Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2007ACJ1371; 2007(1)KLT331
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Alleging that he suffered certain injuries in a motor accident, the respondent applied for compensation under Sections 163-A and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short), alleging negligence on the driver, though none was impleaded in that capacity.2. The owner did not contest.3. The appellant-insurer disputed the liability and also challenged the maintainability of the composite application, filed invoking Sections 163-A and 166. Faced with such objections, the claimant applied for deletion of Section 166 from the application.4. The documentary evidence was, thereafter, taken on record. No oral evidence was adduced.5. The Tribunal did not find that the claimant suffered any permanent disablement. Nor was on record, any certificate, by the competent, to that effect. Bereft of that, the application was unsustainable under Section 163-A. The claimant pleaded his monthly income as Rs. 5,000/-, that is, an annual income of Rs. 60,000/-, we...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2007Ker33; 2006(4)KLT695
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Use of mobile phone is a common phenomena throughout the country and has made drastic changes in the peoples' life style. Users range from a common man to multimillionaire and this tiny instrument has revolutionized the medium of communication throughout the world. Constant use of mobile phone, it is reported, may have its own adverse ill effects on human health as well. Mobile phones produce radio-frequency. Magnetic energy moving through space is generally called radio frequency electro magnetic radiation (EMR). EMR is of course a part of everyday life. EMR is emitted by natural sources like the sun, the earth and the ionosphere and also by artificial sources such as electrical and electronic equipments, radar facilities, broadcast towers and mobile phone base stations etc. EMR absorbed in human body is measured in units called the specific absorption rate (SAR) which is usually expressed in units of watts per kilogram (w/kg.) or milliwatts per gram (mw/g.). ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2006(4)KLT831
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. This Election Petition is filed by one of the defeated candidates challenging the election of the first respondent to the House of People from 12 H.P. Muvattupuzha Parliamentary Constituency in the election held on 10.5.2004. The first respondent won the election with a margin of 529 votes over the petitioner who got second largest number of votes. While the petitioner was the candidate from CPI (M), a constituent of Left Democratic Front, the first respondent was the candidate from the Indian Federal Democratic Party, a constituent of the National Democratic Alliance, and the second respondent who also contested the election on party lines was from. Kerala Congress (M), a constituent of the United Democratic Front. When the first respondent secured 2,56,411 votes, the election petitioner got 2,55,882 votes and the second respondent secured 2,09,880 votes. Respondents 3 to 15 contested the election as independents and all of them got insignificant number of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (2007)10VST615(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioner is challenging revisional order issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes confirming penalty levied under Section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter called 'the Act') for the offence committed by the petitioner under Section 10(d) of the Act for the assessment years 1993-94 to 1996-97. The facts leading to the case are as follows. The petitioner which is a reputed company engaged in telecast of TV programmes and cable networking issued C forms for the above four years and availed concessional rate of sales tax on inter-State purchase of dish antenna, battery, digitiser, etc., which are used in their cable TV network for transmitting TV signals to customers. The assessing officer found that the items purchased were neither used for manufacture of any goods nor for generation of power or for resale and therefore there was misuse of C form leading to loss of revenue. Since the action of the petitioner amounts to violation o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2007Ker77; 2006(4)KLT991
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Can the presumption that a legacy to an attesting witness is void under Section 67 of the Indian Succession Act be rebutted by the legatee establishing that he had signed the will not as an attesting witness but acknowledging the obligations he has to discharge under the will, is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.2. O.P.No. 40 of 1991 was filed by one of the legatees seeking Letters of Administration of a Will executed by his mother late Kathreena. In response to the notice, first respondent alone entered appearance and contested and the O.P was then numbered as a suit O.S 5/1993 and was tried by the District Court, Thrissur. Kathreena is the mother of plaintiff and defendants 2 to 6. First defendant is the grandson of Kathreena and the son of Antony. Kathreena had executed a Will on 29.08.1957 and got it registered as document number 53 of 1957 of the Sub Registry Office, Thrissur on 30.8.1957. She had signed the document in the pres...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (2008)2CompLJ314(Ker); [2007]75SCL569(Ker)
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J.1. An application (appeal) was filed by the first respondent before the Company Law Board, South Region Bench under Section 111(2) of the Companies Act (for short 'the Act') as the company refused to register the transaction of 67,300 shares inherited by him from his deceased mother by virtue of a Will dated 21-12-1987. He filed an application on 25-7-2002 for registration of the transmission of the above shares. From a communication dated 31-5-2003 forwarded by the company he came to understand that the above application was rejected. Hence, application was filed under Section 111 of the Act with a petition to condone the delay of 45 days. The appellant company contended that the application for registration of transaction was made on 25-7-2002. Since no notice or communication was given by the company, appeal should have been filed within four months from the date of application and the delay is 285 days and not 45 days. It was contended that communication dated 31...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (2007)10VST680(Ker)
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Are purchases of sandalwood billets, roots, etc., for complying with export orders for sandalwood chips permitted for export, to be deemed to be in the course of such export, for the purpose of Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ('the CST Act', for short) This, pithily, is the issue in these writ petitions.2. Stated to be to satisfy existing orders for export, the petitioner, engaged in the export of sandalwood, participated in, and successfully bid, different forest auctions held by the Kerala Forest Department. When called upon to pay the entire sales tax due under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 ('the KGST Act', for short) along with the balance consideration, the petitioner claimed exemption under Section 5(3) of the CST Act. These writ petitions are filed for a direction to release the goods without collecting sales tax, on furnishing documents in support of the claim of exemption.3. The respondents contend, inter alia, that (i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (2007)2CompLJ143(Ker); [2007]76SCL185(Ker)
J.B. Koshy, J.1. These appeals are filed questioning the correctness of the order of the Company Law Board dated 5.6.2006 under Sections 397, 398, read with Sections 402 and 403 and Schedule XI of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') [since reported as V.S. Krishnan and Ors. v. Westfort Hi-tech Hospital Ltd. and Ors. (2006) 8 Comp LJ 118 (CLB)]. Both sides relied on various decisions in support of their arguments. Whether and how the ratio of those decisions will be applicable in this case, can be considered only after considering the facts of this case. The apex court in Uttaranchal Road Transport Corporation and Ors. v. Mansaram Nainwal : (2006)IIILLJ505SC observed as follows at paragraph 13:A decision is a precedent on its own facts. Each case presents its own features. It is not everything said by a Judge while giving judgment that constitutes a precedent. The only thing a Judge's decision binding a party is the principle upon which the case is decided and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2007(112)FLR769]; 2007(1)KLT55; (2007)IILLJ34Ker
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Can caveats be lodged before Employees' Insurance Court2. ESI Corporation lodged a caveat before the Employees' Insurance Court ('Court', for short), in terms of Section 148A of the Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC', for short). The Court refused the lodgment, taking the view that Section 148A of CPC is not applicable to the Court and that neither Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ('Act, for short) nor the Rules framed thereunder, invests the Court with power to entertain a caveat. Hence, this appeal by the Corporation.3. The refused lodgment was on the apprehension that the respondent, who allegedly owes substantial amounts by way of contribution etc. under the Act, is likely to move the Court and obtain interlocutory order against the Corporation which deals with public funds and is constituted to achieve social welfare goals.4. Section 74 of the Act provides for the constitution of the Court. Sub-section (3) of Section 75 provides exclusion of juris...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2007(1)KLT68
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. The question raised is one of territorial jurisdiction in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Cognizance has been taken by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ottapalam. Petitioner without and before entering appearance before that court has come to this Court to complain that the forum at Ottapalam was chosen by the respondent/complainant with the sole intention of vexing and harassing the petitioner. No part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court at Ottapalam. In these circumstances initiation and continuation of the prosecution at Ottapalam is a transparent abuse of the process of the Court. The complaint deserves to be quashed. This in short is the plea.3. The learned Counsel for the respondent resists the prayer in the Crl.M.C. He contends that even if the contentions were accepted in to...
Tag this Judgment!