Kerala Court July 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.
Manuel Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-08-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT553
ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the 3rd respondent in the petition. This petition was filed on 10-6-2005. Anticipatory bail was granted to the 3rd respondent herein as per order dated 24-5-2005 in B.A. No. 3134/05 directing the Hosdurg Police to release the petitioner on bail for a period of one month in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 335/2003 of the Hosdurg Police Station, for an offence punishable under Section 436 I.P.C.2. According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent is an accused in 11 crimes made mention of in the petition and the antecedents of the 3rd respondent are so bad that he ought not have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court.3. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter-affidavit refuting the above allegations and stating that he was acquitted in 9 out of 11 cases and one case has been stayed by this Court and the remaining one case alone is pending an...
Damodaran Vs. Arpookkara Grama Panchayat
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-07-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT661
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Petitioner adopted a child as evidenced by Exts.P1 and P2. Admittedly, at the time of adoption, the petitioner was not informed of any registration of the birth of the said child with the local authority.2. According to the petitioner, he obtained information regarding the registration of the birth of the said child. He asserts that Ext.P4 is the birth certificate of the said child. He made Ext.P6 application for correction of the name of the child in the Register of Births and Deaths, to have the name of the child shown as Anjana D. The petitioner seeks a mandamus to the first respondent to carry out the correction requested for in Ext.P6 and thereby modify the entries evidenced by Ext.P4.3. The first respondent has come on record with a counter-affidavit, inter alia, relying on Ext.R1(a) Circular.4. The second respondent is the child welfare agency to which the child in question was relinquished by its mother and a declaration in that regard is given...
Mohandas Vs. Ashokan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-07-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT574
M. Ramachandran, J.1. The above appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Objection about the maintainability of the appeal and defect had been noticed by the office. But, by order dated 3-3-2005, this Court had directed that the appeal to be assigned a number and it is to be posted for hearing.2. Mr. Asok M. Cherian had taken notice on behalf of the respondent, who is the petitioner in the contempt application. Pointing out that there was violation of the orders passed by this Court dated 6-8-2003 in W.P.(C). No. 21467 of 2003, the petitioner in the writ petition had filed C.C.C. No. l712 of 2004. The background of the case is as following.3. In the writ petition, the learned single Judge, by order dated 6-8-2003', had directed that 'If the Corporation does not propose to make appointment to temporary vacancies in accordance with the rules, they have to call candidates from Employment Exchange.' It was further directed that the above will be the rule ...
Narayani Vs. Aravindakshan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-07-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Ker26; I(2006)DMC155; 2005(4)KLT1
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Defendants 1 to 4 in a suit for partition are the appellants in this second appeal challenging the preliminary decree passed by the trial court, confirmed in first appeal. The first appellant having died during the pendency of the second appeal, appellants 2 to 4 were recorded as her legal representatives.2. Sri. Ramunni, a Hindu, died intestate on 25-2-1974. His estate is sought to be partitioned. The late first defendant was his widow. Defendants 2 to 4 are their children. Plaintiff and defendants 5 to 8 are, admittedly, the children of Ramunni through Kallyani, who is not a party to the suit, but examined as P.W.2.3. Defendants 1 to 4, the appellants herein, contended that there was no valid marriage between Ramunni and Kallyani and accordingly, the plaintiff and defendants 5 to 8 were the illegitimate children of Ramunni and hence not entitled to succeed to his estate.4. On the basis of the evidence on record, the trial court found that Ramunni and...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sachidananda Prabhu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-07-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC255; 2006ACJ833; [2005(107)FLR1121]; 2005(4)KLT29
J.B. Koshy, J.1. The second opposite party insurance company before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Ernakulam is the appellant herein. The application for compensation was filed by the first respondent herein, under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, in respect of personal injury sustained to him in an accident which occurred at about 8.40 p.m. on 31.8.1995. According to the applicant, while he was in the course of his employment as wire drawing operator under the second respondent herein during second shift, his right hand got caught in the machine and sustained serious injuries to his right hand resulting in traumatic amputation of right hand thump, index and middle fingers. The applicant claimed a total compensation of Rs. 1,53,090/-. Second respondent admitted the employer employee relationship and also admitted that the accident arose in the course of employment. But, contended that vide cheque dated 2.7.1996 an amount of Rs. 35,210/- was also paid to the a...
Kunju Muhammed Vs. Pazhukkamattom Devaswom
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-07-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Ker301; 2005(3)KLT700
ORDERThottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This is an application seeking review of my judgment dated 17.12.2004 in S.A. No. 47 of 2002. The respondent in the second appeal is the review petitioner.2. A substantial question of law that arose for decision in the second appeal was as to whether the lessee of a delinquent trustee, who had been ordered to account and deliver up properties and documents of the trust to the new trustees is liable to be dispossessed by a decree in a suit filed invoking Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I answered that issue in the affirmative by the judgment sought to be reviewed. Accordingly, it was also held that the respondent in the second appeal (review petitioner), who was the seventh defendant in the suit cannot have any claim independent of the delinquent Trustee, who was ordered to account and deliver up properties and documents of the trust. It was held that the seventh defendant had no right to continue in possession.3. It is urged on behalf o...
Asokan Vs. Kerala State Warehousing Corporation
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-07-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT837
M. Ramachandran, J.1. Petitioner herein describes himself as an unemployed person. After completing Pre-degree Course, he has not been able to secure any job. He had registered his name in the Employment Exchange on 1.7.1991, and though the name is in the live register, no opportunity has come for him so far. The Writ Petition is filed pointing out that whatever opportunities might have been there are spoilt by deliberate default. As an example, he points out that appointments are being made by the Kerala State Warehousing Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') without inviting for applications from eligible hands or through the agency of the Employment Exchange. It is submitted that the Corporation is a statutory body established under the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 and its functioning is governed by the Kerala State Warehousing Corporation Regulations, 1963, which obliges them to follow a selection method, fair, transparent and equitable.2. Regulation No. 6 provides that a...
Shah Vs. Rajankutty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-07-2005
Reported in: I(2006)ACC783; 2006ACJ793; [2005(107)FLR702]; 2005(3)KLT1014
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Appellant employer challenges the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation on four grounds. A loading and unloading worker during the course of employment, while carrying a head load, collapsed, fell down and died due to heart attack. According to the appellant, in his written statement, the worker fell down while he was carrying the load due to his carelessness. Tribunal ordered compensation holding that the accident occurred during the course of employment and death is arising out of employment. Mere negligence or even gross negligence does not disentitle a workman for compensation. As held by the Madras High Court in Sundaresa Mudaliar v. Muthummal (1956 (2) LLJ 52), doctrine of contributory negligence has no place in workmen's compensation claim. Proviso (b) to Section 3(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short 'the Act') clearly provides as follows:'3. Employer's liability for compensation.--(1)If personal injury is caused to a workman by a...
United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. D.V. Sachidananda Prabhu an ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-07-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC235
J.B. Koshy, J.1. The second opposite party Insurance Company before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Ernakulam is the appellant herein. The application for compensation was filed by the first respondent herein, under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, in respect of personal injury sustained to him in an accident which occurred at about 8.40 p.m. on 31.8.1995. According to the applicant, while he was in the course of his employment as wire drawing operator under the second respondent herein during second shift, his right hand got caught in the machine and sustained serious injuries to his right hand resulting in traumatic amputation of right hand thump, index and middle fingers. The applicant claimed a total compensation of Rs. 1,53,090/-. Second respondent admitted the employer employee relationship and also admitted that the accident arose in the course of employment. But, contended that vide cheque dated 2.7.1996 an amount of Rs. 35,210/- was also paid to the a...
Thomas Vs. Deputy Director of Education
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-06-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT872
K.M. Joseph, J.1. The petitioner was working as a Junior Superintendent in the office of the first respondent. He sought voluntary retirement with effect from 25.6.2000 by submitting Ext.P3 application. It was not immediately accepted and he sought instructions from the higher authority. The second respondent by Ext.P3 order suspended the petitioner from service alleging unauthorised absence. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated by Ext.P6 Charge Memo dated 30.7.2001. Thereafter by Ext.P9, the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated in service after imposing a minor punishment of censure. According to the petitioner, he sought reinstatement, but it was not allowed. However, this is disputed by the respondents. Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P15. During the course of the suspension, petitioner was paid subsistence allowance in accordance with the Rules. By Ext.P15, an amount of Rs. 57,705/- is shown as the liability and that was recovered from the DCRG. Petitioner was paid DCRG less t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »