Kerala Court February 2002 Judgments
Aliyarkunju Shajahan Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-28-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1981
ORDERM.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. The challenge in the revision is with regard to the legality, propriety and correctness of the Judgment of the Sessions Court, Kollam confirming the conviction entered against the appellant, who was the conductor of a bus, for the offence under Section 304-A of the I.P.C. and imposing sentence of R.I. for six months therefor. Earlier the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kottarakkara, which tried the case, had convicted the accused and imposed a sentence of R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 304-A, I.P.C.2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner there is no evidence available in the case to find the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 304-A. Counsel submits that the evidence available in the case is only to the effect that the bus was stopped in a place where a heap of metal had been placed only 80 cms. away from the door of the bus and that the deceased, who was the wife of P.W. 2, had already alighted from the ...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Narayanan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-27-2002
Reported in: I(2003)ACC311; 2003(1)KLT1
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. This appeal was preferred by the Insurance Company against the award passed by the M.A.C. Tribunal, Kasargode in O.P. (M.V.) No. 166 of 1996.2. Claim petition was preferred by respondents 1 and 2 herein claimingcompensation of Rs. 2 lakhs for the injuries sustained by the first respondent.Compensation was claimed against the driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle. Driverand the insurer entered appearance and resisted the petition. Owner remained exparte.After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal awarded asum of Rs. 53,500/- with 11% interest. Aggrieved by the same Insurance Companyhas preferred this appeal.3. Counsel for the Insurance Company placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Govindankutty Nair v. Gopalakrishnan (2060 (1) KLT 224) and contended that in the instant case since the driver was not having a licence to drive autorickshaw the Insurance Company be exonerated from the liability. He also placed reliance on t...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Jalal Vs. Mariya Financiers
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-26-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Ker276
S. Sankarasubban, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the petitioner in E.A. No. 814 of 1997 in E.P. No. 447 of 1997 in O.S. No. 305 of 1994 of the Sub Court, Thrissur. The appellant filed the claim petition under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to the appellant, 1 cent of land in Sy. No. 1258/2 of Thrissur Village and the shop room thereon belong to the appellant. The appellant purchased the said property situated in Thrissur town and described in B schedule to the claim petition, E.A. No. 814 of 1997, as per sale deed No. 4653 of 1994 of Thrissur Sub Registry Office from one Rafi. The said Rafi had purchased the property as per sale deed No. 1688/1994 from one Beena, the second respondent in the appeal. 2. On 26.6.1997, the petitioner came to know that two cents of land and the shop rooms of which the appellant's land and the shop room form part, had been attached in the suit, O.S. No. 305 of 1994 on 11.3,1994. Ext. A2 sale deed was executed in favour of Rafi...
Tag this Judgment!Unnikrishna Pillai R. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-25-2002
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR299]; (2002)IILLJ493Ker
Kurian Joseph, J. 1. Ext. P1 award passed by the Labour Court is under challenge. The issue referred for adjudication is as follows: 'Whether the action of the Management of Base Vitualling Yard, Southern Naval Command, Naval Base, Cochin - 682 004 in terminating the services of Shri. R. Unnikrishna Pillai w.e.f. February 1, 1989 and in re-engaging his juniors is justified If not, what relief he is entitled to and from what date?' In the view I propose to take in the matter it is not necessary for me to go into the variousdetails of the case, though there is a vehement argument on the part of the learned Central Government Standing Counsel Sri. Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil that the workman was only casually engaged on (sic) rate of pay. 2. The Labour Court has found as follows: 'Even though there is no violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act is the management bound to observe provisions contained in Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. But our High Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Divedi Vs. Prabha Divedi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-23-2002
Reported in: II(2002)DMC773
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. It appears that the appellant secured an ex parte decree divorcing his first wife on 6.7.1990, though the wife says that she never had notice of the said decree or the proceedings commenced by her husband. What the appellant did was to undergo a marriage with another lady on 25.5.1993 presumably on the strength of the ex parte decree secured by him. But his good days with the newly married wife did not last long as the first wife succeeded in getting the ex parte decree set aside on 31.3.1994. The fact remains that there is no decree of divorce as between the appellant and his first wife ever since 31.3.1994.3. The first wife filed complaint against the appellant on 28.3.1995 alleging that the appellant has committed the offence under Section 494 of the I.P.C. On receiving the process issued by the Criminal Court the appellant moved the High Court of Allahabad for quashing the criminal proceedings. The main plank adopted by the appellant is that on the date whe...
Tag this Judgment!Dharmarajan Vs. State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-21-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2571
ORDERT.M. Hassan Pillai, J. 1. Admitted. Public Prosecutor takes notice. Heard.2. Challenge is made in this revision against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam in M.P. 95 of 2002 in S.C. 241 of 2000 on the file of that court. Crl.M.P. has been filed seeking permission of the Court to use the statement of PW1 alleged to be recorded by A.S.I, of Police one P.K. Balakrishnan 'on 27.2.1996 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. for contradicting PW1 under Section 162 Cr.P.C. in the manner provided by Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972'.3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that 'the purported statement, the copy of which is produced by the defence along with the petition in question, is not produced along with the records contained under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and supplied to the defence'. Learned Sessions Judge further held that it is not a statement relied on by the prosecution and declined to allow the prayer made in the Crl. M.P. on the ground that no...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kunhirama Poduval
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-20-2002
Reported in: 2002ACJ1492
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. MFA 1307 and 1034 of 1993 were filed by the Union of India represented by Southern Railway against the order in O.P. (M.V.) 122 and 123 of 1991 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kasargod. MFA 633 and 634 of 1992 were preferred by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. against the award in O.P. 122 and 123 of 1991 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kasaragod. O.P. 122/91 was preferred by the legal heirs of deceased Mohammed Kunhi who died in a road traffic incident which took place on 25.5.88 at Udinoor. The accident occurred when the deceased was travelling in an autorikshaw No. KLC. 5179 from Karivallur to Udinoor. While the autorikshaw was crossing the level crossing No.L.C.267 on Nadakkavu Echakai Road, a Rail way Engine No. WDM2/18598 came from Trikkarpur and proceeding towards Chervathur hit on the autorikshaw and killed the passengers in the autorikshaw. The deceased was a passenger in the autorikshaw. Claimants are his legal heirs. Claimants in O.P. (MV...
Tag this Judgment!Leela Bai Vs. Sebastian
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-18-2002
Reported in: II(2002)ACC386; 2003ACJ588
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. Both these appeals are filed against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 102 of 1988 of the Additional Sub Court, Alppuzha. While A.S. No. 395 of 1994 is filed by the first defendant, the other appeal, A.S. No. 694 of 1994 is filed by the second defendant. The suit was filed for compensation by the husband of one Elsamma on his behalf and on behalf of the minor daughter.2. According to the plaintiffs, Elsamma was admitted in the Women & Children Hospital, Alppuzha at 2 P.M. on 22.4.1985 for delivery. At about 8.20 P.M. she gave birth to the second plaintiff. In the night by about 9.30 she started bleeding. The duty Doctor removed the patient to the operation theatre for an emergency operation. The first defendant was the Doctor-in-charge of the hospital on that day. The first respondent was called. She came to the hospital late. Thereafter, it was decided to refer her to the Medical College Hospital, Alppuzha. There she was admitted at 2 P.M. After the operation ...
Tag this Judgment!Kizhakke Kovilakam Trust Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-15-2002
Reported in: [2002]256ITR238(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J. 1. This appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the order dated November 23, 1998, in I. T. A. No. 165 of 1997 on the files of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench. The relevant assessment year is 1988-89. The facts of the case are as follows : Kizhakke Kovilakam Trust is a trust created under an interim award of the arbitrator appointed in a partition suit, O. S. No. 70 of 1051 on the file of the Sub-court, Ottapalam. That was a suit filed by some members of the Kizhakke Kovilakam branch of the royal family of the Zamorin of Calicut for partition of the properties of their branch. An arbitrator was appointed for settling all disputes between the parties. The assets of the Kovilakam included seven temples and one High School called Raja's High School. The members of the Kovilakam decided to preserve the same. The members of the Kovilakam had unanimously taken a decision to preserve the seven temples and the High School by ...
Tag this Judgment!Escotal Mobile Communications Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-15-2002
Reported in: [2002]126STC475(Ker); 2006[2]STR567
B.N. Srikrishna, C.J. 1. These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugn the levy of service tax on the taxable service provided by cellular telephone service providers.O.P. No. 4973 of 2001 :2. Petitioner is engaged in cellular telephone business within the State of Kerala. Apart from providing cellular telephone services to its subscribers, it is also engaged in selling cellular telephone instruments, subscriber identification module (SIM) cards and other accessories. The petitioner purchases the cellular telephones, SIM cards and other accessories from States outside Kerala by paying Central sales tax. For selling the products within the State of Kerala, it pays 12 per cent sales tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KGST Act'). According to the petitioner, the sale of the instrument and the SIM card to its customers is only a 'sale pure and simple' exigible to sales tax under the KGST Act. One peculiar service i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »