Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2006Ker373; 2007(1)ARBLR1(Kerala); 2006(1)KLT797
M. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. Whether a court before which an action is brought in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement has only to refer the parties to arbitration or to appoint an arbitrator and refer the parties to arbitration before that arbitrator under Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This is the vital question to be resolved in the appeal.2. Appellants were the plaintiffs in a suit for dissolution of a partnership firm and for accounting on the file of Sub Court, Kozhikode. Respondents were the defendants in the suit who are the other partners of the firm M/s.Deepa Restaurant and Tourist Home, Ramanattukara. On appearance before court on receipt of the summons, respondents filed I.A.2676/03, a petition under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 1996 Act) for a reference to arbitration. The partnership deed admittedly contained an arbitration clause. Appellants did not oppose the petition. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : I(2007)ACC201; 2007ACJ889; 2006(4)KLT133
K. Hema, J.1. A petition was filed by the insurer under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act (the Act, for short), for grant of permission to contest the case on all grounds. The Tribunal, without disposing of the application, allowed the insurer to cross-examine the claimant. Thereafter, an award was passed directing the insurer to pay compensation. The insurer challenges the award on merit. Is it permissible? Can an appeal filed by the insurer challenging the award on grounds other than those are specified in Section 149(2) of the Act be entertained, in the absence of a specific order by the Tribunal under Section 170 of the Act, granting permission? This is the precise question which falls for consideration in this case.2. This appeal is filed by the insurer. An award was passed against the insurer, under Section 166 of the Act. According to claimant, the vehicle involved in the accident bears No. KL-5A/6185 which is insured with appellant. The appellant admitted insurance, but con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2006(1)KLT834; (2007)8VST434(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, Ag. C.J.1. General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras along with two others have approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Government of Kerala to issue necessary direction to his subordinate officials to refrain from taking action under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act against the Station Masters and other authorities in the various railway stations in the State in discharge of their duties of booking goods and dealing with booked consignments under the provisions of the Railways Act.2. Third petitioner in the Writ Petition was served with a notice dated 5.11.1998 under Section 46/45A of the Kerala General Salestax Act, 1963, for short 'the Sales Tax Act', by the Intelligence Officer, Squad No. II, Commercial Taxes, Trivandrum proposing to impose penalty of Rs. 36,400/- under Section 45A of the Sales tax Act presumably on the ground that the third responden...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2006(4)KLT361
A.K. Basheer, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of the petitioner in an Arbitration proceeding pending before the District Court, Ernakularn. During the pendency of the proceeding, the petitioner moved an application praying for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 herein to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,06,30,047/- (Rupees One crore six lakhs thirty thousand and forty-seven only) towards payment allegedly due to him from respondent No. 3. The court below dismissed the application. Hence, this appeal under Section 37(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 1996.2. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant is an agent of respondent No. 2 and, if so, whether the appellant is entitled to enforce his claim by invoking the arbitration clause against respondents 1 and 2 by virtue of Section 194 of the Indian Contract Act.3. Respondent No. 1, the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Kochi Marketing Terminal (for short the Corporation') had appointed FAC...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2006Ker154; III(2007)BC7; [2006]131CompCas232(Ker); 2006(1)KLT479
K.K. Denesan, J.1. Whether a suit or other proceeding filed by a bank or financial institution as defined in the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short the Act) and pending adjudication before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Societies Act) would stand automatically transferred to the Recovery Tribunal constituted under the Act? If not, dismissal of the suit by the Registrar, instead of returning the same for presentation before the Tribunal, is not improper resulting in miscarriage of justice? These are the questions for consideration in this Original Petition filed in the backdrop of the following facts.2. Petitioner is a nationalised bank and respondent No. 1 is a co-operative society registered under the Societies Act. According to the petitioner, respondent No. l borrowed a certain sum of money from the petitioner-bank, respondent No. 2 executed agreemen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (2007)8VST184(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The question that arises for consideration in these cases is whether the Cochin Port Trust, governed by the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, is a dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and liable to pay sales tax.2. S.T.R. No. 321 of 2005 and S. T. R. No. 326 of 2005 arise out of a common order passed in T. A. No. 1 of 2000 and T. A. No. 143 of 2003 of the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench-II, Ernakulam. T. A. No. 1 of 2000 and T. A. No. 143 of 2003 were disposed of along with T. A. No. 162 of 2000 filed by the State. State has not filed any revision petition against the order in T. A. No. 162 of 2000 and hence we need only examine the correctness or otherwise of the common order passed in T. A. No. 1 of 2000 and T. A. No. 143 of 2003. T. A. No. 1 of 2000 relates to the assessment year 1994-95 and T. A. No. 143 of 2003 relates to the assessment year 1997-98. T.R.C. No. 412 of 2002 was filed by the Cochin Port Trust against the order...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : I(2007)ACC228
J.M. James, J.1. The questions raised for consideration in this appeal are, whether the owner of the vehicle could remit the policy premium on an earlier date and then opt for a future date for the commencement of the insurance policy, when the existing policy had already expired, if so, is it not against the mandatory provision under Section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in short 'the Act', and in such situation, whether the insurer could allow the insured to have his vehicle plied without a policy in force for that vehicle. If that be so, is not such a contract between the insurer and the insured against the public policy and public interest, and also what is the impact of such insurance policy on the third party.2. Applicants 1 to 4, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein, are the legal representatives of one Kamaladharan, who met with a motor vehicle accident, on 10.1.2000, at about 3.30 p.m., and died consequently. A claim, as O.P. (M.V.) No. 430/2000, had been preferred before the Motor ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : I(2007)BC324; [2006]130CompCas618(Ker); 2006(1)KLT150
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Can an account maintained in the name of a firm be said to be an account maintained by its Managing Partner? Can the Managing Partner who issued the cheque be said to-be the drawer of the cheque? These questions arise for consideration in this case.2. This revision petition is directed against the concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence (the sentence was modified by the appellate court) imposed on the revision petitioner/accused under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.3. The cheque is for an amount of Rs. 90,000/- The cheque is issued by the accused as Managing Partner of M/s. Integrated Homoeo Pharmaceuticals, a firm. The complainant alleged that the accused had borrowed an amount of Rs. 90,000/- and had issued the cheque in question, Ext.P1, for the discharge of the said liability. The cheque, when presented, was dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of funds. A notice of demand was issued. The same was not received and was returned unclaimed. It is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : II(2006)ACC697; 2006ACJ1476; 2006(1)KLT589
J.M. James, J.1. An interesting question raised before this Court through this appeal is, whether a vehicle, which was stolen from its owner and was latter involved in an accident, while the same was driven by another person, who is either a thief or a person in possession of the stolen vehicle, could be treated as an authorised person entitled to drive, as per the conditions contained in the policy issued by the appellants, the insurer, in favour of the insured, the actual owner of the vehicle and therefore, the insurer is bound to indemnify the insured.2. The brief facts required for the disposal of this appeal are that the additional third respondent in O.P.(MV)No. 1365/98 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Attingal, in short the Tribunal, had reported to the Medical College Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, that his motor cycle, bearing Regn.No. KL-01/K-3490 was stolen from his flat, No. 1, P.T. Chacko Nagar, Medical College P.O., Thiruvananthapuram. The Medical ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2006(1)KLT339
K. Thankappan, J.1. These Writ Petitions and Crl. Miscellaneous Cases relate to Crime No. 282 of 1997 of Nadakavu Police Station, Kozhikode registered on the basis of the First Information Statement given by Ms. K. Ajitha, the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 30176 of 2005.2. The case was registered against 16 accused whose names and addresses are mentioned in Ext.Pl charge (produced in W.P.(C) No. 30176 of 2005) framed on the basis of the final investigation report filed by the police. The case is now pending as S.C. No. 124 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Assistant Sessions Court II, Kozhikode. The above case was nicknamed by the media as 'Ice Cream Parlour Case'.3. The short facts of the case are that one Ms. Sreedevi, the first accused in Ext.PI was alleged to be running a commercial sex centre under the guise of running an ice crearm parlour and on the basis of the First Information Statement given by the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 30176 of 2005, the above crime was registered by ...
Tag this Judgment!