Kerala Court May 2007 Judgments
Fathima and ors. Vs. Sulaikabi and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-31-2007
Reported in: 2007ACJ2515; 2007(2)KLJ682
J.B. Koshy, J.1. The appellants filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, claiming an amount of Rs. 10,52,000 for the death of the husband of the appellant No. 1. Dependants of the deceased consist of his wife, two children and his mother. Case of the appellants was that the quantum of compensation, awarded by the Tribunal, was very meagre, even though the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to negligence of the respondent No. 2, the driver of the vehicle owned by respondent No. 1 and the above vehicle was insured by the insurance company, respondent No. 3. The total compensation awarded was only Rs. 1,76,000. Only the quantum of compensation is disputed in this appeal.2. The deceased was aged only 48 at the time of accident, that is, on 16.6.1996. His widow was much younger. Tribunal has taken 13 as the multiplier, as the deceased was aged 48, at the time of the accident. If the age of the widow was taken, a higher multiplier ought to have been taken...
Tag this Judgment!T.K. Ramakrishnan Vs. C.N. Subadra and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-30-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ4212; I(2008)DMC421
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. When should this Court agree to entertain a petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. favourable? Can even technicality be pressed into service to advance the interests of justice? Unless the conscience of the Court is satisfied that the interests of justice, as objectively perceived by the Court, are affected, is the Court obliged to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction? These thoughts vex this Court in this case.2. The petitioner has suffered an order under Section 125 Cr. P.C. to pay maintenance @ Rs. 800/- per month to the claimant, allegedly his wife. The claimant asserted that on 16-9-1979, in accordance with customary rites, the parties have entered valid matrimony. They allegedly lived together as man and wife. There was estrangement later and in 2003 the claimant/wife came to the learned Magistrate with a petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C.3. The husband admitted co-habitation for a long period of time but contended that it was not co-habitation as leg...
Tag this Judgment!Sureshkumar S/O. Kumaran Vs. the Sub Inspector of Police
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-29-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)KLT363
R. Basant, J.1. Is the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act a cognizable one? Are the police justified in these two cases in reckoning the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act as a cognizable offence and proceeding further? These are the questions that are raised in these two writ petitions.2. The penal provision appears in Section 63 of the Copyright Act. The offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term, 'which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to three years and with fine'. The Copyright Act as amended does not anywhere specifically refer to cognizability for the purpose of investigation. We therefore have got to fall back on the schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure. The schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure shows that if the offence under other laws is punishable 'with imprisonment for three years and upwards, but not more than 7 years', the offence will be cognizable and non-bailable. If on the contrary, the offence is punish...
Tag this Judgment!K.K. Ravi S/O. Kuttan Vs. V.D. Kuttappan S/O. Devasia and Kerala State ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-29-2007
Reported in: IV(2007)BC162; 2007(3)KLT31
R. Basant, J.1. Should the notice of demand under proviso (b) to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act be issued such that the drawer shall receive the notice within the period of 30 days? Is it sufficient if such notice is put into post within the said period of 30 days? How is the expression 'by giving a notice in writing...within thirty days of the receipt of information' in proviso (b) to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to be understood? Does the observation in Madhu v. Omega Pipes Ltd. 1994(1) KLT 441 that such notice must be despatched 'reasonably ahead of the expiry of fifteen days' oblige the complainant to despatch such notice in such time as to ensure receipt within 30 days? These are the interesting questions that arise for consideration in this case.2. Fundamental facts are not in dispute. The cheque dated 29/4/05 for Rs. 80,000/- was dishonoured on 3/5/05 and intimation was given of such dishonour on the same day. Notice of demand dated 1/6/05 was iss...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Sathar Vs. Nodal Officer, Anti-piracy Cell and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-29-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Ker212; 2007(35)PTC780(Ker)
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Is the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act a cognizable one? Are the police justified in these two cases in reckoning the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act as a cognizable offence and proceeding further? These are the questions that are raised in these two writ petitions.2. The penal provision appears in Section 63 of the Copyright Act. The offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term, 'which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to three years and with fine'. The Copyright Act as amended does not anywhere specifically refer to cognizability for the purpose of investigation. We therefore have got to fall back on the schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure. The schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure shows that if, the offence under other laws is punishable 'with imprisonment for three years and upwards, but not more than 7 years', the offence will be cognizable and non-bailable. If on the contrary, the offence is ...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. Vs. State of Keral ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-29-2007
Reported in: (2008)15VST384(Ker)
ORDERH.L. Dattu, C.J.1. H. L. Dattu C.J.-M/s. Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. is the revision petitioner in this sales tax revision petition. It is a co-operative society dealing in milk and milk products. The petitioner is a registered dealer both under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.2. Petitioner had filed its annual returns claiming exemption on the sales turnover of 'Amul Tazza Milk' which according to it is only 'pasteurised milk' coming under entry 23 of the Third Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The assessing authority while concluding the assessment for the assessment year 2000-01 ha? levied the tax at 12 per cent treating 'Amul Tazza Milk' as a milk product as such an item falling under entry 92 of the First Schedule to the Act.The assessee being aggrieved by the said finding and conclusion reached by the assessing authority had approached the higher forum by filing an appeal. The appellate auth...
Tag this Judgment!Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. HussaIn SainuddIn
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-28-2007
Reported in: 2007ACJ2600
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation filed this appeal challenging an order passed by the Insurance Court, Alappuzha allowing an appeal filed by respondent under Section 54-A of the Employees' State Insurance Act ('the Act' for short) claiming 100 per cent disablement benefit.2. The respondent while working as a labourer in Telco Works at Pune met with an accident and sustained employment injury on 14.6.1992. After sometime he came back to Kerala and continued treatment in E.S.I. Hospital till 28.7.1993. Subsequently, he was treated in the Medical College, Alappuzha also. He claimed disablement benefit, alleging that on account of the injury sustained by him he is totally disabled and hence disablement benefit is to be given, treating it as a case of 100 per cent disability. The matter was referred to Medical Board. Medical Board fixed disability at 50 per cent. Challenging that decision the respondent filed an appeal under Section 54-A of the Act before ...
Tag this Judgment!The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. K.V. Joseph S/O. Vareed and Krishn ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-25-2007
Reported in: 2007ACJ1917; 2007(4)CTC106; [2007(114)FLR1116]; (2007)IIILLJ241Ker
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. The question that is referred to the Full Bench for consideration is how far the notional extension theory could be applied so as to make the Insurance company liable to compensate the victim arising out of the use of the motor vehicle even if it is established that the accident occurred during the course of his employment2. First respondent filed an application under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 claiming compensation for the personal injuries sustained by him during the course of his employment. First respondent was employed by the second respondent as driver of a tempo van bearing registration number KRU 2129. On 15.05.1999 first respondent was driving the tempo van from Sakthan Thampuran market to Pattambi and at about 6.15 P.M when he reached Pattambi he got down from the tempo van for unloading the goods, while so a dog bit on the left hand and while attempting to escape from further dog bite he fell down and sustained the following ...
Tag this Judgment!Hcl Info Systems Limited Vs. Anil Kumar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-25-2007
Reported in: [2007]139CompCas788(Ker); 2007(3)KLT395
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.1. The question that arises for consideration is whether a civil court will have territorial jurisdiction to entertain a suit against a company having a branch office within its jurisdiction in respect of a cause of action that did not arise at least in part within its jurisdiction.2. Ext.P5 judgment of the Sixth Additional District Judge, Ernakulam in C.M.A. No. 981 of 2002 by which the finding in Ext.P4 order entered by the Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam on issue No. 5 regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the court has been set aside, is under challenge in these proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.3. The defendant in the suit is M/s. HCL Info Systems Ltd., a Company incorporated under the Companies Act. The contention which was seriously raised by the plaintiff answering the question of jurisdiction was that the defendant having submitted to the jurisdiction of the court is not entitled to contend at a later stage that ...
Tag this Judgment!A.N. Ponnappan Vs. Kerala Financial Corporation and the Branch Manager
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-25-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Ker234; 2007(4)CTC97; [2007(4)JCR519(NULL)]
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Whether the Kerala Financial Corporation while invoking the provisions of Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, in short SFC Act, can proceed against the properties offered by the sureties as collateral security for the loan advanced by the Corporation, is the question that is posed for our consideration. Referring Bench noticed the conflict between the ruling of a Division Bench of this Court in Thressiamma Varghese v. Kerala State Financial Corporation 1986 KLT 1344 and that of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Narasimhaiah v. Karnataka State Financial Corporation : AIR2004Kant46 and felt that the matter requires an authoritative pronouncement by a larger bench. Reference was also made to the judgment of a learned single judge of this Court in K.T. Joseph v. Kerala Financial Corporation 1989 (1) KLJ 461.2. The Division Bench of this Court in Thressiamma Varghese's case, supra took the view that a reading of Sections 29, 31 and 32 o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »