Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2007(1)KLT809
Kurian Joseph, J.1. In the matter of disciplinary proceedings against an employee of a cooperative society registered under the provisions of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969, (hereinafter referred to as 'the KCS Act') once the Registrar exercises his power under Rule 176 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KCS Rules'), is it open to the aggrieved employee to take recourse to the remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the I.D. Act') is essentially the question referred to the Full Bench. To pose a general question, is an employee subjected to disciplinary proceedings entitled to have his grievance adjudicated before an authority, Forum, Tribunal or Court, which is independent of the executive2. The appeal is at the instance of the employee who is the third respondent in the writ petition filed by the society. The society challenged the reference order passed by the Government under Section 10(...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : II(2007)ACC140; 2007ACJ912; AIR2007Ker117
Ramachandran, J1. This reference has come up before us in terms of the reference order of a Division Bench dated 12-09-2006. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha had directed award of compensation to the legal representatives of a deceased individual. It was on a finding that a private jeep, wherein he was a traveller, was driven in a negligent manner resulting in the accidental death. The jeep had been registered as a private vehicle, but the finding was that it was used for hire and there was violation of the policy conditions. The Tribunal held that the vehicle owner is liable to pay the amount of compensation, although the initial liability for payment was on the insurer. The insurance company normally would have been liable, however, but was entitled to be exonerated, according to the Tribunal, as there was violation of the policy conditions. It would have been therefore possible for them to proceed against the vehicle owner for reimbursement. The appeal has been filed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2007]137CompCas107(Ker); 2007CriLJ2250
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The common question that arises for decision in these cases is whether this Court can quash a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Coimbatore and issue a writ of prohibition against the said Court from proceeding with the case, in so far as the same concerns the writ petitioner. Since the facts and the questions of law involved are the same, these cases are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.W.P. (C) No. 21289/2005:2. This writ petition is treated as the main case. The petitioner was a partner of the 2nd respondent-firm, which is an unregistered partnership firm. The 1st respondent is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, engaged in the manufacture of fertilizers and Agro-chemicals. The 2nd respondent was marketing the goods manufactured by the 1st respondent. The petitioner retired from the partnership with effect from 1-4-2001. For the amo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2007(114)FLR128]; (2008)IILLJ539Ker
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. This appeal is filed at the instance of the Employees State Insurance Corporation against the order of the Employees Insurance Court, Alappuzha in I.C. No. 104/1999 raising the following substantial questions of law:(1) Whether the Financial difficulties or the pendency of litigation will absolve the Employer from the payment of damages by way of Penalty.(2) Whether Sakthi Tiles case (supra) will empower the E.I. Court to reduce the quantum of damages imposed on the ground of pendency of litigation and the financial difficulties.(3) Whether Section 85-B of the Employees State Insurance Act and the Regulation given unfettered right to the Corporation to impose damages by way of penalty for the belated payment of Contribution upto 100 percent.The basic facts from which the above, questions of law are sought to be raised are as detailed under.2. The respondents herein were the employers who filed the I.C challenging the order of the appellants imposing on them damages ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2008(1)KLJ508
K. Thankappan, J.1. The appellant, accused in S.C. No. 439/2004 on the file of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Ernakulam, faced trial for the offences punishable under Sections 376 IPC. The prosecution case against the appellant is that the appellant committed rape on PW 1 on 10-6-1998, 11-6-1998 at the residence of PW11 and on 13-6-1998 near house No. XV/108 adjacent to the K.S.R.T.C. Bus Stand, Perumbavoor and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. To prove the charge against the appellant, the prosecution examined PW 1 to PW 11 and Exts.P1 to P12 were marked. Material object MO1 to M04 were also marked. When the appellant was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.PC he admitted that he had sexual intercourse with her, but added that he never threatened her and that was with her consent. Relying on the evidence adduced by the prosecution both, oral and documentary, the trial court found the appellant guilty under Section 376 IPC and he was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2007ACJ2790; AIR2007Ker210; 2007(2)KLJ679
ORDERC.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioners are wife and son respectively of a Railway porter by name K.V. Devassikutty who died in an accident that occurred at the Alwaye Railway Station on 3-3-2003. The case of the petitioners is that while pulling a trolley by the said Mr. Devassikutty along with other porters, the trolley hit an obstacle namely, a stone in the Railway platform and on account of the impact Mr. Devassikutty was thrown to the railway track on which a goods train was passing. The two legs of Mr. Devassikutty beneath the waist were cut off and he lost his fingers on the hand. Even though he was taken to the Hospital at Alwaye and later to the General Hospital, Ernakulam, he succumbed to the injuries on the very same day. The petitioners filed claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal, which was rejected as not maintainable without even an order. Therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2007(2)KLJ708
K.S. Radhakrishnan, C.J. 1. Employees State Insurance Corporation is the appellant in all these cases. Common issues arise for consideration in all these cases, hence we are disposing of these cases by a common judgment. Insurance Appeal No. 22 of 2003 arise out of the order passed by the Employees Insurance Court, Palakkad in I.C. No. 19 of 2001, which is being treated as the leading case.2. Respondent in Ins. Appeal 22 of 2003 filed an application before the Insurance Court assailing Ext. Al order dated 18-7-2001 claiming the failure of the applicant to comply with the provisions of E.S.I. Act. Applicant stated that the law was uncertain and was finally decided by this Court in MFA No. 557 of 1995 on 2-11-1995 and the amounts due to the Corporation was later determined by the Inspector only in the year 2000 and the applicant had remitted the amount by instalments on 23-9-2000,9-10-2000,23-10-2000 and 7-11 -2000. Applicant has also stated that there was no delay in remitting the dues ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2008(1)KLJ498
ORDERK. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The 17th respondent in O.A. No. 3714 of 1976 of Land Tribunal, Kahnangad, who was the 14th respondent in A.A. No. 584 of 1997 on the file of Appellate Authority (LR) Kannur is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order passed by the appellate authority allowing the appeal filed by respondents 2 to 19.2. Nine persons together filed an Original Application under Section 72B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, Act 1 of 1964 (for short, the K.L.R. Act) read with Rule 4 of Kerala Land Reforms (Vesting and Assignment) Rules, 1970 for assignment of the right, title and interest of the land owner and intermediary in respect of the petition scheduled property. The first respondent in the O.A. was the land owner. Third respondent was the intermediary. Second respondent was the assignee of the third respondent - intermediary. In the Original Application it was averred that the petition scheduled land was given...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2007Ker199; 2007(2)KLJ236
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Can a Lok Adalat make an award touching the rights of a minor This is the short issue for decision in this case.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners. Having regard to the issue in hand and the nature of the judgment being passed, notices to respondents are dispensed with.3. Vavachan and Karmely had three children, late Augustin, the first respondent Yesudas and the third respondent Lilly James. The first petitioner is widow of late Augustin and the second petitioner, a minor aged 6 years, is their child. The second respondent is the wife of the first respondent.4. Disputes arose during the lifetime of Karmely regarding an item of property. The petitioners, as heirs of Augustin, claiming share in it, filed Ext. P4, pre-litigation petition, essentially invoking Section 19(5)(ii) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, for short, hereinafter, the 'Act'.5. By the time the matter reached the Legal Services Committee for consideration, Karme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2007CriLJ1865
R. Basant, J.1. Can composition of an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act even after the conviction and sentence have become final after the judgments of the trial, appellate and revisional courts be accepted(ii) If so, which court is to accept the same? Has the trial court, appellate court or the revisional court powers to accept such composition? (iii) If no such court can accept such composition, can this Court invoke its Constitutional powers under Article 226 of the Constitution or the original extraordinary inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to accept the composition and relieve the accused of the obligation to undergo the sentence of imprisonment?2. These questions of importance arise for consideration in these petitions. As the questions raised were reckoned by me as important and vital, I had sought the assistance, which I get in good measure too, of Shri.S.Sreekumar, Standing Counsel for the C.B.I. and Shri.T.G. Rajendran, Advocate. All counsel have been heard in ...
Tag this Judgment!