Court : Kerala
Decided on : Dec-19-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012 28TH AGRAHAYANA 193 RSA.No. 135 of 2007 ( ) ----------------------- AS.100/2002 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,NORTH PARAVUR OS.600/1997 of MUNSIFF'S COURT, PERUMBAVOOR APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF: ------------------------------------------ A.M.IRSHAD, S/O. A.M.MUHAMMED, ALANGAI HOUSE, KANDANTHARA, VENGOLA KARA, VENGOLA VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR SRI.V.GOPIKRISHNA RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: ------------------------------------- 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FOREST, SECRETARIAT TRIVANDRUM.2. THE CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, (WILD LIFE), KOTTAYAM.3. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, (WILD LIFE), TRIVANDRUM.4. THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, FOREST AND WILD LIFE DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FOREST GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM.5. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, ADVOCATE GENERAL'S OFFICE, TRI...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on : Oct-20-2012
SHRI. K.CHANDRADAS NADAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER These appeals are directed against the order of the CDRF, Palakkad in CC.128/05 dated 22.10.2010. Appeal 686/10 is filed by the 1st opposite party, Appeal 76/11 is filed by the 2nd opposite party and appeal 515/11 is filed by the complainant. The complainant was a minor girl aged 7 years represented by her father as the guardian. She approached the Forum alleging medical negligence against the opposite parties. It is alleged that the complainant suffered a fall from the wardrobe step having a height of about 3 feet, on 16.4.2005 and sustained fracture of the left fore arm. She was immediately brought to the 2nd opposite party hospital represented by the Managing director and was admitted there. She was attended by the 1st opposite party, the doctor attached to the 2nd opposite party. The complainant was taken to the operation theatre and plaster cast was applied for the reason that she had sustained fracture shaft of ulna. By night complainant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Sep-14-2012
This batch of writ petitions arefiled by the private hospitals in the State and the Kerala Private Hospitals' Association (Modern Medicine) State Committee. They have approached this Court disputing their liability to get themselves registered as dealers under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) and to pay tax under the said Act for the medicines and consumables sold to their patients. 2. The issue being common, the cases were heard together treating WP(C) No. 7129/08 as the leading case. 3. In these writ petitions, there are two main prayers. The first prayer is to declare that hospitals are not liable to take registration and pay tax under the Act for the supply of medicines and other items meant for treatment. The second prayer, which was urged as an alternative one, is to declare that Section 6 of the Act and the corresponding rules are ultra vires and unconstitutional to the extent it seek to impose tax on hospitals and compel them to take...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Aug-14-2012
1. Common questions of law have been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and hence, these matters are disposed of by a common judgment. 2. One of the contentions raised by the petitioners in these cases is that in order to attract section 6 of Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (34 of 2003), the sale of tobacco products should be to a person who is under 18 years of age and the sale must also be in an area within a radius of one hundred yards of any educational institution. 3. Section 6 of Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (34 of 2003) reads as follows: "No person shall sell, offer for sale, or permit sale of, cigarette or any other tobacco product - (a) to any person who is under eighteen years of age, and (b) in an area within a ra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Aug-14-2012
Sasidharan Nambiar, J. Appellant in Crl.A.No.651 of 2009 is the first accused and appellants in Crl.A.No.251 of 2009 are accused 2 to 6 in S.C.No.256 of 2004 on the file of Additional Sessions Court, Fast Track-II, Thrissur. They faced trial for the offences under Section 143, 147, 148, 341 read with Section 149, 324 read with Section 149 and 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. Learned Sessions Judge convicted the first accused for the offences under Section 143, 148, 341, 324 and 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and accused 2, 3, 4 and 6 for the offences under Section 143, 147, 341 and 324 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and 5th accused for the offences under Section 143, 148, 341 and 324 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. First accused was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.25000/-, and in default, rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, rig...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jul-03-2012
SasidharanNambiar, J. Appellant was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default imprisonment for two years, for murdering his wife, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. Appeal is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. The prosecution case in short is that deceased Thressiamma, appellant and PW6 their five year old daughter were living together. Thresiamma was owning one acre rubber estate which was exclusively given to her just before her marriage by her sister and brother, releasing their rights inherited from the father. The appellant was insisting to transfer that property to his name which was being resisted by Thressiamma. The appellant had treated her with cruelty, both physical and mental. On 10/5/2005 night after 9 p.m Thressiamma reached the house of PW3 Omana to call PW5 Ealiamma, her sister over phone. PW3 and her husband had gone out and only PW4 Shibu their son, was there. Thressiamma call...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jun-11-2012
Reported in : 2012(3)KLT351; 2012(3)KLJ600
1. The interpretation to be placed on rule 7 of the Patents Rules, 2003, arises for consideration in this writ petition. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 2. The petitioner submitted an application for a patent under section 7 of the Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) accompanied by a provisional specification relating to “The method and manner of a device for mechanical automatic water level controller”. The fee payable on an application for a patent accompanied by a provisional specification by a natural person at the relevant time was Rs.1,000/-. The petitioner however paid only Rs.750/- as fee by demand draft dated 17.1.2005 drawn on City Union Bank Ltd. Since there was a deficiency in the fee payable, the petitioner was called upon to pay the deficit fee of Rs.250/- which he paid by demand draft dated 5.2.2005. Thereupon a receipt dated 17.2.2005 [Ext.P1(2)] was issued to his attorney. It was mentioned therein that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on : Apr-19-2012
SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The order dated : 31.05.04 of CDRF, Kannur in OP 274/01 is being challenged in this appeal by the 1st opposite party calling for the interference of this commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below. As per the impugned order the opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as cost to the complainant within 1 month from the date of receipt of the order of the Forum below. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the 1st respondent/complainant. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant had argued that there was no deficiency or negligence on the part of the 1st opposite party who was the orthopaedic surgeon of the 2nd opposite party hospital and who had treated the complainant consequent to an accident on 24.8.2000. It is his very case that as soon as the complainant was admitted, X-ray was taken and finding that there was dislocation on the elbow it was corrected ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Apr-09-2012
1. The petitioner mainly challenges Ext.P4 order issued by the Government directing the petitioner to hand over charge of the Registrar of the second respondent University, to the third respondent herein. According to the petitioner, her appointment is for a period of five years as per Ext.P1 and hence the said order cannot be supported in law. 2. The second respondent, viz. Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies, was established as per the Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies Act, 2010 (Act 5 of 2011) (for short 'the Act'). At the time of appointment as Registrar, the petitioner was working as Professor and Head of the Department of Aquatic Biology and Fisheries, in the University of Kerala. 3. The contentions raised by the petitioner in a nutshell are the following: The petitioner's appointment by the Government under Section 37(9) of the Act is evidenced by Ext.P1 order and the appointment is for a period of five years from the date of assumption of offic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Feb-06-2012
1. The revision is directed against the cancellation of the order of confiscation passed over a motor vehicle, a mini lorry, bearing registration No.KLI-5311, belonging to the 1st respondent under Section 61A of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961, for short, the ‘Act’ by the Divisional Forest Officer, Punalur. The above vehicle allegedly involved in the commission of a forest offence was ordered to be confiscated, after conducting an enquiry issuing a show cause notice, and, hearing the 1st respondent/owner of the vehicle. That confiscation order was reversed and set aside in appeal by the District Judge, Kollam. Questioning the propriety, correctness and legality of the cancellation and setting aside of the order of confiscation by the learned District Judge, the State with the forest officials has filed this revision. 2. Short facts involved in the case can be summed up thus: The forest officials attached to the Range office, Pathanapuram apprehended certain persons while they w...
Tag this Judgment!