Kerala Court January 2012 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.
M.P. Dharmarathnam and Others Vs. State of Kerala Represented by the C ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-13-2012
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. These connected appeals are filed by the registered owners cum permit holders of auto rickshaws given on hire to operate the same on daily rental basis. The appellants' case is that they are giving on hire their auto rickshaws to auto drivers with licence and badge for operation of the vehicle at the discretion of the drivers on payment of daily rent of a fixed sum. Since different drivers take on hire the same auto rickshaw, such drivers are not employees of the auto owner and therefore, the registered owner is not liable to register the hirers as motor workers or remit contribution payable under the Kerala Auto Rickshaw Workers' Welfare Fund Scheme 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Scheme') or under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund Act 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is the specific case put forward by the appellants. No assessment or demand for welfare fund is made against the appellants either under the provisions of the Ac...
Joseph Vilangadan, CochIn Vs. M/S Aagma Techno Products Private Limite ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-13-2012
1. Ext.P5 order passed by the 1st Additional Munsiff, Ernakulam in I.A. No. 4206/11 in O.S. No. 584/11 is challenged in this original petition.2. Petitioner is the defendant in the above suit, which was filed by the respondent for a decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction. Ext.P1 is copy of the plaint in the suit. Petitioner/defendant, on entering appearance, filed Ext.P2 statement raising a preliminary objection that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, since the agreement entered by the parties contained an arbitration clause to resolve the disputes raised in the suit. Admittedly, the petitioner/defendant is the owner of the building and premises, which have been let out under a lease agreement to the respondent/plaintiff. The suit was laid canvassing a decree of prohibitory injunction to restrain the owner/landlord from causing any obstruction to the respondent/lessee from constructing a latrine cum bath room and also installing of diesel generator in the premises...
Mohammed Kunju Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by the Public Prosecut ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-13-2012
1. The short question, which arises for consideration in this petition, is whether the de facto complainant can challenge the order of anticipatory bail granted to the accused persons by the Sessions Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. This is a petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the de-facto complainant in Crime No.25 of 2007 of Aryanad Police Station, which is now pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Nedumangad, to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the accused persons in that case by Annexure-A2 order. 3. The accused persons were charged for offences punishable under sections 341, 323, 324, and 326 read with section 34 IPC on the allegation that on December 30, 2006 at about 8.45 p.m. they assaulted the de-facto complainant and caused grievous injuries. The learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order dated February 7, 2007 granted anticipatory bail to the accused. The de-facto complainant has ...
C.V. Moni Achari Vs. the Director, Local Fund Audit
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-13-2012
This Memorandum of Regular First Appeal arises out of the order passed by the District Court, Thodupuzha in a petition filed by the appellant under Section 16(3) of the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act, 1994. The appeal was filed under Section 215(13) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The Registry entertained a doubt whether the appeal is maintainable since no appeal was provided under the Kerala Local Fund Act. 2. The petitioner was working as Secretary of Vannappuram Grama Panchayat in Idukki District. He retired from service in 1999. In the audit, it was found that a loss of 68,000/- was caused to the Panchayat in the matter of purchase of television sets under the Peoples Planning Scheme. The Director of Local Fund Audit initiated surcharge proceedings against the petitioner. Surcharge certificate was issued and revenue recovery proceedings were initiated. Challenging surcharge, the petitioner filed O.P.(L.F.) No.19 of 2009 before the District Court, Thodupuzha under Section 16(3) ...
Vasu @ Bhaskaran Vs. Parukutty Amma and Another
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-13-2012
RAMKUMAR, J. 1. In this intra-court appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, the sole plaintiff in O.S.No.223 of 1983 on the file of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Thrissur, challenges the appellate Judgment and decree passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in A.S.441 of 1988. The said suit was one for realisation of a sum of Rs.20,000/- from the appellants’ step mother one Parukutty Amma and her daughter Sukumari on the allegation that the said amount was the sale consideration due to the appellant under Exts.A1 to A3 sale deeds. JOINT-TRIAL - The partition suit 2. The present suit was jointly tried along with O.S.No.182 of 1983 which was a suit filed by the said Parukutty Amma and her daughter Sukumari seeking partition and separate possession of 2/3 shares over 6 items of immovable properties described in the plaint schedule. In the partition suit the mother and daughter alleged that the suit properties absolutely belonged to late P....
Ernakulam District Bus Operators' Organization and Others Vs. State of ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-13-2012
C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. 1. These writ petitions are referred to us by a learned Single Judge because the constitutional validity of Section 2(ja) of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') along with the corresponding provisions introduced by Amendment Act 23/2005 are under challenge. We have heard Senior counsel Smt. Sumathi Dandapani and various other counsel appearing for the petitioners, standing counsel Sri. P. Ramakrishnan appearing for the Kerala Motor Workers Welfare Fund Board and Government Pleader for the State. 2. Petitioners are registered owners and operators of various motor vehicles with permits for transport of passengers or goods. In some cases, the vehicle operation is by the registered owner/permit holder as proprietor and in certain cases partnership firms are operating the vehicles wherein the registered owner as a partner also happens to be engaged either as driver or as conductor or as door checker. The Mo...
Kerala State Electricity Board, Rep. by Secretary and Others Vs. M/S. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-13-2012
RamachandranNair, J. This Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge declaring that the 1st respondent is entitled to HT-I tariff for the electricity supply taken by them from the KSEB. 2. We have heard learned Standing Counsel for the KSEB and also learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, who tool notice on admission. 3. After hearing both sides, and on going through the judgment of the learned Single Judge, we notice that the learned Single Judge only followed two judgments of this Court, which again are based on the order the Electricity Regulatory Commission fixing the tariff applicable to M/s. Milma. The relevant order of the Electricity Regulatory Commission is as follows:- “In view of the foregoing, the Commission Orders the following: 4.1 The Dairy plants of KCMMF engaged in production of milk and milk products in a given premise having HT Electricity service connection shall pay electricity charges applicable to the HT-I, Industrial categor...
V.P. Neelakantan and Another Vs. Sree Chithira Thirunal Institute for ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jan-13-2012
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The complainants are the parents of the deceased Vijaya kumar 28 years who underwent treatment at the opposite party Sree Chithira Thirunal Institute of Medical Sciences and Technology, Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter to be mentioned as SCTIMST) and he died on 11.2.1990 at the ICU of the above hospital. He was admitted at the hospital on 9.1.90 for treatment of CSF Rhinorrhea. It is alleged that after taking CT scan on 16.1.90 the doctors told that the condition of their son was quite stable and safe and hence the surgery as planned earlier was not required. He was under routine medication till the 26th after admitted as an inpatient on 9.1.90. On 27.1.90 the complainants were told that their son was undergoing operation to arrest the leakage from the nostrils. The complainants were shocked as the operation was carried out without any intimation and without obtaining the requisite specific consent. It is alleged that the surgery was conducted in...
Ms. Seethal C. Sreedharan, Supervisor, Dept. of Microbiology and Other ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jan-13-2012
SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The order dated:11.8.10 of CDRF, Pathanamthitta in CC No. 22/09 is being assailed in this appeal by the opposite parties who are under directions to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation and cost of Rs. 1,000/- within 1 month from the date of receipt of the order failing which they are under directions to pay interest also @ 9% from the date of order till payment. 2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that his 4 years old daughter was taken to the opposite parties for conducting preliminary test of Hepatitis B and that after conducting the test, the opposite parties issued the result showing positive and as advised by the opposite parties, a confirmatory test of Hepatitis B, (ie. Elisa test) was also conducted and it was also reported as positive. Being doubtful about the results, the complainant approached the Lakeshore Hospital at Kochi and on further test, result was non-reactive. He had repeated the test at St...
The Additional Registrar/Secretary Kerala State Co-operative Employees ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jan-13-2012
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Appeal not pressed. Dismissed. Vide memo filed....
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »