Kerala Court January 2007 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.
Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Vs. Industrial Tribunal
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-23-2007
Reported in: [2007(115)FLR569]; 2007(1)KLJ522; (2007)IILLJ884Ker
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The appellant, a State Government undertaking is challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge upholding Exhibit P4 award of the Industrial Tribunal granting bonus to the headload workers engaged in one of the godowns of the appellant at Melamuri in Palakkad.2. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellant and counsel appearing for the second respondent and also gone through the judgment of the learned single Judge and the award of the Industrial Tribunal. The contention of the appellant is that Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (hereinafter called 'the Act') provides for bonus to 'employees' and since the headload workers engaged for loading and unloading goods at the godown on contract are not employees of the appellant, they are not entitled to bonus under the Act. Counsel for the second respondent on the other hand contended that the very same employees were engaged although by the appellant's depot for loading and unloading and since each of them h...
Shaji C. Varkey and anr. Vs. the Collector and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-23-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ471
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The appellants are tenants carrying on business in a building belonging to respondents 3 and 4, part of which was acquired along with land by respondents 1 and 2 for road widening. In the course of proceedings for acquisition of part of the building, respondents 3 and 4 requested the first respondent under Section 49(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinunder called 'the Act') to demolish the remaining portion of the building in which the appellants were carrying on business. Apprehending demolition pursuant to request from building owners, the appellants filed writ petition for direction against demolition of the building occupied by them. During pendency of the O.P. filed by the appellants, this court granted stay against demolition of the balance portion of the building occupied by them. However, this court permitted respondents 1 and 2 to proceed with the acquisition and demolition of acquired portion of building to accomplish the purpose of acqu...
A.M. Prabhakaran and ors. Vs. Chithappa Sulaikabi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-23-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ109; AIR2007NOC1100(SB)
ORDERV.K. Bali, C.J. and K.P. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. I have gone through the illuminative concurring judgments of Abdul Gafoor and Balakrishnan Nair, JJ. as also the concurring judgments of Kurian Joseph and Padmanabhan Nair, JJ. expressing however, a different view than the one expressed by Abdul Gafoor and Balakrishnan Nair, JJ. The present may be one of the rarest of rare cases where every Honourable Member of the Bench has chosen to write, even though concurring with the other, his own judgment. May be that the Honourable Member of the Bench concurring with the other wished to express the same view point in his own way.2. I have given deep and anxious the (sic) to both the views and after considering and reconsidering the whole issue, I have come to the conclusion that the view expressed by Kurian Joseph and Padmanabhan Nair, JJ. appears to be correct. With respect, thus, I would differ with the view taken by Abdul Gafoor and Balakrishnan Nair, JJ. Tenant means any person by whom o...
Melethil Iyyathiya Umma Vs. the Taluk Land Board
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-22-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)KLT657
ORDERM. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. The revision petitions were filed challenging the order of Taluk Land Board, Perinthalmanna dated 20.2.01 in SR No. 612/73. Panchili Alavi had filed a statement under Section 85(2) of Kerala Land Reforms Act relating to the lands held by him and his family. As per order dated 7.5.77 Taluk Land Board found that the declarant was in possession of 79.19 acres of land in excess of the ceiling area as on 1-1-1970.The declarant challenged that order before this Court in C.R.P. 1713/77.C.R.P. 2157/77 was filed by Receiver of the estate of late V.S. Narayana Iyer contending that the declarant had no tenancy right over portions of the property held to be that of the declarant.As per common order dated 2.8.78, order of the Taluk Land Board was set aside and the case was remanded to the Taluk Land Board by this Court to decide the question of tenancy on the basis of evidence to be adduced. After remand revised order was passed by the Taluk Land Board on 17.9.80 fi...
Sheeja Vigneswar (Ponnara) Vs. S. Krishnan and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-22-2007
Reported in: III(2007)BC305
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. This revision petition is directed against a concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.2. The cheque is for an amount of Rs. 50,000/-. It bears the date as 16.1.2002. The complainant had examined himself as P.W. 1 and proved Exts. P1 to P6. The accused did not adduce any defence evidence. No reply was given to the notice of demand, though duly received and acknowledged.3. The Courts below came to the conclusion that the complainant has succeeded in establishing all the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Accordingly, the Courts below proceeded to pass the impugned concurrent judgments.4. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the petitioner wants to mount against the impugned concurrent judgments, the learned Counsel for the petitioner docs not strain to assail the verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence on merits. 1 reckon that as an informed an...
Bharat Kumar Vs. Selma Mini and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-22-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Ker197; II(2007)DMC538; 2007(1)KLJ405
Kurian Joseph, J.1. Whether paternity of a child is an issue to be considered by the Family Court under Section 7(l)(e) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, without a matrimonial cause, is the question to be considered in this case.2. The first respondent before the Family Court, Ernakulam, in O.P. No. 1234/ 2005 is the petitioner herein. The relief claimed by the first respondent herein before the Family Court reads as follows:Therefore, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that Bharat Kumar K. Palicha (the 1st respondent) is the father of Bhagat Kumar B., aged 3 years (2nd petitioner) delivered by Selma Mini (1st petitioner) on 9th day of August 2002 at Lakshmi Hospital, Dewans Road, Ernakulam.The second respondent is the husband of the first respondent at the relevant time. According to the first respondent she had developed extra marital relationship with the petitioner and that the child Bhagat Kumar is born in that relationship. Hence the petition for decl...
New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. K.M. Cherian and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-22-2007
Reported in: I(2007)ACC800
K.T. Sankaran, J.1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kottayam passed an award in favour of the first respondent for Rs. 31,250 as compensation directing the appellant herein, the second respondent in the claim petition, to deposit the amount with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.2. The accident occurred on 18.12.1997 at 1.30 p.m. The first respondent herein, while he was walking along the road, motor cycle bearing registration No. KA09/Q-4989 driven by the second respondent herein knocked him down and he sustained injuries. Compensation of Rs. 1,43,750 was claimed.3. The appellant, second respondent before the Tribunal, contended that the vehicle was not insured at the time of the accident and, therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation. It was also contended that the vehicle was insured on 22.12.1997 and the second respondent herein issued a cheque for the premium amount. The Tribunal considered the question whether the ins...
Regional Transport Officer Vs. K.V. Abdurahiman
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-22-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Ker140; 2008(1)KarLJ268;
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. Whether the owner/person in possession or control of a vehicle, which has been seized and detained for non-payment of tax under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is entitled, to claim exemption from payment of tax under Section 5 and in cases where tax has already been paid, to claim refund under Section 6 of the Act, of the tax paid by him for the period during which the vehicle was under detention', are the issues which come up for decision in these three cases which have been referred to a Full Bench by a Division Bench, since the Division Bench perceived an apparent conflict between decisions of two Division Benches in W.A. Nos. 82 of 1986 and 1429 of 2002 on the one hand and the decision of another Division Bench in W.A. No. 1861 of 2004 on the other.2. The question that arose for consideration in W.A. No. 1861/2004 referred to in the reference order was as to whether in respect of a vehicle under police custody ...
Shanavas Muhammed Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-19-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ2048
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. What conditions should be imposed normally in an order granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr. P.C.? Is there any condition which must inevitably be imposed in all such orders granting anticipatory bail Is the omnibus direction that the accused 'if arrested, shall be released on bail on executing a bond' as specified a sufficient and satisfactory condition ordinarily? These questions arise for consideration in this Crl. M.C. where the specific prayer is for cancellation of an order granting anticipatory bail to the respondents who are accused 1, 3 and 5 in a prosecution, inter alia, under Section 308 of the IPC.2. To the vital skeletal facts first. The petitioners are 3 of a total of seven accused who face allegations now for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 506(ii), 326 and 308 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The de facto complainant along with his sister had allegedly gone to the Holy Grace Academy of Management St...
M.P. Thressiamma Vs. Appellate Authority Under the Payment of Gratuity ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-19-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ638
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. The petitioners are employees working under the third respondent company. The company is engaged in the business of proceeding fruits and vegetables. The petitioners retired from service after 29 and 31 years respectively. At the time of retirement, they were paid gratuity at the rate of 7 days' wages for every completed year of service. The petitioners filed application before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act seeking balance of the gratuity payable at the rate of 15 days' wages per completed year of service. The third respondent took the contention that the factory of the third respondent is a seasonal establishment and therefore the rate of gratuity payable is only 7 days' wages per completed year of service. This argument found favour with the Controlling Authority who calculated the gratuity at the rate of 7 days' per completed year of service but found that the gratuity paid to petitioners was short by Rs. 2416/- and Rs. 268/- respect...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »