Kerala Court July 2011 Judgments

National Insurance Company Limited Vs. K.S. Lathika and Others

Court: Kerala

Basant, J. Is the benefit under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act unavailable to persons earning income exceeding Rs.40,000/- per annum? This is the short question arising for consideration in this appeal. 2. Claimants are the dependents/legal heirs of a deceased person. They claimed compensation under Sections 166 and 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act without specifying the precise nature of the claim in the claim petition. The deceased was admittedly earning an income of Rs.6,200/- per mensem. When the matter reached the stage of trial, the claimants specified that they are staking the claim under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act and that they are limiting the claim to what would be payable if the deceased were a person getting an annual income of Rs.40,000/-. The Tribunal accepted the request and computed compensation payable under Section 163 A of theMotor Vehicles Act reckoning the deceased to be a person having an annual income of Rs.40,000/-. 3. The learned counsel fo...

Rajan Vs. State of Kerala, Rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kochi

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(3)ILR(Ker)443; 2011(3)KLT88(SN)(C.No.88); 2011(3)KHC239

This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.1457 of 2010 of Chalakudy Police Station, Thrissur District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 465, 466, 471, 472, 473 and 475 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The petitioners were arrested on 19.5.2011 and they were remanded to judicial custody. Their application for bail was dismissed by this Court in B.A.No.4752 of 2011 on 23.6.2011. The learned single Judge who dismissed the Bail Application held that if the petitioners were released on bail, they would definitely influence and intimidate the prosecution witnesses. It was also held it was likely that the petitioners would make themselves scarce and flee from justice. 4. The prosecution case against the petitioners is that they stoodas sureties for the accused in C.C.No.532 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First class, Chalakkudy and go...

The Assistant Engineer Kseb, Vellarada and Another Vs. Dr. S. Kailasom ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/KSEB authorities in CC.186/2005 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The complaint stands allowed in part. The complainant/respondent is directed to pay the current charges of Rs.10,359/- with interest at 12% for 2 years and 9 months. Opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.2000/- as compensation for the delay in issuing the bill. 2. We find that the matter is with respect to the alleged non remittance of current charges for the period from 2/98 to 11/2000. The bill has been issued on 11-05-2005 for a sum of Rs.26,231/-. According to the complainant she has remitted the bills up to December 2000 and the bills have been produced. 3. We find that in the order of the Forum, the above alleged bills produced by the complainant are not seen mentioned nor is it mentioned in the appendix. 4. On the other hand, the case of the opposite parties is that the complainant has not remitted current charges up to ...

R. George Pareira Managing Partner M/S George Micheal Associates Vs. t ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in OP.539/01 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The complaint stands dismissed. 2. It is the case of the complainant that the UNO Diesel car owned by him met with an accident on 11/4/2001 and the vehicle was repaired at the service centre of the 1st opposite party and the 2nd opposite party/insurer reimbursed the cost of repairs and the vehicle was delivered after repairs on 28/4/2001. According to the complainant after he took the vehicle he went to Madras for business purposes and returned only on 8/5/2001. On the same day when the driver took the vehicle from the garage it was found the steering was stuck and the vehicle was taken to the 1st opposite partys workshop. For repairing the same he had to pay a sum of Rs.23,767/-. The 1st opposite party and the complainant had intimated the 2nd opposite party/insurance company to assess the damages which was occasioned on account of the accident that took plac...

Suma and Others Vs. P.A. Rajesh and Others

Court: Kerala

JijoySebastian, husband of the first petitioner, father of petitioners 2 and 3 and son of petitioners 4 and 5 died in a motor accident on 14.5.2011. The petitioners thereupon filed a claim petition in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala, claiming the sum of Rs.40,00,000/- as compensation from the owner, the driver and the insurer of an autorickshaw, the negligent driving of which according to the petitioners resulted in the accident. On that claim petition the sum of Rs.39,373/- was payable as court fee, computed in terms of rule 397 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. In the claim petition itself the petitioners had stated that they are not in a position to pay the court fee at present and that they are agreeable to have the court fee recovered from the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. They also filed I.A.No.1174 of 2011 to exempt them from payment of court fee, wherein also they had stated that they do not have the means to pay the court fee. By Ext.P3 order passed o...

Cadbury India Limited Vs. the State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(3)KLT85(SN)(C.No.85); 2011(3)KHC316

(C.R.) RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. 1. The connected revision cases are filed by the petitioner challenging the common order of the Tribunal sustaining sales tax assessment on the purchase of coco by the petitioner company for the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99. We have heard counsel appearing for the petitioner and Government Pleader for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is a leading manufacturer of coco based chocolates and allied products. Raw coco beans are purchased by the petitioner directly and also through agents appointed by them. The agents purchase coco from farmers as well as from small traders and under agreement between them and the company, agents deliver coco at the godowns of the company located at various centres. There is written agreement between the company and the agents providing for reimbursement of price paid to farmers/dealers, all the cost incurred by the agents and also commission payable to them at the agreed rate. Cocobeans is admittedly an item taxable at...

State of Kerala, Rep. by the Conservator Vs. Chokkanathan

Court: Kerala

"C.R" 1. Is a material used for concealed transportation of timber or such other article in respect of which a forest offence is committed a 'tool' as understood in Section 61A of the Kerala Forest Act (for short, "the Act') liable for confiscation? 2. A resume of facts of the case is necessary for a decision of that question. On July 10, 2003, lorry bearing Reg. No.TN 21/T-5599 carrying red sandalwood logs kept concealed among 350 cartons of biscuit was seized by the Sales Tax Inspector, Walayar. He handed over the vehicle and other materials to the Range Officer, Walayar. The Range Officer on July 13, 2003 registered O.R. No.13 of 2003 for offence under the Act and seized the vehicle, red sandalwood logs and the cartons of biscuit. Respondent who claims to have hired the vehicle for transportation of biscuits filed C.M.P. No.4727 of 2003 before the Jurisdictional Magistrate under Sec.451 of Code of Criminal Procedure for interim custody of the cartons of biscuits. Learned Magistrate ...

Dr. Shaji K. Joseph Vs. Dr. Viswanath and Others

Court: Kerala

ANTONYDOMINIC, J. 1. The issue that arises for consideration is whether a registered Dentist, whose name is entered in the Part A State Register, maintained under the provisions of Chapter IV of the Dentists Act, 1948, but is not included in the Electoral Roll published by the Returning Officer in terms of the provisions contained in the Dental Council (Election) Regulations 1952(hereinafter referred to as 'Regulation' for short) is entitled to be a candidate in an election held in terms of Section 3(a) of the Act to the Dental Council of India. 2. The first respondent, is a Dentist who is registered in the Part A State Register, and this factual position is not disputed by the appellants. On 8.6.2009, a Returning Officer was appointed by the State Government for conducting the election, of one registered Dentist possessing recognized dental qualification, to the Dental Council of India. On appointment, notice of election was published by the Returning Officer on 22.11.2009 which inter...

Swathanthra Thozhilali Union Vs. Keala Headload Workers Welfare Board ...

Court: Kerala

Ext.P1resolution adopted by the Palakkad District Committee of the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board' for short) is under challenge in this writ petition. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- 2. The petitioner is a trade union representing headload workers of Pool I A of Mannarkkad Grama Panchayat. The second respondent is the Secretary of yet another trade union which represents headload workers of Pool I B. Both the pools have 21 workers each. Till the decision impugned in this writ petition was taken, headload workers of Pool I A were doing the loading and unloading work on Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays and headload workers of Pool I B were doing the loading and unloading work on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundays. In other words, all seven days of the week were working days. While matters stood thus, the Palakkad District Committee of the Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Committee' for short) that met on 28.4.2011 r...

Mohammad, Proprietor Vs. Asst. Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Se ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR, MEMBER The complainant is the appellant herein who is aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint in OP.1105/03 by the CDRF, Thrissur. 2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he is managing a service station by name Ushus Auto Station and that he was regularly paying the electricity charges to the opposite parties from the beginning of the establishment. It is his case that he was served with a bill for Rs.2,27,556/- on 1.12.03 and that after reducing the amount he was asked to pay and Rs.1,16,168/- which was already paid by him. The period was shown to be from 1997 to 2003. It is his further case that he was not liable to pay the said bill as he was not given any intimation regarding the arrears to be paid by him any time earlier. Though, the complainant filed a complaint in the adalath the respondents were not amenable to settle the dispute and hence the complaint was filed before the forum below for cancelling the disputed bill. 3. The op...