Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2007(3)KLJ537
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. The Management in ID. No. 22/2001 on the files of the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad is the petitioner herein. The petitioner is challenging Ext. P9 award passed by the Tribunal in the said I.D.The issue referred for adjudication was:Whether the action of the management to refuse advances and denial of employment to the 3 workers, Sarvasree B.A. Ouseph, M.R. Bhoopesh and RB. Preman, is justifiable? If not, what are the remedies entitled to them.2. Before the Tribunal, both sides confined their submissions on the issue of denial of employment only, leaving out the issue regarding refusal of advances. Based on the pleadings filed by the parties, the Tribunal found that the real issue was regarding the dismissal of the three workers. The union, in its claim statement, stated that the three workers were dismissed from service without conducting a domestic enquiry and the charges levelled against them were false. In their written statement, the management contended that t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2008(1)KLJ218
K.S. Radhakrishnan, Acting C.J.1. The cardinal question to be considered in these cases is whether the second respondent Panchayat has got jurisdiction either to issue or cancel the licence granted to the petitioner for setting up the factory at Kanjikode situated in an industrial area notified as Integrated Industrial Township, Palghat by the Government of Kerala vide SRO No. 730/ 01 issued by notification G.O. 672/2001/AD dated 24-7-2001 in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (f) of Sections 2 and 5 of the Kerala Industrial Single Window Clearance Boards and Industrial Township Area Development Act, 1999 (Act 5 of 2000), in short Development Act.2. Petitioner is a private limited Company registered under the Companies Act engaged in the manufacture, bottling and sale of soft drinks like Pepsi, Mirinda. Seven Up etc., the factory of which is set up in the industrial area, Kanjikode. The petitioner company had made an application for the issue of licence for setting up of a fact...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2007CriLJ3611; 2007(2)KLJ659
ORDERK. Hema, J.1. What are the bare relevant factors to be considered in a case where a food item is alleged to be 'misbranded' under Section 2(ix) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act ('PEA Act', for short)? This short question arises in this revision.2. The State is the revision-petitioner. It challenges the order passed by the Magistrate's Court under Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code, for short) discharging the respondents-accused of the offence under the PFA Act. A complaint was filed by Food Inspector against respondents alleging certain offences including 'misbranding', under PFA Act and Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (PFA Rules). According to complainant-Food Inspector, he purchased 600 grams of 'arrow root mixture' (200 grams x 3 jars) which were kept and exposed for sale in the medical shop run by first respondent. The article purchased was sampled in accordance with provisions of the Act and Rules and a mahazar was also prepared. The sample...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2007CriLJ2709
ORDERK. Hema, J.1. We are guilty of many errors and faults, but our worst crime is abandoning the children, neglecting the foundation of life. Many of the things we need can wait. The child cannot; right now is the time his bones are being formed, his blood is being made and his senses are being developed. To him, we cannot answer 'tomorrow'. His name is 'today''(Gabriel Mistral)Yes, I shall not wait. I cannot answer him, 'tomorrow'. I must speak for him today. Each and every letter of the above quote must inspire me to speak for him today - his name is 'today'!!FACT. BRIEFLY;2. Five minor children of different age, both male and female (I shall avoid mentioning their names in this judgment in their best interest), were produced before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by the additional third respondent herein, under Section 32(1) of the Junvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 'the Act', for short), along with a report. According to additional third respondent, he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2007Ker246
ORDERM. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. Whether an illegitimate child is entitled to a share in the property of his father is the interesting question to be decided in the appeal.2. Peringali Padmanabhan Nambiar was a document writer. He married first appellant/second defendant in 1966. Appellants 2 to 4 who are defendants 3 to 5 were born in that wedlock. Fifth respondent who was the sixth defendant is the mother of Padmanabhan Nambiar. Appellants 6 to 8 are the assignees of the properties from appellants 1 to 5. First respondent is the daughter of second respondent who was the first defendant in the suit. According to respondents, Padmanabhan Nambiar married second respondent on 21-6-1975 at her residence and first respondent was born in that wedlock on 8-10-1976. It was contended that plaint schedule properties which originally belonged to deceased Padmanabhan Nambiar on his death devolved on appellants 1 to 5 and respondents being his legal heirs and each of them is entitled to a share. F...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2007Ker287
ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. In this Civil Revision Petition, the judgment-debtor challenges the order passed by the executing Court rejecting his application for exemption from attachment and sale of his immovable property under Clause (c) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. A money decree was passed against the petitioner herein on 12-4-1991. Immovable property having an extent of 21 cents was attached before judgment On 26-10-1990. Execution Petition was filed in the year 1991. In the Appeal filed by the revision petitioner against the decree, the High Court granted stay of execution on condition of furnishing security for the decree amount. The revision petitioner offered the property in question (which was attached before judgment) as security. In the application filed by the judgment-debtor to receive security, he stated that he was eking out his livelihood from the earnings as a driver.3. In the counter dated 20-12-2001 filed by the judg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2007Ker240
K.T. Sankaran, J.1. The questions involved in this Matrimonial Appeal are : (1) Whether a petition for dissolution of marriage filed by the husband on the ground that the wife wilfully refused to consummate the marriage and the marriage has not therefore been consummated (which is a ground for dissolution of marriage under Clause (vii) of Section 10 introduced by The Indian Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001, Act 51 of 2001 by the substitution of Section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869) is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the petition was filed twelve years after the marrjage and therefore the petitioner is guilty of unreasonable delay in presenting the petition within the meaning of Section 14 of the Act, when the petition was presented within reasonable time after the commencement of Act 51 of 2001? (2) Whether refusal by the wife to consummate the marriage on the ground that there is likelihood of her begetting children with mental disorder as the relatives of the husband have child...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2007ACJ2600
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation filed this appeal challenging an order passed by the Insurance Court, Alappuzha allowing an appeal filed by respondent under Section 54-A of the Employees' State Insurance Act ('the Act' for short) claiming 100 per cent disablement benefit.2. The respondent while working as a labourer in Telco Works at Pune met with an accident and sustained employment injury on 14.6.1992. After sometime he came back to Kerala and continued treatment in E.S.I. Hospital till 28.7.1993. Subsequently, he was treated in the Medical College, Alappuzha also. He claimed disablement benefit, alleging that on account of the injury sustained by him he is totally disabled and hence disablement benefit is to be given, treating it as a case of 100 per cent disability. The matter was referred to Medical Board. Medical Board fixed disability at 50 per cent. Challenging that decision the respondent filed an appeal under Section 54-A of the Act before ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2007Ker212; 2007(35)PTC780(Ker)
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Is the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act a cognizable one? Are the police justified in these two cases in reckoning the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act as a cognizable offence and proceeding further? These are the questions that are raised in these two writ petitions.2. The penal provision appears in Section 63 of the Copyright Act. The offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term, 'which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to three years and with fine'. The Copyright Act as amended does not anywhere specifically refer to cognizability for the purpose of investigation. We therefore have got to fall back on the schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure. The schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure shows that if, the offence under other laws is punishable 'with imprisonment for three years and upwards, but not more than 7 years', the offence will be cognizable and non-bailable. If on the contrary, the offence is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2007Ker220
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Question that is posed for consideration in this case is whether the managements of various unaided Engincering Colleges can devise their own method of admissions to the Engineering Courses in their colleges for the year 2007-08 by adding marks obtained by the candidates in the Entrance Examination conducted by the Commissioner for Entrance Examination with the marks obtained by the candidates in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics in the Plus-two qualifying Examination.2. Learned single Judge referred the matter for consideration by a larger Bench in view of the ruling of the Division Bench in Lisie Medical & Education Institution v. State of Kerala 2007 (1) KLT 409 setting aside Section 3 of Act 19 of 2006 which insisted on admissions only from the rank list prepared on the basis of the State Entrance Examination. Proposals were made by the petitioner before the Admission Supervisory Committee for adding the marks obtained by the candidates in the qualifying e...
Tag this Judgment!