Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2007Ker293; 2007(3)KLJ174
ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J.1. Ext. P3 proceedings of the learned Munsiff permitting the plaintiff to file a counter-affidavit to the proof affidavit filed by the first defendant D.W. 1 in lieu of his chief-examination under Order XVIII, Rule 4(1) and ultimately rejecting Ext. PI proof affidavit on the ground that objection has been filed by the plaintiff to Ext. PI is under challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution initiated by the defendant.2. I have heard the submissions of Sri D. Krishna Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner and those of Sri C. K. Sreejith, counsel for the 1st respondent plaintiff and Sri B. Parthasarathy, counsel for the 3rd respondent. Sri Krishna Prasad would refer to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of Order XVIII, CPC and submit that there is no provision for permitting the opposite party to file counter -affidavit to an affidavit which has been filed by a witness in lieu of his chief-examination. Proviso to Sub rule (1) of Rule 4 of Order XVII...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2007Ker269
ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J.1. In this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner, who is a power of attorney holder of the 2nd defendant in a suit for recovery of money filed by the first respondent bank, challenges Ext. PI order by which the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed an application filed by him for leave to represent his principal in the suit. The interlocutory application was filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Rule 22 of the Civil Rules of Practice producing power of attorney dated 18-1-2003 executed by the 2nd defendant in the suit in his favour and Ext. PI is the order on that application.2. A counter affidavit was filed to the application by the respondent bank wherein the objections were to the effect that the power of attorney is not attested by witnesses and that the same has not been duly authenticated by the notary. The objections found favour with the learned Subordinate Judge who took the view...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2007Ker271; 2007(3)KLJ285
ORDERThottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. These writ petitioners are filed by the same person.2. Petitioner's husband died on 27-3-1996. It is her case that his mortal remains were buried in the burial ground of the Thrikkakkara Grama Panchayat.3. Petitioner filed O.P. No. 5311 /97 seeking a direction to keep the burial ground open between 8 a.m. and 1 p.m. on 26-3- 1997 for offering prayers. It was then submitted before this Court that the Panchayat had given one hour time. Accordingly, that writ petition was disposed of on 24-3-1997 directing that the petitioner may be allowed to conduct religious prayers for one hour from 11 a.m. to 12 noon.4. Thereafter, she filed O.P. No. 18635/ 97 for a direction to keep the crematorium open on 2-11-1997 for the petitioner and family to observe 'All Souls Day'. In the light of the judgment in O.P. No. 5311/97, this Court permitted the petitioner to have religious ceremonies for one hour, from 11 a.m. to 12 noon on 2-11-1997.5. The petitioner then fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2007(2)KLJ817
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Constitutional validity of Sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 4 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1976, introduced by the Motor Vehicle Taxation (Amendment) Act, 2005, Act 24 of 2005 and Section 15 of the Act are under challenge before us on the ground that they are inconsistent with the provisions of Section 81 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and are also vitiated by colourable exercise of power and hence unconstitutional and void.2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the insistence for the production of certificate of remittance of contribution under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1985 as a pre condition for receiving motor vehicle tax under the Motor Vehicle Taxation Act. Sub-section (7) of Section 4 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act stipulates that proof of remittance of contribution to the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund upto the preceding month should be produced for receipt of motor vehicle tax Sub-section (8) states that n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2007(2)KLJ795
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Writ Petition has been preferred by the Manager of an aided college along with the Parent Teacher Association seeking a declaration that Section 57(1) incorporated by 'the University Laws (Amendment) Act 2005' and the guidelines issued by the Government vide Ext.P17 G.O.Ms. No. 95/2006H. Edn dated 10-8-2006 are invalid and ultra vires of the Constitution of India and contrary to the Direct Payment Agreement and also for a direction to the first respondent to issue staff Fixation order in view of Exts.Pl(a), P4, P6 and P7 and Ordinances relating to the workload and staff pattern of Teachers. Petitioners have also prayed for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to depute University and Government nominees so as to constitute the Selection Committees and to effect appointments to the vacant posts.2. The impact of the University Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 by which Sub-section (1) was inserted to Section 57 of the Kerala University Act, 1974 and to other similar Unive...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2008ACJ886; [2007(115)FLR1106]
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Appeal is filed by the insurance company against the award of compensation by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. Contentions raised are three in number. First contention is that Rs. 4,000 was taken as the monthly income without any basis. He was a professional driver. The amount of Rs. 4,000 assessed by the Commissioner needs no interference as commercial heavy vehicle driver will get more than Rs. 4,000 a month. In any event, it is a finding of fact and no substantial question of law arises. Second contention is with regard to assessment of loss of earning capacity. Commissioner has assessed the same on the basis of medical certificate. Index factor was fixed considering the undisputed age of the claimant. It is submitted that the Commissioner has awarded penalty to be paid by insurance company, if the amount is not paid within the time prescribed. It is well settled law that penalty is not payable by the insurance company but by the employer as held by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2009ACJ1101; AIR2008Ker43; 2008(1)KLJ378
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Can insurance company be exonerated from liability to pay compensation merely because driver who was driving a commercial vehicle was not having a badge? Learned single Judge noticed two divergent views expressed by a Division Bench of this Court. Hence, the matter was referred to the Division Bench. In Govindakutty Nair v. Gopalakrishnan 2000 (1) KLT 224 : 2000 AIHC 575 a Division Bench of this Court held that requirement of driver's badge is necessary to drive a transport vehicle and if the driver is not having a badge at the time of accident, insurance company is exonerated from liability. The Division Bench referred to the decision of the Apex Court in United India Insurance Company Limited v. Gian Chand and Ors. : AIR1997SC3824 and Rukmani and Ors. v. New India Assurance Company and Ors. : (1998)9SCC160 . Another Division Bench of this Court in Ramachandran v. Unnikrishnan 2006 (2) KLTSN 15, Case No. 20, held that mere absence of a badge to drive a commercial vehi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2007(3)KLJ786
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The 4th respondent was appointed as an Upper Primary School Assistant in 1995 in the School of which the 3rd respondent is the Manager, in a regular vacancy. That was approved. She was, thereafter, promoted as an High School Assistant.2. By Ext. PI, petitioner was appointed as a UPSA in the leave vacancy from 1-6-1998 to 31-3-1999.3. In the academic year 1998-1999, Higher Secondary Course was sanctioned for the school.4. G.O.(MS.) No. 162/98/G. Edn. dated 13-5-1998 laid down the conditions subject to which the Higher Secondary Courses were granted. The 3rd respondent Manager appointed the petitioner as an Higher Secondary School Teacher (Mathematics) with effect from the afternoon of 18-9-1998 as per Ext.P2.5. Issue arose among the petitioner and the 4th respondent as to who among them was entitled to be appointed as HSST (Mathematics). That led to different proceedings before the statutory authorities, as also before this Court. By, Ext. R4(b) judgmen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2007(3)KLJ193
K.T. Sankaran, J.1. The appellant/writ petitioner filed Ext. P1 application dated 18-03-2003 under Section 53 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act before the Land Tribunal. (Hereinafter the appellant is referred to as the 'petitioner'). By Ext. P2 order dated 31-12-2003, the Land Tribunal rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner is not in possession of the property having an extent of 3.75 acres. The petitioner has also filed Ext. P8 application dated 19-06-2003 before the Land Tribunal. The prayer in the Writ Petition filed by the appellant herein is to issue a writ of Certiorari to quash Ext.P2 order and to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent-Special Tahsildar to decide Exts.Pl and P8 applications after taking evidence. The learned single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition.2. The case of the petitioner is that the property in question, which belonged in jenm to the predecessor in interest of the respondents 2 and 3, was taken on lease by Kochintya, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2007(115)FLR1111]; 2007(3)KLJ488; (2008)IILLJ2Ker
V. Giri, J.1. The Kerala Judicial Officer's Association inter alia challenge the appointment of respondents 3 to 7 as Industrial Tribunals. They also seek a declaration that the post of Presiding Officers of Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals are identical since it involves the same type of duties and responsibilities. A direction to the State of Kerala to treat the five posts of Presiding Officers of Industrial Tribunal as promotion posts for being filled up by duly qualified members of the Judicial service has also been sought for.2. The petitioner contends that it is a registered association of judicial officers working in the State of Kerala, There are five Industrial Tribunals in the Kollam, Palakkad, Kozhikode, Idukki and Alappuzha districts. The submission is that as per the practice in vogue, existing District Judges are posted as Presiding Officers of the various Labour Courts in Kerala. However, District Judges are not appointed as Presiding Officers of the five Industria...
Tag this Judgment!