Kerala Court November 2005 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hariprasad
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-17-2005
Reported in: 2006ACJ432; AIR2006Ker125; [2006(2)JCR501]; 2005(4)KLT977
ORDERM. Ramachandran, J.1. When the above Miscellaneous First Appeal came up for hearing, a Division Bench, consisting of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.A. Abdul Gafoor and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph, noticed that there is apparently conflicting views expressed by two Division Benches on the question canvassed by the appellant -- the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, namely, whether compensation could be awarded separately on account of permanent disability and also on account of loss of earning capacity. The learned Judges were of the view that since the question is raised most often, an authoritative pronouncement on the issue is required to be made. The question has been referred for consideration of a Full Bench, in the above context.2. Sri. V. Hariprasad, first respondent herein, aged about 18 years, sustained an amputation injury in a motor accident, which had occurred on 13.11.1993, whereby his right hand had been chopped of from the shoulder. Evidently the trauma and loss...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hari Prasad
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-17-2005
Reported in: I(2006)ACC539
M. Ramachandran, J.1. When the above Miscellaneous First Appeal came up for hearing, a Division Bench, consisting of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice, K.A. Abdul Gafoor and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph, noticed that, there is apparently conflicting views expressed by two Division Benches on the question canvassed by the appellant-the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, namely, whether compensation could be awarded separatly on account of permanent disability and also on account of loss of earning capacity. The learned Judges were of the view that since the question is raised most often, an authoritative pronouncement on the issue is required to be made. The question has been referred for consideration of a Full Bench, in the above context.2. Sri V. Hariprasad, first respondent herein, aged about 18 years, sustained an amputation injury in a motor accident, which had occurred on 13.11.1993, whereby his right hand had been chopped of from the shoulder. Evidently, the trauma and loss suffer...
Raghavan Vs. Kelappan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-16-2005
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR499]; 2006(1)KLT1
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Love your beloved ones, give a helping hand to the members of your family dependant on you, a message underlined in Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Legislature recognises human relationship, family bonds and encourages it to promote justice and human relationship. Manifestly with this intention the expressions, 'family' and 'dependant' are left undefined in the statute, giving freedom to interpret those expressions depending upon the fact situation.2. Noticing that the earlier Division Benches had not taken into consideration the variety of circumstances under which a person would fall under the expressions 'family of the landlord' and 'dependant' under Section 11(3) of the Act the mater has been placed before a larger bench for an authoritative pronouncement. The meaning that could be ascribed to those words were guardedly left undefined by the earlier Division Benches in our view rightly.3. The expression 'family' as such h...
Regional Cancer Centre Vs. Gopalan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-16-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Ker103; 2006(1)KLT58
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. The appellants in this appeal are the Regional Cancer Centre, a Research Institute owned by the Government of Kerala and its Director. The question posed in this Writ Appeal is as to the scope of Section 36(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act. 1993. The facts necessary for the disposal of this Writ Appeal are hereunder.2. The original 1st respondent in the Writ Appeal was a cancer patient who complained of violation of human rights. He died during the pendency of this appeal and his son has been impleaded as the additional 10th respondent being a legal heir. The 1st respondent approached the appellants for expert treatment of cancer. He was registered as a patient on, 13-11-1999 and admitted in the cancer centre on 5-1-2000. Before the Human Rights Commission, he alleged that he was recruited for study called NDGA study without his consent or knowledge and that on 13-1-2000, 14-1-2000 and 15-1-2000, certain injections were administered on him and, thereafter, s...
Gracy Vincent Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-16-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT7
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Whether previous intimation claiming exemption from tax under Section 5 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 read with Rule 10 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules is a mandatory requirement for claiming exemption from payment of tax is the question which has been referred for our consideration.2. A Branch of this Court in Vairavan v. Joint Regional Transport Officer, 2001 (2) KLT 564, held that strict adherence to the provisions is warranted for claiming exemption from tax. When this appeal came up for hearing before another Bench, the Bench felt that the matter requires reconsideration by a larger Bench expressing doubt whether it is the content or the form which is more material for seeking exemption from payment of motor vehicles tax.3. The Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 is an Act to consolidate and amend the laws relating to the levy of tax on motor vehicles which are used or kept for use in the State at the rates specified for such purp...
Arayakkamdy Sukumaran and ors. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-16-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ976
J.B. Koshy, J.1. All the four appellants (accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 5 in Sessions Case No. 151 of 1997 on the file of the Sessions Court, Thalassery), were sentenced to death for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. They were also sentenced to undergo (1) rigorous imprisonment for six months each under Section 143 IPC being members of an unlawful assembly; (2) rigorous imprisonment for two years each under Section 147, IPC for rioting; (3) rigorous imprisonment for three years each under Section 148, IPC for rioting armed with deadly weapons and (4) rigorous imprisonment for one month each under Section 341, IPC for wrongful restraint. Allegation of the prosecution was that due to political rivalry all the five accused together formed an unlawful assembly, and in pursuance of the common object, they killed a 38 year old person called Panniyannur Chandran in the broad day light at 4.45 p.m. on 25-5-1996 in a pathway near to his house while h...
South Indian Bank Ltd. Vs. V.G. Krishnakumar and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-16-2005
Reported in: (2006)IILLJ661Ker
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. The management in an Industrial dispute is the appellant before us. They are aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge in O.P. No. 17996/1997 by which the learned single Judge declined to interfere with Exhibit P-19 award of the Central Government Labour Court, Ernakulam, by which the Labour Court interfered with the punishment of dismissal from service imposed by the management on the 1st respondent workman for proved misconduct and directing reinstatement without back wages imposing on him the punishment of suspension for a period of one year from the date of the order of dismissal.2. The appellant-management is a Scheduled Bank. The 1st respondent-workman was a clerk in the bank. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on six charges of misconduct. Having him found guilty in respect of four charges, in a domestic enquiry conducted into the charges of misconduct, the management imposed on the 1st respondent the punishment of dismissal from ...
Balasubramanyan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-15-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT882
K.M. Joseph, J.1. The principal question which arises in both these writ petitions is whether the oath taken by the third respondent in W.P.(C) No. 28913/05 who is none other than the first petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 30262/05 as Deputy Chairperson, before a person other than the Chairperson is valid in law. The Office of the Chairperson of the Municipality is reserved for members of Schedule Caste Community. Hence both the writ petitions are disposed of by a common Judgment.W.P.(C) No. 28913/05PThe writ petitioner is a voter in a Ward of Palakkad Municipality. He is also a Member of the Communist Party of India (Marxist). He would allege that he is a responsible office bearer of the Democratic Youth Federation of India. In the recently concluded election to the Municipalities, 50 Councilors were elected to the Palakkad Municipal Council, of whom 17 belong to the Left Democratic Front and 17 to the Bharatheeya Janatha Party, while 16 were elected under the United Democratic Front. It is ...
Majeed Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-15-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT19
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. This case has come up before us on reference by a Division Bench. The Division Bench opined that a question identical to the one arising in this case concerning demand of seigniorage for the shade trees cut and 'removed had been directed by another Division Bench to be placed before a larger bench doubting the correctness of the decision in State of Kerala v. Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., 1998 (1) KLT 28 = 1998 (1) KLJ 78. But the issue was not decided therein. Therefore, the Division Bench felt that,an authoritative pronouncement requires to be made in view of the above legal position that has been highlighted by the learned Special Government Pleader.Accordingly the matter comes up before us.2. The earlier reference referred to by the Division Bench was in Ext.R2(c). Therefore, in order to understand the question of law to be decided by us, we have to refer to Ext.R2(c). The question arose for consideration there, was 'the interpretation of Section 4 of...
John Vs. Liquidator
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-15-2005
Reported in: III(2007)BC115; 2006(1)KLT11
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. Is the Writ Petition seeking a direction to a Co-operative Society to return the title deeds of the properties mortgaged by the petitioners to obtain housing loan maintainable? This is the point arising for decision before us.2. The petitioners, to get such a direction, mainly relied on Ext.P5 judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court, wherein a similar direction was issued and Ext.P6 judgment, whereby Ext.P5 was confirmed by a Division Bench. But the learned Single Judge, who heard this matter, was of the view that a civil dispute of this nature should be resolved, at the instance of the party concerned, by a civil court or by an arbitrator. This aspect was not considered in Ext.P5 and P6 judgments, according to the learned single Judge. Therefore, the learned single Judge adjourned the matter for being heard by a Division Bench. The Division Bench noticed the contention of the third respondent that the powers vested in this Court under Article 226 of th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »