Skip to content


In Re: P. Raghava Menon - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1954CriLJ281
AppellantIn Re: P. Raghava Menon
Cases ReferredAnantapur v. Vema Reddi
Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988] section 147 (1)(b)(i) [as amended in 1994]; [v.k. bali, cj, m.ramachandran & s. sirijagan, jj] third party risk gratuitous passengers - liability of insurance company held, gratuitous passengers in transport vehicles, including a motor cycle, can have coverage only when a comprehensive policy or extended policy as might be possible to be issued has been availed of by the owner of the vehicle. only in such cases, the insurance company is required to compensate. payment of premium alone can cast a corresponding duty on the insurer for rendering coverage on any such group, when they are not required to be mandatorily brought under insurance protection. [oriental insurance co. ltd. v ajaykumar, 1992 (2) ker lt 886 (f.b) is no..........(central act 18 of 1879) are now in force in travancore-cochin. as held in - 'district judge, anantapur v. vema reddi' air 1945 mad 144 (fb) (a) and - 'in the matter of devasaran lall sinha' air 1946 pat 369 (sb) (b), the latter enactment will not in any way affect the question before us and in the light of those decisions the petitioner's prayer has to be allowed.3. the only doubt that we had was whether section 8, cochin vakils' act, 6 of 1895, will complicate the issue. we have, however, come to the conclusion that by virtue of section 6, part b states (laws) act, 1951 (central act 3 of 1951) the cochin vakils' act, 6 of 1095 has ceased to be operative from the date on which the whole of the legal practitioners act, 1879 (central act 18 of 1879), was brought into -force in the.....
Judgment:

M.S. Menon, J.

1. The question that arises for decision is whether the petitioner is entitled to practise in the subordinate Courts of this State by virtue of his enrolment as an Advocate of the High-Court of Bombay.

2. The Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (Central Act 38 of 1926) and the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879 (Central Act 18 of 1879) are now in force in Travancore-Cochin. As held in - 'District Judge, Anantapur v. Vema Reddi' AIR 1945 Mad 144 (FB) (A) and - 'In the matter of Devasaran Lall Sinha' AIR 1946 Pat 369 (SB) (B), the latter enactment will not in any way affect the question before us and in the light of those decisions the petitioner's prayer has to be allowed.

3. The only doubt that we had was whether Section 8, Cochin Vakils' Act, 6 of 1895, will complicate the issue. We have, however, come to the conclusion that by virtue of Section 6, Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951 (Central Act 3 of 1951) the Cochin Vakils' Act, 6 of 1095 has ceased to be operative from the date on which the whole of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879 (Central Act 18 of 1879), was brought into -force in the State, namely, from 13-10-1952 (vide Notification No. C. J. 4-21613/52/CS, Travancore-Cochin Government Gazette dated, 21-10-1952, Part I, page 1175).

4. The petition is allowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //