jose Vs. Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-12-2002
Reported in: II(2003)ACC506; 2003(1)KLT754
M. Ramachandran, J. 1. This batch of Writ Petitions could be jointly disposed of especially taking note of the stand taken by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, the Tariff Advisory Committee (General Insurance) and the four Insurance Companies in the public sector, viz., New India Assurance Company Limited, National Insurance Company Limited, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and the United India Insurance Company Limited. O.P. No. 31646 of 2002 is taken as the leading case, since pleadings are complete. The parties above referred to are respectively respondents 1 to 6 in the said Writ Petition. The counsel representing the petitioners in the other Original Petitions were also heard and the positions explained were acceptable to them. Apparently this is because the 1st and 2nd respondents had risen to the occasion, understanding the appreciating the grievances that were voiced in the batch of cases, and bound by the edicts issued by them, the insurers were disabled to...
Tag this Judgment!Subhash Vs. Labour Court
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-12-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT1029
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioner, an abkari contractor, is one of the respondents in a claim case filedby the abkari workers before the Labour Court claiming arrears of wages. The otherrespondents who are also abkari contractors do not appear to have filed any OriginalPetition challenging Ext.P2 common order of the Labour Court, Kollam, decliningpermission to a lawyer to represent them in the proceedings before the Labour Courton account of objections raised by the workers under Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner's case is that the lawyer who sought to represent the petitioner and other abkari contractors, namely, Sri. Nalinakshan, is 'an officer of the association of abkari contractors and is eligible to represent them by virtue of Section 36(2)(c) of the I.D. Act.' A copy of the resolution (not a certified copy) electing the said advocate as Secretary of the Abkari Contractors Association was rejected by the Labour Court as sufficient proof to est...
Tag this Judgment!Radhakrishnan Nair Vs. Chathunni
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-11-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT180
R. Bhaskaran, J. 1. This second appeal is filed by the plaintiff in a suit, for damages on account of a defamatory statement by the first defendant and published by defendants 2 to 4. The trial court decreed the suit for payment of Rs. 5001/- with costs. The lower appellate court reversed the judgment and decree and dismissed the suit.2. The plaintiff's case is as follows:The plaintiff was working as Lay Secretary in the Medical College Hospital, Calicut from 1.7.76 to 15.1.1983. Thereafter he was transferred to Tirur Government Hospital as Lay Secretary and Treasurer. On 5.1.1984 a statement by the first defendant came prominently in the daily published by defendants 2 to 4. Anybody who read this news item would get the impression that the plaintiff is guilty of large scale misappropriation of Government money in connection with the purchase of goods for the hospital. The plaintiff is a person who is leading an honest life and the news item has tarnished his image in the eyes of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Vasudevan Vs. Manoharan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-11-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT325
R. Bhaskaran, J.1. This second appeal is by the plaintiff in a suit for redemption and recovery of possession. There are three items in the plaint schedule; of which items 1 and 3 are stake nets and item 2 is an immovable property having an extent of 23 cents. According to the plaintiff, items 1 and 2 were mortgaged by the plaintiff to Ayyappan and Narayanan on 29.5.1954 and they were directed to redeem a prior mortgage. They redeemed the prior mortgage. The further case of the plaintiff is that since the income from items 1 and 2 was insufficient for meeting the interest on mortgage item 3 was also put in possession of the mortgagee.2. Subsequently the mortgagees assigned their mortgage right to the 1st defendant on 7.4.1964 by Ext. B1 document. Plaintiff sold his right over item 2 to the 2nd defendant.3. The 1st defendant contended that the suit was barred by limitation. The trial court as well as the 1st appellate court accepted the said contention and dismissed the suit. The only q...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gouri
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-11-2002
Reported in: 2003ACJ1183; 2003(1)KLT259
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. The insurer has come up with this appeal contending that, in terms of the admitted insurance policy, the liability is limited. In spite of that, the tribunal has awarded the amount as if the policy did not have any such limitation clause.2. It is true that the policy in question was one issued under Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, covering a period from 10.11.1988 to 9.11.1989. During the currency of the policy, that Act was repealed and a new Act, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was enforced with effect from 1.7.1989. From that day onwards, in terms of Section 147 of that Act, the policy cannot have any limitation as was there in terms of Section 95 of 1939 Act. If the new Section is applied, the insurer will not get the benefit.3. The accident occurred on 10.9.1999, after enforcement of the new Act. The proviso to Section 147(2) reads as follows:'Provided that any policy of insurance issued with any limited liability and in force, immediately before ...
Tag this Judgment!Joseph Varghese Vs. B.D.O. Ranni
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-11-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT321
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The petitioner is the present President of the third respondent Grama Panchayat. He is facing a No Confidence Motion. The notice regarding the intention to move the No Confidence Motion has been served on the authorised officer by the required number of Members of the Panchayat. Therefore, the said Officer has issued Ext. P1 notice dated 3.12.2002 proposing to convene the meeting. The said notice was despatched on 4.12.2002. It was received by the members on 7.12.2002. The meeting to consider the motion is scheduled to be held on 12.12.2002. The petitioner submits that there is only five clear days between the date of receipt of the notice and the date of meeting. Therefore, according to him, the meeting is convened in violation of Section 157(4) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. The said Section reads as follows:'157(4) The Officer referred to in Sub-section (2) shall send by registered post to the elected members of the Panchayat concerned notice of not less...
Tag this Judgment!Vijayan Vs. Sanalkumar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-11-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT980
ORDERR. Rajendra Babu, J.1. The revision petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 3 in C.C.No.440/99 pending before the C.J.M. Court, Kollam. They filed Crl. M.P. 6622/01 for dropping the proceedings as against them claiming protection under Section 197(1) Cr.P.C. The above Crl.M.P. was dismissed by the court below. Aggrieved by the above order, petitioners have come up in revision challenging the above order and praying for an order dropping the proceedings pending against them.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the 1st respondent complainant and also the learned Public Prosecutor.3. The 1st petitioner was the Circle Inspector and the 2nd petitioner was the Sub Inspector of Police, Chavara Police Station during the relevant period. The 1st respondent herein filed a private complaint against the petitioners and four other police officials alleging the commission of different offences including offences under Sections 307 and 305 read with Section 34 IPC. The case of the 1st re...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Ramakrishnan Vs. Gopalan Nair and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-11-2002
Reported in: II(2003)BC700; 2003(3)KLT335
ORDERN. Krishnan Nair, J. 1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 4.10.2002 of the Sessions Judge, Palakkad in Crl.R.P. 131/01 confirming the order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pattambi in Crl.M.P. No. 4886/99 in C.C. No. 92/99. The case arose on a complaint filed by the 1st respondent herein against the petitioner alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner who is the accused in the case moved an application before the Magistrate to return the complaint on the ground that there is non-compliance of Rule 24 of the Crl. Rules of Practice. The learned Magistrate dismissed the application mainly on the ground that the object of the petition is to delay the proceedings. Aggrieved by the order of the petitioner preferred Crl.R.P. 131/01 before the Sessions Judge, Palakkad and the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order dismissed the revision confirming the...
Tag this Judgment!E.M. Purushothaman Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-11-2002
Reported in: [2004]134STC326(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The matter arises under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short, 'the Act'). Assessee to sales tax under the Act is the revision-petitioner. He is aggrieved by the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam, in T.A. No. 1074 of 1992. The assessment year concerned is 1988-89. The assessee is a dealer in woollen carpets. For the assessment year 1988-89 he filed a return disclosing a total and non-taxable turnover of Rs. 40,884.69. The assessing authority found certain defects in the return. The assessee had produced a photocopy of a letter from the Manager, Canara Bank, Sasthamangalam Branch which showed that the assessee had purchased carpets to the tune of Rs. 3,05,000 in an auction sale of pledged/hypothecated goods of M/s. Home Makers, Thiruvananthapuram, conducted by the said bank. The assessing authority on that basis had taken the view that in the absence of production of a declaration under Rule 32(13) of the Kerala General...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaskaran Vs. R.T.A.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-10-2002
Reported in: I(2003)ACC549; 2003(1)KLT106
M. Ramachandran, J.1. The brief facts of the case are as following: The second respondent is the registered owner of a stage carriage bearing registration No. KLY 9250 covered by a regular permit on the route Thykattussery, Cherthala that is valid up to 7.1.2003. The said vehicle had defaulted service and finding the vacancy the petitioner had made an application in respect of his stage carriage No. KL-04/L.5524. Ext. PI is the permit so granted as a substituted service. It is issued for four months and is valid up to 21.2.2003. 2. While the petitioner was so conducting service on the strength of Ext. PI, a copy of the order dated 20.11.2002 issued by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Alappuzha (Ext. P2) had been served on him. This showed that a temporary permit was granted for four months in respect of state carriage No. KL-04/J. 8929 in the place of KLY 9250 in favour of the registered owner of vehicle No. KLY 9250 (2nd respondent). Reference is made to Ext. P1 proceeding...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »