Kerala Court December 2006 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.
Sobha N.C. Vs. Mahilamani P.N. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-13-2006
Reported in: I(2007)ACC782
K.T. Sankaran, J.1. The claimant in O.P. (MV) 775 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Paravur is the appellant. By the impugned award, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 13,000 as compensation to the appellant/claimant. However, in paragraph 17 of the judgment, it was held that the 2nd respondent, driver of the autorickshaw, was not having a valid driving licence at the time of the accident and, therefore, the third respondent is not liable to indemnify the first respondent, the insured. This finding of the Tribunal is not correct in view of the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh 1 (2004) ACC 1 (SC) : 2004 (1) KLT 781, wherein it was held that mere absence, fake or invalid licence or disqualification of the driver are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. It was held that the Insurance Company will be liable to satisfy an award in such cases. However, the Insurance Company wo...
Tamilnadu Merchantile Bank Vs. N. Poulose
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-13-2006
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ238
ORDERM. Ramachandran, J.1. Section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure prescribes the procedure to be followed in execution of a decree. Subject to the conditions and limitations prescribed, execution of a decree on an application made by the decree holder could be effected by delivery of property, attachment and sale, by arrest and detention to prison as well as by appointing a receiver, or in such other manner as the nature of the relief granted may require.2. The submission of the petitioner, who is a scheduled bank, is that while disposing of E.P. No. 11 of 1999 in O.S. No. 6 of 1993, the Court had unnecessarily restrained itself from enforcing the decree by arrest and detention of the judgment debtor, and he had been let off. The court had held that the evidence adduced was insufficient to come to a conclusion that the second judgment debtor had sufficient means to discharge the liability and for non-payment of the decree amount, treating it as deliberate, issue of a warrant for arr...
Krishna Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-13-2006
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ261
K.T. Sankaran, J.1. The Writ Petition is filed challenging Exts. P1 and P2, judgment and decree in L.A.R. No. 81 of 2002 passed by the Sub Court, Alappuzha dismissing the Land Acquisition Reference on the ground that the application for reference was belatedly made by the petitioner before the Land Acquisition Officer and therefore the reference is barred by limitation.2. The award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer or, 19-11-1990. Notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 15-12-1990 and it was received by the petitioner/claimant on 18-12-1990. The claimant filed an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for reference on 05-01-1991. The reference court held that the proceedings would indicate that the petitioner was present before the District Collector when the award was passed and therefore as per the proviso to Section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, he was bound to file an application for reference within six weeks from the da...
Shaji Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-13-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)KLJ309
K. Thankappan, J.1. The appellant, accused in S.C. No. 546/2001 on the file of the Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge for the Trial of Abkari Act Cases, Neyyattinkara, was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act on the allegation that he was found in possession of 5 litres of illicit arrack in a 5 litre can. He was arrested and the contraband article was seized. To prove the charge against the appellant, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW4 and Exts. Pl to P7 were marked. MOI was also marked. After closing the prosecution evidence, the appellant was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the allegation levelled against him. However, on accepting the prosecution evidence, the trial court found the appellant guilty under Section 58 of the Abkari Act and he was convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- with default sentence of a rigorous imprisonment for a period of three mon...
V.K. Raghavan Vs. Commissioner for Workmen's
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-13-2006
Reported in: I(2007)ACC775; 2008ACJ235
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Second respondent in this case, a coconut tree climber and toddy tapper, employed by the appellant, met with a serious accident as he fell from a coconut tree. As a result of the accident, he sustained serious injuries as can be seen from Exts. A1 and A5 medical certificates. Ext. A4 shows that he was an employee of the appellant, but, he was denied benefit from the Kerala Tree Climbers Benefit Scheme as he was engaged in the tapping of toddy. The appellant was the licensee. A.W. 3 deposed that accident occurred while tapping coconut tree in his property and tree was leased to the appellant for tapping toddy. Merely because he was not enrolled as a member of the Welfare Fund Scheme as he was a temporary employee, workmen's compensation benefit cannot be denied. Finding of the Commissioner that second respondent met with the accident during the course of employment under the appellant is based on evidence adduced in this case. The loss of earning capacity was also arriv...
K.J. Baby Vs. M.V. Anil Kumar and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-12-2006
Reported in: I(2007)ACC735
K.T. Sankaran, J.1. The petitioner in O.P.(MV) No. 2616 of 1998, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kottayam is the appellant in this appeal. The appellant claimed a sum of Rs. 52,150 as compensation, but it was limited to Rs. 25,000. On 22.2.1998, while the appellant was travelling in an autorickshaw, owned by one Anil Kumar and driven by Simon, the autorickshaw capsized and the appellant sustained injuries. It is stated in the claim petition that the appellant was taken to Government Hospital, Kanjirappally and was later referred to the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. He was referred back to the Government Hospital, Kanjirappally and was discharged on 15.3.1998. It is also submitted that he underwent out-patient treatment for two more months. The further case of the appellant is that he is permanently disabled and it has affected his earning power and amenities of life.2. Before the Tribunal, four cases were tried together, including the one filed by the appellant...
M.V. Varghese Vs. Vishnu Yasodharan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-12-2006
Reported in: I(2007)ACC564
K.T. Sankaran, J.1. The appellant is the first respondent in O.P.(MV) 681 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha. The petition, O.P. (MV) No. 681/2001 was filed by the first respondent, a minor, who sustained injuries while travelling as a pillion rider on a scooter bearing registration No. KL-7/R-6246. That scooter collided with a motor bike bearing registration No. KL-7H-7480, driven by the second respondent therein. The first respondent in the O.P. who is the appellant herein was shown as the owner of the vehicle.2. The appellant herein contended that he sold away the vehicle on 10.4.2000 and that he was not the owner of the vehicle on the date of the accident. He relied on Ext.B1 agreement to show that he has transferred the vehicle to a third party. No oral evidence was adduced on the side of the claimant. The appellant herein was examined as RW 1.3. The Tribunal held that the claimant is entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 23,300 (Rupees twenty-...
Shaji Lukose Vs. the State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-12-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)KLJ312
K.K. Denesan, J.1. The petitioner is a Sub Inspector of Police under the Government of Kerala. Challenge is to Ext. P3 order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (3rd respondent) as also orders affirming Ext.P3 passed by respondents 2 and 1 vide Exts.P5 and P6 respectively.The petitioner has been found guilty of the charges framed against him and the disciplinary authority inflicted on him the penalty of barring increment without cumulative effect. Statutory remedies invoked by him, ended in a futile exercise. Hence this writ petition.2. The main contention urged by the petitioner is that he was not supplied with a copy of the enquiry report. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the enquiry report is one of the important materials which ought to have been supplied to the petitioner to enable him to submit effective reply to the provisional finding that he was guilty of the charges. Reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court in Thevan v. Superintendent of P...
Mohanan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-12-2006
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ436
ORDER1. What exactly is the offence punishable under Section 55 of the Kerala Abkari Act, Act 1 of 1077 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is the question referred for decision of this Court. Main dispute is regarding the scope of Sub-section (a) of Section 55. According to the learned single Judge who referred the matter, there is a conflict between the decisions of the single Judges in Karthikeyan v. State of Kerala 2000 (3) KLT 639, Balan v. State of Kerala 2002 (3) KLT 161, George Issac v. State of Kerala : 2004(1)KLT752 and Sabu v. State of Kerala : 2003(2)KLT173 . During hearing, another decision of the Division Bench In Surendran v. Excise Inspector : 2004(1)KLT404 is also referred to. Reference was also made to the following decisions: Mariamma and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors. 1998 (1) KLT 286, Rajeevan v. Excise Inspector 1995 (1) KLT 38 Purushan v. State of Kerala 2002 (2) KLT 661.2. Before going to the issue in the matter, we may refer to the relevant statutory provi...
Cannanore Drug Lines Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-12-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)KLJ212; (2007)IILLJ661Ker
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the applicant in E.I.C. No. 22/2000. Application was preferred under Section 75 read with Section 77 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 seeking for a declaration that the assessment and demand of interest of Rs. 89,599/- for the delayed payment of E.S.I, contribution for the wage periods from March 1, 1992 to September 30, 1998 as per Exhibit P-3 notice and a sum of Rs. 863/- as interest for the delayed payment of contribution for the wage periods from October 1, 1998 to March 31, 1999 as per Exhibit P-5 notice and imposition of damages of Rs. 42,854/- by way of penalty for the delayed payment of contribution for the wage periods from March 1, 1992 to September 30, 1998 as per Exhibit P-11 are unsustainable.2. E. S. I. Court disposed of the application holding that the assessment and levy of interest as per Exhibits P-3 and P-5 notices cannot be interfered with. With regard to the imposition of Rs. 42,854/- as damages by way...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »