Kerala Court August 2011 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.
Sakthi Ceramics Vs. Supreme Ceramics
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-17-2011
1. Defendants 1,3,4 and 6 in O.S.No.1/01 before the District Court, Trissur, are the appellants. The suit was one based on passing off action. The parties and facts are hereinafter referred to as they are available before the Trial Court. 2. According to the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff firm is engaged in the manufacture of flooring tiles, decorative tiles, pottery items etc. since 24.2.1992. They sell their products under the brand name “Kathakali” and Kathakali emblem is engrossed on their products. According to the plaintiffs, they have considerable reputation in the market and a goodwill among the customers. They claim that they alone are entitled to use the brand name “Kathakali” with the emblem engrossed on the product. The allegation in the plaint is that the plaintiff’s came to know that the defendants are also using the same trade name and mark and selling the same products as the first plaintiff firm does. According to the plaintiffs the brand...
A. Shihabudeen Vs. the Md, Army Group Insurance Fund and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-17-2011
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. Order under challenge is one issued by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Kochi Bench holding that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to settle claims made by army personnel against the Army Group Insurance Fund (AGIF). The petitioner after serving army as a Junior Commissioned Officer got released after he sustained injury in an army operation. Though he was granted regular pension, he was declined war injury pension and disability benefit under the AGIF. Therefore, the petitioner filed Writ Petition before this Court for relief against the Armed Forces as well as against the AGIF. On formation of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), the WP(C) was transferred to the AFT, Kochi Bench which vide Ext.P3 order allowed the claim of the petitioner on both accounts. In other words, he was declared to be eligible to get pension reckoning war injury as well as insurance benefit for the injury suffered by him, from the AGIF. It so happened that in the proceedings before the AFT,...
Shankara Rai Vs. Thimmanna Rai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-17-2011
1. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether Ext.B4 evidences partition or is it merely a maintenance arrangement. The lower court held that it amounts to partition and disruption of the family and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the said decree, the plaintiff has come up in appeal. 2. The suit was one for partition. Plaintiff and defendants 1 to 16 belong to an undivided Aliyasanthana family. The plaintiff claimed 1/7 share in plaint B and C schedule properties. Pointing out that he did not wish to continue the joint status the suit was laid. 3. Defendants 4 and 5 resisted the suit. They pointed out that by Ext.B4 document dated 27.2.1940 there had already been a partition in the family and properties were allotted to various sharers. Details of the devolution of the property have been narrated in the written statement, which is not very relevant for the present purpose. Suffice it to say, they prayed for a dismissal of the suit. 4. The other defendan...
Jayan C. Das Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by the Additional Chief ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-17-2011
The petitioner was provisionally appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade-II in the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Alappuzha as per Ext.P1. Based on Ext.P1, the Director of Prosecution (Administration) issued Ext.P2 order regarding charge arrangements. On the strength of Exts.P1 and P2, the petitioner took charge on 16.6.2011. While continuing as such, his provisional appointment was terminated as per Ext.P3. As per Ext.P3 the fourth respondent who is a regular incumbent in the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade-I was transferred from Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Kayamkulam and posted to Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Alappuzha and consequently, the provisional appointment of the petitioner was terminated. This Writ Petition has been filed, in the said circumstances, mainly with the prayer to quash Ext.P3 and to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue at Alappuzha as though E...
The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Thrissur, Represented by Its Manager ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-17-2011
Joseph, J. Appellant is the third opposite party/insurer in a claim filed by the first respondent, claiming compensation for injuries he allegedly suffered. The Commissioner has awarded a sum of Rs.23,050/- with 12% interest. In arriving at the said figure, the Commissioner has taken the loss of earning capacity of the claimant as 12%, as a construction worker. 2. We heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the first respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would raise two issues before us. In the first place, he would contend that this is a case where the applicant had claimed compensation under Section 4(1)(d) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (for short, ‘the Act’), that is, he was paid half monthly wages, as contemplated in Section 4(1)(d). Thereafter, the employee produced a certificate from a medical practitioner, certifying that he was fit to rejoin duty. Accordingly, he rejoined his employment and he was continuing with his e...
Souda Beevi and Another Vs. Sub Inspector of Police, Pallicka Police S ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-17-2011
1. Bail Application Nos. 5198 of 2011 and 5358 of 2011 are under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by Souda Beevi (accused No.1) and Ahammed (accused No.2) respectively in Crime No. 638 of 2007 of Pathanamthitta Police Station. Souda Beevi was arrested on 20.6.2011 and Ahammed was arrested on 25.5.2011. Bail Application No.5620 of 2011 is filed by Souda Beevi, accused No.1 in Crime No. 398 of 2011 of Pallickal Police Station, under Section 439 Crl.P.C. she was arrested in that case on 2.7.2011. 2. The offences alleged in Crime No. 638 of 2007 of Pathanamthitta Police Station are under Sections 120-B, 417, 420, 366, 342, 376 (2) (g) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 10 read with Section 24 (b) (f) (g) of the Immigration Act, 1983 and Section 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. The allegations leveled against the accused are the following. The defacto complaint (victim) was provided with a visa by the first accused Souda Beevi and the 2nd accused Ahammed, ...
P. Amina Nahna Vs. State of Kerala, Rep. by the Secretary, Health and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-17-2011
“The learned judges of the High Court, if we may say so with respect in a well-considered opinion expressed their anguish at the insensitivity of the authorities administering medical admission in the State to the need to prevent occasions for repetitive grievances from the student community and had occasions to observe: ‘Shakespeare in Othello has written ‘Chaos is come again.” This Court has witnessed chaos almost annually when time for admission to MBBS/BDS courses case….’” These observations of the Apex Court in Convenor, MBBS/BDS Selection Board v. Chandan Mishra (1995 Supp. (3) SCC 77) were quoted in the judgment in Fathimma Haneena P. v. State of Kerala and Others (2008 (3) KHC 544), where this Court expressed its anguish about the entrance examination conducted by the 3rd respondent for admission to its member colleges. Again in 2010, in the judgment in Noorbina Banu v. State of Kerala (2010 (3) KLT 581), it was repeated. Still, t...
Kail Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-16-2011
C. N. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. The review petitioner is a 100% subsidiary of M/s. Videocon International Ltd. engaged in marketing of products like television, washing machine etc. in the brand name “Sansui”. The products manufactured in the brand name “Sansui” were brought to Kerala and sold by M/s. Videocon International Ltd. to the review petitioner, which in turn made sales of the products to the market. S.5(2) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short), the constitutional validity of which is upheld by this Court, authorises levy of tax on branded goods at the point of sale by the brand name holders treating such sales as deemed first sales by virtue of the fiction available under S.5(2) of the Act. From the very beginning the review petitioner took the stand that it is not a subsidiary of M/s. Videocon International Ltd., which was stated to be the exclusive brand name holder of the products. However during hearing o...
Sundaran @ Sudhan Vs. Shaju and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-16-2011
“CR” R. BASANT, J. 1. Can the course adopted by a claimant of merely thrusting the disability certificate into court be reckoned as sufficient to prove the disability suffered or extent thereof This is the short question that arises for consideration in this appeal. 2. The appellant/claimant suffered injuries in a motor accident, which took place on 01.04.2001. He claimant a total amount of Rs. 2.24,500/- as compensation. The Tribunal by the impugned award directed payment of an amount of Rs. 42,000/- as compensation as per the details given below: SI. No.Head of claim Amount Awarded (in Rupees)Basis vital details in a nut shell1Loss of earning (Total)Rs. 62502500X2.52Loss of earning (partial) 3Medical and Miscellaneous expensesRs.13,725/- 4Future treatment 5Bystander ExpensesRs.1,500/- 6Transportation ExpensesRs.500/- 7Extra NourishmentRs.1,500/- 8Damages to clothing, etcRs.500/- 9Pain and sufferingRs. 6,000/- 10Disabilit...
indira Krishnan, D/O Thankamma Vs. Electrolux Kelvinator Ltd. and Othe ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Aug-16-2011
SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR: MEMBER This appeal is filed by the complainant in CC.133/06 before the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram who is not satisfied by the directions of the Forum below to the opposite parties to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.3000/- as cost. 2. The case of the complainant bereft of unnecessary details is that she had purchased an Electrolux washing machine for a sum of Rs.17,990/- from the 3rd opposite party manufactured by the 1st opposite party and that the machine was defective from the very beginning itself. It is alleged by the complainant that even after repeated repairs, the defects continued and that altogether there were 3 replacements of the washing machine and inspite of replacements the machine, supplied, suffered from defects. It is also alleged that the machines supplied could not be rectified by the opposite parties. Alleging deficiency of service the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite parties and to pay compensation of Rs.50,...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »