Court : Kerala
Decided on : Sep-08-1997
Reported in : (1999)IIILLJ31Ker
Mohamed Shafi, J.1. The appellant in both these appeals is the same partnership firm. They challenge the separate orders dated July 29, 1996, passed by the Employees' Insurance Court, Palakkad, in I. C. Nos. 74 of 1994 and 77 of 1994 in these appeals. M. F. A. No. 1517 of 1996 is filed challenging the order passed in I. C. No. 74 of 1994 and M. F. A. No. 1537 of 1996 is filed challenging the order passed in I. C. No.77 of 1994. Since the issues involved in both these appeals are identical, they are heard and disposed of by this common judgment.2. The respondent-Employees' State Insurance Corporation demanded from the appellant for Employees' State Insurance contribution of Rs. 2,607 on the amount of Rs. 35,947 which was booked in the account books of the appellant under the head 'Productivity incentive' for the period from April 1990 to March 1992. The appellant challenged that order before the Employees' Insurance Court, Alappuzha, in I. C. No. 92 of 1993.3. The respondent-Employees' ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Aug-07-1997
Reported in : (1998)IILLJ134Ker
Kamat, J. 1. The original applicant before the Employees' Insurance Court, Quilon is the appellant with a grievance that the E.S.I. Corporation contended that her application is barred by limitation under Section 77 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 and the Insurance Court had jumped at it to accept the contention and to hold that the applicant knocked the doors of the Insurance Court beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 77(1-A) of the said Act having presented the application beyond the period of three years from the date on which the cause of action arose.2. The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 has come on the statute for providing benefits to the employees. A bare look at the mention of these benefits would show that the benefits contemplated are those to be seen in case of sickness, maternity benefits, employment insurance and other patterns in the process of the welfare of the employees by providing the insurance coverage for the benefit of the employees . ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jul-28-1997
Reported in : AIR1997Ker309
Balakrishnan, J.1. These three Original petitions have been filed seeking a writ of mandamus or other appropriate order directing the respondents to ensure that all demonstrations or processions of any form within the Cochin Corporation area are conducted without obstructing in any way the free movement of pedestrians and vehicular traffic. O.P, No. 12343 of 1991 is filed by a public spirited citizen. In O.P. No, 3040 of 1988 and O.P. No. 7827 of 1994 are filed by a registered Societies. When these matters came before the learned single Judge it was felt that the questions of law involved in these Original Petitions are of general importance and these cases were referred to a Bench.2. We heard counsel for the petitioners, learned Advocate General and some of the counsel for respondents.3. Petitioners allege that though Ernakulam city is commercially very important, the roads, such as, Banerji Road, M.G. Road, Shanmugham Road and Chittoor Road are not very much wide and except M.G. Road...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jun-12-1997
Reported in : (1998)2CompLJ315(Ker)
C.S. Rajan, J. 1. The petitioner in these applications was the managing director of Chandhini Chits (Pvt.) Ltd. The above company was ordered to be wound up by this court as per order dated November 17, 1989. According to the petitioner, as managing director he had issued cheques to various persons and those cheques were returned by the bankers for insufficiency of funds. The payees of the cheques, therefore, filed complaints before the magistrate's courts under Section 138 of the NegotiableInstruments Act. Thereafter, these petitions have been filed by the petitioner to stay the trial of those complaints and also to transfer those cases for trial to this court. 2. Sri Anil Narendran, who appeared for the petitioner, strongly urged that under Section 446 of the Companies Act this court has got jurisdiction to stay the trial of the criminal complaints and also to transfer the same to this court. In order to understand the scope and ambit of Section 446 of the Companies Act it is advanta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Feb-11-1997
Reported in : 1998ACJ365; AIR1997Ker287
Mohammed, J. 1. These appeals are filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of jeep K.E.F. 8955 involved in an accident which took place on 14-12-1986. They arose from petitions claiming compensation for the injuries and death, as the case may be. In all there were eleven claim petitions and the tribunal fixed the compensation payable for the injuries sustained by claimants in ten petitions and for death in one petition. The quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal is not in dispute. The claimants have not filed any appeal against the orders of the tribunal awarding compensation. Appeal number, claim petition number, amount awarded by the tribunal and the nature of the claim are tabulated hereunder.AppealNo. Claim petition No. Amount awarded Nature of claim MFA 725/89 MV OP No 216/8712,200Injuries MFA 727/89 '200/8710,125' MFA 728/89 '217/8710,700' MFA 729/89 '219/878,600' MFA 731/89 '199/8712,000' MFA 733/89 '196/8715,000' MFA 732/89 '218/874,450n MFA 734/89 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jan-15-1997
Reported in : (1997)ILLJ851Ker
Usha, J.1. Appeal is at the instance of Employees' State Insurance Corporation challenging the judgment in I.C.No.6 of 1985 of the Employees' Insurance Court, Alleppey. Respondent herein challenged before the court below proceedings initiated by the appellant under Section 85B of the Employees' State Insurance Act claiming damages to the extent of Rs. 3,921/- for the delayed payment of contribution for the period ended on September 1976, March 1977, September 1977, November 1977, January 1978, March 1978, May 1978, September 1978, November 1978 and January 1979. The Employees' Insurance Court found that there was no delay in paying the contribution and therefore the appellant was not justified in assessing the j damages. It is this finding that is under challenge in this appeal.2. The relevant facts are as follows:- The respondent was a contractor of Toddy Shop Nos. 6 and 7 at Alleppey Range. When the appellant took steps to cover the two toddy shops by combining them, the respondent c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jan-08-1997
Reported in : (1998)ILLJ429Ker
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Original Petition Nos. 2828 of 1994 to 2662 of 1996 are filed by contractors of certain abkari shops and O.P. No. 9880 of 1993 to 901 of 1994 (eight O.Ps.) are filed by various associations representing the employees of various abkari shops.2. Main question that has come up for consideration in all these cases, is as to whether remuneration paid to employees for working on paid holidays can be treated as wages within the meaning of Section 2(m) of the Kerala Abkari Welfare Fund Act, 1989 so as to enable the employers to make contribution to the Fund constitued under the Act. For the promotion of the welfare of and for paying pension to the Abkari workers in the State of Kerala the above mentioned Act was enacted which came into force on July 15, 1989. Section 4 of the Act deals with contribution to the fund to be paid by the employer. Section 4 is extracted below:'4 Contribution to the fund-(1) The contribution which shall be paid by employer to the fund s...
Tag this Judgment!