Court : Kerala
Decided on : Dec-06-2010
1. A 22 year old young lady met with a tragic and gruesome accident while she was travelling on a two wheeler as a pillion rider along with her husband. It is on record that the young lady fell down from the two wheeler and sustained fatal injuries on her head. The parents and husband of the deceased young lady preferred an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal claiming a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- towards compensation from the owner and insurer of the two wheeler. 2. The husband of the young lady was examined before the Tribunal as PW1. Exts.A1 to A8 were also marked on the side of the claimants. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the claimants were not entitled to get any compensation under Section 166 of the Act. However, the Tribunal passed an award under Section 140 of the Act and directed the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on the principle of no fault liabil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Oct-06-2010
Reported in : ILR2010(4)Ker382
1. What is the nature, extent and quality of evidence which a prudent person would expect and demand in the facts and circumstances of the case to come to a safe conclusion about ornaments and cash which had changed hands at the time of marriage? This is the crucial question, the answer to which must resolve the controversy in this appeal. 2. The parties are divorced spouses now. Their marriage took place on 6/9/03. The spouses started separate residence on 28/11/06. A girl child aged about 5 years on the date of the petition was born in the matrimony. It was an acrimonious marriage. The husband filed an application for divorce as O.P.No.117/07. The wife evidently did not think it worthwhile to fight in a court of law to salvage the marriage. She instead came to the Family Court with O.P.No.195/07 with a claim for return of money and gold. Be it noted that at that time the petition for divorce was also pending before the Family Court. 3. The contention of the wife, to put it in a nutsh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Apr-06-2010
P.N. Ravindran, J.1. The petitioners in these writ petitions challenge their transfer pursuant to the directions issued by the Government in G.O.(Rt.) No. 743/2009/H&FWD.; dated 19.3.2009, a copy of which is produced and marked as Ext.P3 in W.P.(C) No. 10287 of 2009.2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 9266 of 2009 is presently working as Professor and Head of the Department of Thoracic Surgery and the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 10287 of 2009 as Assistant Professor in the said department in Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. By Ext.P3 Government order produced in W.P.(C) No. 10287 of 2009, the Government ordered transfer of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 9266 of 2009 to Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode and the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 10287 of 2009 to Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. When W.P.(C) No. 9266 of 2009 came up for admission on 23.3.2009, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner was transferred on account of an incident which resulted in the de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Mar-25-2010
Reported in : 2010(2)KLT375
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.W.P.(C) No. 38494 of 20031. The first petitioner is an Association of Qualified Private Medical Practitioners. Petitioners 2 to 6 are its members. The members of the first petitioner are running private hospitals/nursing homes. The grievance raised in this Writ Petition is concerning the insistence of the third respondent that the petitioners' hospitals should take out licence for dispensing medicines/drugs.2. The brief facts of the case are the following. The manufacture and sale of drugs and cosmetics in India are governed by the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Under Section 18(c) of the Act, for sale of drugs, it is mandatory to obtain licence from the competent authority. The Central Government have been authorised by the Act to frame rules, granting exemption from various provisions of the Act in Chapter IV thereof subject to appropriate conditions. Section 18(c) comes under the said Chapter. The Central Government have...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Mar-17-2010
Reported in : 2010(2)KLT71
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. (i) Does a divorce valid under the Muslim Law ipso facto extinguish the liability of the husband under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') to pay maintenance to his wife even when it is admitted or proved that amounts due under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') have not been paid?(ii) Is unilateral pronouncement of divorce without offering any reason and without any attempt for reconciliation by the arbiters as mandated by Ayat 35 of Sura IV of the Holy Quran valid under the Muslim Law after the decision of the Supreme Court in Shamim Ara v. State of U.P. 2002 (3) KLT 537 SC?2. These two questions of crucial relevance and contextual significance arise for consideration in this RP(FC) which has been referred to a Division Bench under Section 3 of the Kerala High Court Act by a Single Judge (one of us). The learned Counsel for the contestants have been ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Mar-09-2010
Reported in : 2010(2)KLT294
P.N. Ravindran, J.1. The appellants are the respondents in W.P. (C) No. 21854 of 2006. The respondents are the petitioners therein. The brief facts of the case are as follows.2. The respondents are Teachers and Ayahs working in various Kindergartens run by the appellants. They commenced service in the Balavadies/Feeding Centres in the year 1984 after they were locally recruited otherwise than through the Employment Exchanges/Kerala Public Service Commission. Initially Teachers were being paid Rs. 500/- per mensem as honorarium and Ayahs were being paid Rs. 100/- per mensem as honorarium. Thereafter the honorarium was enhanced to Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 500/- respectively for Teachers and Ayahs upon the Balavadies being upgraded as Kindergartens. They are presently being paid honorarium depending on their length of service. Teachers who are matriculates having five years of service are paid a honorarium of Rs. 2,000/- per mensem, Teachers who are matriculates having more than five years of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Mar-09-2010
Reported in : 2010(1)KLJ809
P.N. Ravindran, J.1. The appellants are die respondents in W.P.(C) No. 21854 off 2006 the respondents are the petitioners therein. The brief facts of the case are as follows.2. The respondents are Teachers and Ayahs working in various-Kindergartens run by the appellants. They commenced service in the Balavadies/Feeding Centres in the year 1984 after they were locally recruited otherwise than through the Employment Exchanges/Kerala Public Service Commission. Initially Teachers were being paid Rs. 500/- per mensem as honorarium and Ayahs were being paid Rs. 100/- per mensem as honorarium. Thereafter the honorarium was enhanced to Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 500/- respectively for Teachers and Ayahs upon the Balavadies being upgraded as Kintergartens. They are presently being paid honorarium depending on their length of service. Teachers who are matriculates having five years of service are paid a honorarium of Rs. 2,000/- per mensem, Teachers who are matriculates having more than five years of s...
Tag this Judgment!