Court : Kerala
1. This second appeal arises from a suit instituted under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for short). The suit which was instituted before the Subordinate Judge's Court invoking its concurrent jurisdiction was decreed by the trial court. The fourth defendant in the suit challenged the decision of the trial court in appeal before the District Court. The District Court reversed the decision of the trial court and dismissed the suit. Even though the suit stands dismissed, the first defendant is aggrieved by the decision of the appellate court and hence this second appeal. 2. When the second appeal came up for admission, this Court entertained a doubt as to the maintainability of the appeal preferred by the fourth defendant before the District Court. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the parties were heard on the following question of law: Whether an appeal would lie before the District Court against the decision in a suit under section 9...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Ramachandra Menon, J. 1. The insurance company is before this Court challenging the correctness and sustainability of the award passed by the Tribunal fixing the total compensation payable as Rs.3,24,750/- and in mulcting 50% of the liability upon the shoulders of the appellant in a claim under Section 163A of the Act, despite the finding that the accident was solely because of the negligence on the part of the deceased. The contention appears to be that, once it is found by the Tribunal, based on the evidence, that the accident was because of the negligence on the part of the deceased, no liability could have been fixed on the Insurer of the vehicle which was being driven by the deceased person. 2. The factual sequence revealed from the proceedings shows that the deceased was driving a tourist bus bearing No. KL-05/R-2646 on 21.4.2007 and when it reached the spot of occurrence, the bus collided with a container lorry bearing No.HR- 38/H-7683 owned and insured by the 3rd and 4th respon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Facts: 1. Both the petitioners are the members of the sixth respondent Society; the second petitioner has also had the distinction of being the former President of the parent Society Tellichery Primary Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. 2. Initially, Iritty Taluk was created by carving out some territories from two other taluks; namely, Kannur and Thalassery. The creation of the new taluk has, therefore, necessitated the division of the two Co-operative Societies situated in those Taluks: the Kannur and the Tellichery Primary Agricultural and Rural Development Banks. In that process, the Government has appointed a Special Officer to oversee the operations of bifurcation of the existing societies and registration of the new society. 3. In the course of time, the Special Officer passed a resolution proposing to hold the election to the new society on 27.02.2016. Accordingly, acting on the resolution thus passed, the Election Commission issued Exhibit P1 notification to hold the ele...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Facts: 1. The petitioners are the members of the sixth respondent Co-operative Society with a membership base of 23,000. The Society issued Exhibit P2 notification to hold the elections on 21.02.2016. The division of wards took place as per Exhibit P1 bye-laws. It has, after the commencement of the election process, published the final voters list containing 1182 names out of 23,000 members. 2. The petitioners have assailed both Exhibit P1 bye-laws and Exhibit P2 notification on these grounds: that the division of wards in Exhibit P1 bye-laws is not as per the law namely, Section 28 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (for short 'the Act'); that many eligible members have been excluded from the final voters list; that Exhibit P3 minutes of the general body meeting had the signatures of the members forged; and that the objections filed by the petitioners and other members as regards the executive members have not been properly considered by the Electoral Officer. 3. Ventilating the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Shaffique, J. 1. This case has been referred for consideration by a Full Bench, as per reference order dated 20th August, 2015 on account of an apparent conflict between two Division Bench judgments of this Court in T.A. Kuriakose v. Ittoop and others (M.A.C.A No.693/2004) decided on 4/6/2008 and Abraham v. Johny (M.A.C.A No. 990/2005) [2009 (4) KLT 679] decided on 4/11/2008. 2. The appeal is filed by a claimant in a motor vehicle accident alleging that his vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-5/T-6379 sustained damages, in an accident which occurred on 23/8/2009. An assessment was made by a Surveyor, according to whom the damages were assessed at Rs.5,62,511/-. However, he gave a report stating that after depreciation, the cost for repairs would come to Rs.4,14,244.85 ps. Petitioner submitted a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the MV Act) claiming the said amount. The Tribunal by its award dated 30/11/2012 having found that the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Ashok Bhushan, C.J. 1. A Division Bench hearing these appeals entertained a doubt regarding the correctness of an earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court in Joy Alukkas India Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ITA No.230 of 2013). By reference order dated 18.08.2015, the Division Bench opined that the judgment in Joy Alukkas case (supra) requires reconsideration, consequently the Income Tax appeals have been placed before this Full Bench for consideration. 2. The brief facts giving rise to these appeals need to be noted for appreciating the issues which are up for consideration before us. These three appeals have been filed by the assessee (Indus Motor Company Pvt. Ltd) against the common order dated 25.07.2014 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench by which order the three Income Tax appeals filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) were decided. The three appeals arose out of different assessment years; 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. It...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. Do the Abkari Act and the Rules made there under draw a distinction between a domestic terminal and an international terminal of an International Airport for the purpose of establishing an Executive Lounge where liquor is served to transiting passengers? 2. The petitioner, a Private Limited Company, represented by its Managing Director, has Hotels and Resorts. In the writ petition, however, the Managing Director projected himself as the petitioner instead of representing the Company a minor, curable discrepancy. In the course of time, the Company obtained Exhibit P1 licence from the fourth respondent, the Airport Authority of India, to establish an Executive Lounge in the domestic terminal of the International Airport at Thiruvananthapuram. In terms of clause 4 of Exhibit P1 licence, the Company is entitled to sell Beer and Liquor at the Executive Lounge on the production of licence from the State Excise Department and also subject to payment of certain amounts to the Airport Author...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. The petitioner herein is the defacto complainant in a prosecution brought under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (EO), Ernakulam. On the complaint, the learned Magistrate took cognizance as C.C No.375/2011 and the case now stands transferred to the register of long pending cases. On the ground of territorial jurisdiction in view of the recent amendment brought to the Negotiable Instruments Act, the petitioner made an application before the court below to transfer the case to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Perumbavoor. The learned Magistrate declined the request and dismissed the said application on 1.2.2016 on the ground that a case now pending in the register of long pending cases, cannot be transferred. The said order is under challenge. 2. What is provided under Section 142(a) (1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act by way of amendment recently is a statutory transfer. Once the court finds that it does not have ter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Ashok Bhushan, CJ. 1. This Writ Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Judgment Dated 12/12/2013 in W.P.C.No.30687/2013 by which the writ petition filed by the petitioners had been dismissed on the ground of laches. 2. The brief facts necessary for deciding the writ appeal are: The petitioners' land was acquired for establishment of Naval Academy by issuing a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the LA Act') dated 22/02/1983. Petitioners did not make an application for reference under Section 18 of the LA Act. Other land holders, whose land was acquired by the same notification, had made an application for reference under Section 18 of the LA Act. The Sub Court, Payyannur disposed of various Land Acquisition References. With regard to LAR No.94/92, an appeal was also filed in the High Court and the amount of compensation was further enhanced. Sub Court, Payyannur, in the proceedings under Section 18 of the LA Act in LAR No.120/87, awarded an ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
K. Ramakrishnan, J. 1. The first respondent in O.P.(M.V.)No.2169 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur is the appellant herein. The first respondent herein filed the above claim petition claiming compensation for the personal injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident involving a motor cycle with registration No.KL-8/V- 9839 registered in the name of the first respondent, driven by the second respondent and insured with the third respondent and in the possession of the fourth respondent. According to the claimant, he sustained severe injuries in the accident. He is an agriculturist, aged 65 years, having a monthly income of Rs.4,000/- and claimed a total compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- under various heads. 2. The appellant, who is the first respondent in the lower court, entered appearance and filed a counter contending that on the basis of the hire purchase agreement, the second respondent is in possession of the vehicle and he is in possession ...
Tag this Judgment!