Kerala Court January 2016 Judgments
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Thottathil and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-14-2016
Ramachandra Menon, J. 1. The course pursued by the Tribunal in granting a total compensation of 5,14,250/- in respect of the demise of a minor boy aged 13 years is sought to be challenged by the insurance company, contending that the multiplier taken by the Tribunal is on the higher side and that deduction towards the probable personal expenses has been made only to an extent of 1/3rd, which, according to the company, should have been 50%, as it is claimed by the parents and the sibling. 2. The sequence of events narrated in the appeal reveals that the accident was on 26.8.2004. The minor boy was proceeding along the road when he was knocked down by an auto rickshaw bearing No.KL.04.G.3423 owned, driven and insured by respondents 1 to 3 before the Tribunal, causing fatal injuries. Despite the treatment availed for several days, his life could not be saved and he succumbed to the injuries on 2.9.2004 bidding farewell to this world. This was sought to be compensated by filing the claim p...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanu Joby Vs. Joby Cheriyan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-14-2016
Sunil Thomas, J. This matter is placed before the Division Bench on a reference by a learned single Judge, doubting the correctness of the decision reported as Preeti Yohannan v. Abraham K. Mathen (2012 (3) KLT 111) and posing the question as to whether the provisions of the Civil Rules of Practice should govern proceedings before this Court. The learned Judge has also raised an issue as to whether any fetter can be imposed on the powers of the High Court', while exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The transfer petition was filed by the wife of the first respondent. Matrimonial disputes between them had led to the institution of five different proceedings before the Family Courts of Ernakulam and Kottarakkara, raising allegations and counter allegations. A single transfer petition was filed by the wife before this Court invoking Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for short, `CPC, requesting for transfer of two cases pending...
Tag this Judgment!The New India Assurance Company Ltd. represented by its Manager Vs. Vi ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-14-2016
Ramachandra Menon, J. 1. The course pursued by the Tribunal in granting a total compensation of Rs.5,14,250/- in respect of the demise of a minor boy aged 13 years is sought to be challenged by the insurance company, contending that the multiplier taken by the Tribunal is on the higher side and that deduction towards the probable personal expenses has been made only to an extent of 1/3rd, which, according to the company, should have been 50%, as it is claimed by the parents and the sibling. 2. The sequence of events narrated in the appeal reveals that the accident was on 26.8.2004. The minor boy was proceeding along the road when he was knocked down by an autorickshaw bearing No.KL.04.G.3423 owned, driven and insured by respondents 1 to 3 before the Tribunal, causing fatal injuries. Despite the treatment availed for several days, his life could not be saved and he succumbed to the injuries on 2.9.2004 bidding farewell to this world. This was sought to be compensated by filing the claim...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanu Joby @ Dhanu Shaji Vs. Joby Cheriyan and Another
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-14-2016
Sunil Thomas, J. 1. This matter is placed before the Division Bench on a reference by a learned single Judge, doubting the correctness of the decision reported as Preeti Yohannan v. Abraham K.Mathen [2012 (3) KLT 111] and posing the question as to whether the provisions of the Civil Rules of Practice should govern proceedings before this Court. The learned Judge has also raised an issue as to whether any fetter can be imposed on the powers of the High Court, while exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The transfer petition was filed by the wife of the first respondent. Matrimonial disputes between them had led to the institution of five different proceedings before the Family Courts of Ernakulam and Kottarakkara, raising allegations and counter allegations. A single transfer petition was filed by the wife before this Court invoking Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for short, CPC , requesting for transfer of two cases pendin...
Tag this Judgment!A. Parvathi Amma Vs. K.M. Gowri Amma and Others
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-14-2016
1. Does the notification issued under Section 388 of the Indian Succession Act empower the munsiff to entertain an application under Section 372, the valuation of which exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction conferred on him under Section 13 of the Kerala Civil Courts Act? 2. Respondents 1 to 5 are the children of one K.M.Parvathy Amma. They had a brother by name Narayanan, who while working as a sub engineer in Kerala State Electricity Board, died in a motor accident on 24.02.1998. He was survived by his wife, Vasanthakumari and daughter, Chitra. Later, his mother, K.M.Parvathy Amma, died. His wife, Vasanthakumari and daughter, Chitra died on 27.04.2009. The petitioner is his mother-in-law. In O.P(MV) No.932 of 1998 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal a certain amount was awarded as compensation for his death. An amount of Rs.1,76,029/- has been deposited in the Tribunal towards compensation. Certain amounts have been deposited with the 6th and 7th respondent banks in the names of Vasanthak...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Murugan Agencies, Represented by its Proprietor Prakash Kumar Cho ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-14-2016
Anu Sivaraman, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the unsuccessful writ petitioner/assessee against the judgment of the learned single Judge dismissing W.P(C).No.17385 of 2008. The writ petition was filed challenging Exhibits P13 and P15 orders issued by the Commercial Tax Officer refusing refund of the tax already paid under the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, 1976 (for short, the Act, 1976'). The appellant is a firm which is a registered dealer in tobacco products. It had preferred O.P.No. 2190 of 1995 challenging the liability for payment of luxury tax. An interim order was issued in that case on 10.2.1995 refusing to stay the operation of Section 4A of the Act, 1976, but directing the petitioner to file returns. So far as the payment of tax contemplated under Section 5(3) of the Act, 1976 is concerned, the petitioner was directed to furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the assessing authority on or before 15th of every month in relation to the tax payable for the preceding mont...
Tag this Judgment!Kantararu Mohanaru Vs. Travancore Devaswom Board, represented by its S ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-14-2016
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. The fundamental issue raised for decision is as to whether the petitioner is to be permitted to perform 'Tantric' rites and attendant duties in the Dharma Sastha Temple at Sabarimala; hereinafter, 'temple', for short. The temple is world-famous and its seat is embedded with such glory, sentiments and feelings of crores of believers as is discernible from the different orders issued by this Court, from time to time, relating to the management of the affairs of that acclaimed religious institution. Different issues relating to pre-decisional hearing and jurisdiction of the Travancore Devaswom Board; 'TDB' for short and the Devaswom Commissioner of TDB; for short, 'Commissioner'; are raised challenging the Commissioner's Ext.P1 communication to the petitioner, making reference to TDB's decision dated 31.7.2015 and informing the petitioner that he would not be permitted to perform the duties of a 'Thantri' in the temple. Here and now, we may notice that o...
Tag this Judgment!Arun Sunny Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and Another
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-14-2016
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Appellant impugns the dismissal of his writ petition challenging an order passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 119(2) (a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; 'Act' for short. 2. Appellant sold an item of property. The computation of capital gains referable to that transaction resulted in an assessment order, leading to, among other things, consequential levy of interest under section 234B of the Act. He applied before the Chief Commissioner seeking waiver of interest so levied. That was turned down. It stands confirmed by the learned single Judge through the impugned judgment. 3. It is pleaded on behalf of the appellant that he was eligible to the benefit of Ext.P3(a) notification dated 23.5.1996 and that Ext.P3(b) is only a communication, not amounting to a notification of an order under Section 119(2)(a) of the Act. So saying, it is argued that since the assessee voluntarily filed the return, without detection by the assessing offic...
Tag this Judgment!K. Sudheesan Vs. Sunilkumar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-13-2016
1. Petitioner is the decree holder in a suit for money. The decree was challenged in appeal. The appellate court stayed execution of the decree on condition that the respondent/judgment debtor furnished security for the performance of the decree. Accordingly the respondent produced before the executing court fixed deposit receipts for a certain amount issued by a bank as security. The appeal was later dismissed. Thereupon, the petitioner filed Ext P4 execution petition requesting the court to send for the amounts covered by the fixed deposit receipts. The respondent filed an application to return the receipts. By Ext P8 order the court allowed the respondent's application and ordered return of the fixed deposit receipts to the respondent stating that the appeal was disposed of and the amount has not been attached. 2. Heard. 3. The respondent produced fixed deposit receipts issued by a bank pursuant to the orders passed by the appellate court as a condition for staying execution of the ...
Tag this Judgment!The Board of Directors of The Puthuparamba Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. re ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-13-2016
1. The petitioners the Managing Committee and the President of a Bank have filed this writ petition questioning the action of the State Co-operative Election Commission, the first respondent, in rejecting the Bank's request to conduct the election in January, 2016. The rejection is on the grounds that beyond 31.12.2015 elections should be held on a ward basis and that the petitioner Bank so far has not divided its area of operation into wards. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the Managing Committee of the petitioner Bank will have its term come to an end on 22.01.2016; accordingly, it passed Ext.P1 resolution to conduct the election for the committee on 17.01.2016. On the basis of Ext.P1 resolution, the petitioner Bank sent Ext.P2 request to the Election Commission; it has required the Commission to appoint an Electoral Officer and a Returning Officer, so that they could take all the necessary steps to hold elections on 17.01.2016. The Election Commission has, nevertheless, through Ext...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »