Kerala Court June 2011 Judgments

United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Rep by the Manager Vs. Thankamma and O ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(3)KLJ387; 2011(3)KLT466; 2011(3)ILR(Ker)577; 2011(3)KHC488

Barkath Ali, J. Short question which arises for consideration in this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is whether a murder committed in a motor vehicle can be termed as "an accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle", as contemplated under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. Appellant is the second respondent Insurance Company in O.P.(MV) No.515/2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha. In this appeal the appellant challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated October 11, 2004 awarding a compensation of Rs.2,80,000/- to the claimants who are the mother, brothers and sisters of deceased Vasudevan who died in a motor accident. 3. The accident happened on January 30,2000 . While deceased Vasudevan was driving his jeep bearing registrationNo.KLL 4253 and reached at Kumbakkanam, one of the passengers of the jeep by name Sunny attacked him causing serious injuries to him. He succumbed to the injuries sustained while unde...

Kunhimon and Others Vs. P. Bhaskaran, Partner Pipe Field and Others

Court: Kerala

BarkathAli, J. The short question which arise for consideration in this appeal under section173 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the claimants is while assessing compensation for loss of dependency under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act in a fatal accident case, what is the multiplier that has to be adopted i.e., whether on the basis of the age of the deceased or on the basis of age of parents of the deceased. 2. Appellants are the parents, brothers and sisters of deceased Nouphal who died in a motor accident. In this appeal they challenge the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated February 23, 2010 awarding a compensation of Rs.1,83,700/- for the loss caused to them on account of the death of Nouphal in that accident. 3. Deceased Nouphal was aged 22 at the time of the accident and was a bachelor and used to earn Rs.3,200/- per month as an Auto-rickshaw Mechanic, according to the appellants. On May 30, 2008 at about 11.15 p.m. while Nouphal was standing on the side of the road inTh...

Zacharia Vs. State, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Keral ...

Court: Kerala

If an accused while undergoing imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term, is he disentitled to get the protection of sub-sec.(2) of Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code") for the reason that the subsequent sentence of imprisonment on him was suspended by the appellate court and he executed the bond but he was not released in view of the imprisonment for life awarded to him? That question is urged for a decision in this proceeding. 2. Petitioner, by the judgment of learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam dated November 10, 1997 in S.C. No.82 of 1996 was convicted for offence under Sec.302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the IPC") and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. While he was undergoing life imprisonment he preferred an appeal against conviction and sentence but the sentence of imprisonment was not suspended, nor requested for. While so, petitioner was convicted by learned Assis...

Mohandas Vs. P. Abdul Azeez and Another

Court: Kerala

Revision petitioner who has been concurrently found guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act impugns the order of conviction and sentence passed against him in this revision petition. But apart from the question of correctness, legality or propriety of the orders under challenge, yet another interesting question has cropped up for consideration in this case. 2. The question: Is the criminal court bound by the decree and judgment passed by a competent civil court holding that the cheque which was the subject matter of the criminal prosecution was not supported by consideration as alleged by the complainant-plaintiff and that the accused/defendant had not borrowed any money from the defendant at all? 3. In other words, the question is: Can a criminal court ignore the judgment and decree inter partes and decide the question of culpability of the accused solely on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties in the criminal proceeding? 4. Before we deal with the above...

K.A. Nazar Vs. Palmfibre (India) Pvt Ltd, Represented by Its Managing ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(3)ILR(Ker)436; 2011(3)KLT437; 2011(3)KLJ568; 2011(3)KHC310

Balakrishnan, J. The tenant is in revision. Order of eviction was concurrently passed under Section 11(3) of the Act. Though claim for eviction was made under Section 11(2) (b), that was disallowed by the Rent Controller. It was not appealed against. The petition schedule building was originally held by a firm by name Green Garden Company. It was contended by the landlord that the respondent company took over the assets of the partnership firm and since then it became the landlord of the entire property including the petition schedule building. The need projected is that the company wanted to construct a nine storied building and that unless the petition schedule building is demolished the proposed building cannot be constructed making use of the remaining area. 2. The claim was resisted by the revision petitioner contending that the respondent is not the landlord of the petition schedule building and that the revision petitioner is not a tenant under the respondent. It was also conten...

Noushi Rafi Vs. the Director General of Police, Thiruvananthapuram and ...

Court: Kerala

Basheer, J. At about 7.30 a.m. on April 3, 2009, husband of the petitioner was allegedly taken into custody by some unknown people and taken to Kolhapur in Maharashtra. Petitioner alleges that the forceful abduction and removal of her husband to an unknown destination outside Kerala is clearly an illegal and high handed act warranting interference by this Court. She therefore, prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeaus Corpus directing the respondents, who are the Director General of Police, Thiruvananthapuram, Superintendent of Police, Malappuram and his subordinate officers to produce the detenue before this Court and set him at liberty. 2. Apparently, petitioner seems to be aware that her husband was taken into custody by some lawful authority. But, according to the petitioner, even if some such authority had taken her husband into custody in connection with some crime, the said authority ought to have followed the procedure prescribed by law and the guidelines laid down ...

Madhavan Vs. the Principal Secretary and Another

Court: Kerala

Basant,J. 1. Is the dismissal of an application under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. by the Forest Tribunal appealable under S.8A of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act?. This is the short question of law raised in this appeal. 2. This appeal arises from the impugned order under which an application for restoration of an original application was dismissed by the Forest Tribunal, Kozhikode. 3. This proceedings has had a very chequered career so far. O.A. No.40/99 was filed by the appellant herein before the Forest Tribunal. That O.A. was initially dismissed. The appellant came to this Court with an appeal and by judgment dated 10.6.2008, the matter was remanded to the Forest Tribunal with directions for fresh disposal. Subsequently, on 17.10.08, the appeal was dismissed for default. It was restored later subject to appropriate conditions regarding payment of cost. 4. The matter came up again for consideration of the Forest Tribunal on 21.11.09. The O.A. was again dismissed fo...

C. Santhi Vs. Mary Sherly and Another

Court: Kerala

1. On a complaint filed by appellant before Magistrate court, first respondent stood trial for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('the Act' for short). To prove complainant's case, PW1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked. The accused did not adduce any evidence, but took up a contention that he received only a lesser amount from complainant and as security, he handed over a cheque in blank form to complainant. The transaction took place on a different date and not any date alleged by complainant. The blank cheque was misused, to file a false complaint, it is further contended. 2. Learned Magistrate, after consideration of evidence and materials on record, acquitted the accused, mainly on the following observations and findings in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the impugned order: "Accused is not admitting either the signature in Ext.P1 or the execution of Ext.P1. So, it is the duty of the complainant to prove the execution of Ext.P1. Only when the execution of...

P.M. Shameer and Another Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by Public Pr ...

Court: Kerala

Though the above two revision petitions are filed by different persons challenging different orders passed by different courts and though the facts and circumstances involved are different, as the orders impugned are issued under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’) and as the question of law and facts involved are identical, the above revision petitions are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. 2. Crl.R.P.No.1171 of 2011 is directed against the order dated 4.4.2011 in CMP No.1627 of 2011 (in O.R.No.4 of 2011 of the Kollengode Forest Range) of the court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chittur under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. by which the prayer of the petitioner, who is an accused and R.C. owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.K.L.05/X 6336 involved in the above case was rejected. As per the said order, though the learned Magistrate is of the opinion that the said court has ample power to order release of th...

A.P.A. Rasheed Vs. N.N. Khalid Haji and Another

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(3)ILR(Ker)424; 2011(3)KLT421; 2011(3)KLJ501; 2011(3)KHC379

Basant, J. Is the Wakf Board acting under Section 32 of the Wakf Act an adjudicatory body? Are the powers under Order 39 C.P.C available to the Wakf Board when it acts under Section 32? Can the Wakf Board pass interim orders while acting in exercise of its powers under Section 32? What are the powers of the Board when it acts under Section 32? These questions are raised for consideration before us. 2. These revision petitions are directed against a common order passed by the Wakf Tribunal. Proceedings were initiated before the Wakf Tribunal evidently under Sec.83(2) of the Wakf Act challenging two separate orders passed by the Wakf Board. Both are described to be interim orders passed by the Wakf Board in an enquiry pending before it as E4-8360/07. The first impugned order dated 26/4/08 restrains the respondents herein from conducting an election to the Managing Committee until further orders. The second impugned order restrains the 1st respondent herein from convening a General Body M...