Kerala Court November 2005 Judgments
Sagar Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1104; 2006(1)KLT69
ORDERK. Thankappan, J.1. The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No. 445 of 2004 of Punalur Police Station. The above crime was registered under Ss.120-B, 193, 204, 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The petitioner seeks to quash Annexure A9 F.I.R. in the said crime.2. The above crime was registered by the police on a reference made by the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court III, Punalur under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and report in the light of Annexure A7 complaint filed by the learned Munsiff, Punalur. It is alleged in Annexure A7 complaint that while O.S.No. 264 of 2000, filed by the petitioner against one Mubarak Beevi and others against forcible eviction from a shed constructed in their property, was pending before the Munsiff's Court, Punalur, the learned Munsiff found that some of the documents produced by the petitioner/plaintiff were forged documents. By Annexure A7, the learned Munsiff directed the learned Magistrate to forward the complaint...
Tag this Judgment!Kalyani Amma Vs. Krishna Kurup
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT37
ORDERS. Sankarasubban, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order passed in E.A.No. 53 of 2000 in E.P.No.33 of 1992 in O.S.No. 324 of 1981 of the Munsiff's Court, Pathanamthitta. Petitioners are the respondents in the E.A. The suit was filed by the decree holder against the predecessor in interest of the respondents by name Narayana Kurup. The suit was filed for recovery of possession of B schedule property. The lower court decreed the suit. Against that an appeal was filed as A.S.No. 33 of 1999. That appeal was dismissed for default. During the pendency of the appeal, the decree holder - C.R.P. No. 1666 of 2003. Decided on 30th November, 2005. respondent herein filed a petition under Order 39 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for an injunction restraining the appellant therein from trespassing into the property or cutting the trees.2. It appears that the appellant Narayana Kurup violated the order of injunction and the Appellate Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajeswary Vs. Sooraj
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-29-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Ker137; 2006(1)KLT203
ORDERJ.M. James, J.1. In the Lok Adalath held by the Taluk Legal Services Committee, Koyilandy, dated 30-9-2004, O.S.No. 22 of 1998 pending on the file of the Sub Court, Koyilandy, was compromised. Under Section 21(2) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, in short 'the Act', every award made by the Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute and no appeal shall lie to any court against the award. This appeal has been filed, challenging the award passed by the Lok Adalat, inter alia, challenging the interest of 18% awarded by the Adalat and imposing a penal provision.2. The office has noted that the appeal is not maintainable as per Section 21 of the Act and also as the valuation of the appeal is below rupees one lakh.3. Counsel brought to my notice the decision of this Court in Thomas Job v. P.T. Thomas : AIR2004Ker47 , in which a regular revision, challenging the award passed by the Lok Adalat conducted by the District Legal Services Committee, Alappuz...
Tag this Judgment!Asokan Vs. Law Secretary
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-28-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT201
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The petitioner was a Notary Public, appointed by the State Government for the revenue district of Kollam. His initial appointment was for a period of three years from 18.09.1984. The certificate of practice as Notary was renewed in 1987, for a further period of three years. When he applied for renewal of the same in 1990, the said application was rejected by the Government, by Ext.P9 communication. The petitioner challenged Ext.P9 before this Court by filing O.P.9811/1590. The said O.P. was allowed by Ext.Pl 1 judgment. So, his certificate of practice was again renewed up to 18.9.2002. He submitted an application on 12.8.2002, for renewal of the said certificate. That application was rejected by Ext.P12 communication. The relevant portion of Ext.P12 reads as follows:You are informed that since the quota fixed for renewal of the Certificate of Practice of Notaries in Kollam district, on the basis of the number of Notaries fixed for appointment by the State Gov...
Tag this Judgment!Ajitha Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-28-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT339
K. Thankappan, J.1. These Writ Petitions and Crl. Miscellaneous Cases relate to Crime No. 282 of 1997 of Nadakavu Police Station, Kozhikode registered on the basis of the First Information Statement given by Ms. K. Ajitha, the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 30176 of 2005.2. The case was registered against 16 accused whose names and addresses are mentioned in Ext.Pl charge (produced in W.P.(C) No. 30176 of 2005) framed on the basis of the final investigation report filed by the police. The case is now pending as S.C. No. 124 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Assistant Sessions Court II, Kozhikode. The above case was nicknamed by the media as 'Ice Cream Parlour Case'.3. The short facts of the case are that one Ms. Sreedevi, the first accused in Ext.PI was alleged to be running a commercial sex centre under the guise of running an ice crearm parlour and on the basis of the First Information Statement given by the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 30176 of 2005, the above crime was registered by ...
Tag this Judgment!Sainalabdeen Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-28-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT529
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The question posed in all these cases is whether cashew packing units would fall under LT-IV industrial tariff or under LT-VIIA commercial tariff.2. Earlier Original Petition No. 31706 of 2002 was filed before this Court which was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court directing the fourth respondent therein, the Deputy Chief Engineer, to take a decision on the petitioner's representation. Following that direction, it is seen, on the basis of the note submitted by the Deputy Chief Engineer, Kottayam, Kerla State Electricity Board issued Circular dated 19-4-2003 which clarified that cashew packing units may be charged under commercial tariff, legality of which is challenged in these Writ Petitions.3. Kerala State Electricity Board has issued a Circular in the wake of the direction of the learned Single Judge to dispose of the representation. Petitioners questioned the power of the Board to fix the tariff for cashew packing units placing them under L...
Tag this Judgment!Edison Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1787; 2006(1)KLT598
J.M. James, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S.123 of 1993 on the file of the Second Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram is the appellant. He filed the suit for malicious prosecution against the 2nd defendant, Ajay Ghosh, son of Madhavan, the then C.I of Police, Kattakada Police Station in his official capacity. The court below dismissed the suitfinding that the same was barred by limitation under Section 64(3) of the Kerala Police Act, in short, 'the Act'. Hence this appeal, challenging the same.2. The brief facts required for the disposal of this appeal are that the plaintiff and one Susi George of Kattakada were neighbours. The husband of the latter was employed abroad. He subsequently died there. Susi George sought the aid and assistance of the plaintiff for her dealings in the property and in some of her other transactions. Because of the difference of opinion, that arose between them, she gave a complaint before the C.I. of Police, Kattakada police station, who in turn, summoned the ...
Tag this Judgment!Priyesh Aramana Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT615
Kurian Joseph, J. 1. The issue raised in this Writ Petition pertains to the claim made by the petitioner for appointment under the dying in harness scheme under Rule 9 A of Chap.XXIV A of KER. The Deputy Director in the impugned Ext.P5 order has taken a strange stand that since Sri. Damodaran, late father of the petitioner, continued by virtue of deemed option under Chap.XXIV B and since Rule 9A comes under Chap.XXIV A the petitioner was not entitled to get the appointment. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, the State has however clarifies the intention of the rule stating that in the matter of compassionate appointment, there is no distinction between Chap.XXIVA and Chap.XXIV B. That apart, it is seen from Section Rule Order 484/90 amending the Kerala Education Rules by introducing Rule 51 B under Chap.XIV A in the case of teaching staff and Rule 9A under Chap.XIV A in the case of non teaching staff for extending the benefit of compassionate appointment that:Depend...
Tag this Judgment!Siddique Vs. District Collector
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-24-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT227
J.M. James, J.1. The authority of the Collector to correct any clerical or arithmetical mistake in the award passed by him or errors arising therein under Section 13-A of the Land Acquisition Act, in short 'the Act', as well as the mode of service of notice, in the facts of the case, are under challenge by the writ petitioners, whose land had been acquired by the land acquisition authorities for public purpose.2. The facts required for the disposal of the Writ Petition are that the property to an extent of 0.3658 hectares of land in R.S. No. 260/8, 9, 11, 12, 261/9, 11, 13, 261/15, 18, 262/8 of Trikkandiyur Village, Tirur Taluk, had been acquired for the construction of Tirur Byepass Road-I, Reach-Block No. 10. An award for Rs. 15,43,437/- had been passed in favour of the writ petitioners as per Award No. 10/2002 dated 12-3-2002, Ext.P1, by the second respondent, the Special Tahsildar, LA(G), Tirur. However, as per Ext.P2 dated 19-8-2002 the second respondent had corrected the award, a...
Tag this Judgment!Radhakrishnan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-24-2005
Reported in: I(2007)BC331; 2006(1)KLT28
V. Ramkumar, J.1. The first defendant/first judgment debtor and legal representatives of the 4th judgment debtor in O.S.No. 156/1985 on the file of the I Addl. Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram are the petitioners in these Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The said suit was one for realisation of a sum of Rs. 1,87,219.25/-from the defendants of whom the first defendant is the principal debtor and the other defendants represent the interest of the guarantors. The said suit was decreed on 12-9-1986. On 6-3-1998 the plaintiff/decree holder-Bank filed E.P. 65/1998 for executing the decree by attachment and sale of the charged properties. As on 6-3-1998 the total amount due with interest was Rs. 5,20,638.08. After the judgment debtors filed their objection to the E.P., the E.P. stood posted to 20-54998. On that day for the reason that there was no representation on behalf of the decree holder-Bank, the E.P. was dismissed for default. On 9-11-1998 the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »