Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1990]68CompCas259(Ker); (1990)68SCC259
Thomas, J. 1. A young man by name Vijayan was knocked down by a bus (KLE 578) during the morning hours of November 5, 1971. Within a few minutes, Vijayan succumbed to his injuries. The appellants, the parents and the grandmother of Vijayan instituted a suit for compensation against the respondents alleging that the accident was the consequence of the negligent driving of the bus by its driver, the tenth defendant.2. One Shri P. M. Mathai was the registered owner of the bus at the time of the accident. His widow and children are defendants Nos. 1 to 9 against whom the appellants made the claim for compensation. The eleventh defendant is the person in whose favour the ownership of the bus is said to have been transferred as early as July 9, 1970.3. The trial court rejected the contention of the defendants that the accident was not the result of the negligence on the part of the bus driver. The learned sub-judge found that the appellants are entitled to be compensated on account of the de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1987)IILLJ455Ker
Sivaraman Nair, J.1. Petitioner's in these Original Petitions are employees of the State Government or their representative associations. Such Government servants are those who are to retire from service on superannuation on the attainment of 55 years of age as provided in Rule 60(a) Part I, Kerala Service Rules. They seek revision of their age of retirement from 55 years to 58 or 60 years. Incidentally they also pray that the respondent State may be directed to continue them in service even after they attain the age of superannuation in accordance with Rule 60(a), Part I, Kerala Service Rules.2. Some of the principal grounds urged by petitioners are that the age of superannuation has been refixed as 60 for teachers and academics in all the Universities and that the benefit of such revised age of retirement has been extended to Coaches, personnel in the Physical Education Department, Instructors etc. The age of retirement of members of the Kerala Public Service Commission is 62 years, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1987Ker140
ORDERVarghese Kalliath, J.1. The first respondent in this case is a sitting Judge of this court. The petitioner prays that this court should issue a writ of quo warranto calling upon the first respondent to show before this court under what authority, the first respondent if holding the office of a Judge of this court. The petitioner submits that there was no proper, effective and meaningful consultation as contemplated under Article 217 of the Constitution of India in the master of the appointment of the first, respondent as a Judge of this court, This is the stereo-bate of this action.2. Before I consider the points raised by the petitioner, I feel that I should tell in brief what I understand to be the sphere of action and the whip hand of a writ of quo warranto. What is the width and orbit of this prerogative writ. In fact this prerogative writ in its pristine form is now obsolete in the country of its origin. But in India, Article 226 of the Constitution specifically provides that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1987CriLJ1298
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J.1. On 20-2-1984 I he Food Inspector, Tirur, went to the shop of the accused for taking action under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The shop was found open and the accused was there. Among other food articles exposed for sale there was rice flour also. The Food Inspector demanded sale of sample from the rice flour. The accused refused on the ground that it was a holiday for the shop and the shop was opened only for some other purpose. Using his power the Food Inspector took sample of the rice flour. Accused refused to co-operate with him and refused:(1) to accept Form 6 notice;(2) to accept price of the sample;(3) to issue receipt;(4) to put his signature in the sample; and(5) lo sign the mahazar.After observing the formalities one sample was sent for analysis. The report was that the sample is not adulterated. Therefore the Food Inspector filed a complaint before the Judicial I Class Magistrate, Tirur against the accused for having committed offences pu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1(1989)ACC390
P.K. Shamsuddin, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the State of Kerala, the officials of Irrigation Department and the District Collector Ernakulam, who are defendants in O.S. No. 2 of 1985, on the file of the court of Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam.2. The said suit was filed by the mother of one T.K. Jaison, who died on 7-10-1982 in an accident at the Minor Lift Irrigation Pump House situated on the banks of Muvattupuzha river at Kadathy Kare. Jaison was taking bath at about 1 p.m. near the pump house. On the western side of the pump house, there are stepping stones and people in and around the locality had free access to the steps and they used to take bath near the pump house. According to the plaintiff, at the time of occurrence, the pump operator started operating the pump without giving alarm or warning. Jaison was pulled with tremendous force towards the mouth of the pump and sustained grievous injuries and died. It was alleged in the plaint that in spile of the fact that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1989(58)FLR670]; (1990)ILLJ294Ker
P.K. Shamsuddin, J.1. In this Original Petition, the petitioner seeks to issue a writ of certiorari quashing Exls.P4. P5 and P7, to declare that the entire enquiry against him is in violation of the Canara Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 and the principles of natural justice, and therefore void, and to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to immediately reinstate him in service with the all benefits due to him.2. The petitioner was working as the Manager in the Kallekkad Branch of the Canara Bank. He was issued with a charge-sheet Ext. P1 alleging certain misconduct against him. It was alleged in Ext.P1 that while working as Manager of Kallekkad Branch, the petitioner granted several loans indiscriminately beyond his sanctioning powers and in total disregard to the accepted banking norms and practice and that he allowed part of the loan proceeds to be credited to loan accounts of other panics for closing overdue loans and for reducing the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1990CriLJ1796
K.G. Balakrishnan, J. 1. The appellant was tried by the Special Judge for trial of offences under the Essential Commodities Act, Trichur and was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of E.C. Act read with Section 3(2)(c)(d) of the said Act and Clauses 29 and 50 of the Kerala Rationing Order 1966. The appellant appeals against the conviction and sentence.2. The appellant was tried along with two other persons. Originally the police filed final report against accused 1 and 2. The gist of allegation against these two accused was that the 1st accused unlawfully removed 611 Kgs. of rice from a. ration shop and sold this ration rice to the 2nd accused. The prosecution alleged that accused 1 and 2 committed offences punishable under Clauses 5 and 5A of the Kerala Rationing Order and Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the E.C. Act read with Section 3(2)(c)(d) of the said Act. Trial commenced against accused 1 and 2 and 6 witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution. At thi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1992ACJ191
Sankaran Nair, J.1. Petitioner seeks appropriate directions to command the second respondent, District Collector, Kottayam, to recover a sum of Rs. 34,358.20 from the first respondent Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, called 'K.S.R.T.C.' hereinafter, pursuant to the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P. (MV) No. 127 of 1987 and pay the same to him. Petitioner suffered injuries on being knocked down by a bus belonging to the first respondent and driven by one of its employees on 31.10.1986. He moved the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and an award was passed. It is submitted by both sides that the first respondent K.S.R.T.C., has not filed an appeal the award.2. I have heard the standing counsel for the first respondent. First respondent has no valid excuse for not remitting the amount. Nor, has the second respondent any justification for not recovering the amount. In the circumstances, the second respondent is directed to take necessary action, realise t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : I(1993)ACC73
Sankaran Nair, J.1. Petitioner seeks appropriate directions to command the second respondent, District Collector, Kottayam, to recover a sum of Rs. 34,358.20 from the first respondent Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, called 'K.S.R.T.C.' hereinafter, pursuant to the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P. (MV) No. 127 of 1987 and pay the same to him. Petitioner suffered injuries on being knocked down by a bus belonging to the first respondent and driven by one of its employees on 31.10.1986. He moved the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and an award was passed. It is submitted by both sides that the first respondent K.S.R.T.C., has not filed an appeal against the award.2. I have heard the standing counsel for the first respondent. First respondent has no valid excuse for not remitting the amount. Nor, has the second respondent any justification for not recovering the amount. In the circumstances, the second respondent is directed to take necessary action, re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1994]81CompCas490(Ker)
G.H. Guttal, J.1. The question which arises for consideration is whether the petitioner, a scheduled bank as defined in the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, is 'a corporation' or 'any other financial agency not being a private agency' within the meaning of Clause (c) of Section 3 of the Kerala Scheduled Tribes (Restriction on Transfer of Lands and Restoration of Alienated Lands) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Clause (c) of Section 3 of the Act lists the entities to whom the Act does not apply. The question arises out of the facts stated in paragraphs 2 and 3 below.2. I. The facts.--The petitioner instituted Suit No. 280 of 1976, for recovery of Rs. 71,836.66 secured through mortgage of lands of the respondents. A final decree was made. In E. P. No. 182 of 1979, the property of the respondents was brought to sale. However, the respondents filed E. A. No.414 of 1981, for postponement of the sale under Rule 83 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it was dismis...
Tag this Judgment!