Kerala Court March 2005 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Sreekumar Vs. Parameswaran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-11-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT492
ORDERR. Bhaskaran, J.1. This revision is at the instance of the 2nd respondent in R.C.P.No. 13 of 1999 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam. The landlord invoked most of the Sub-clauses in Section 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act in the Rent Control Petition. To be specific, the petition was filed under Sections 11(2)(a), (b), 11(3), 11(4)(i), 11(4)(ii) and 11(4)(v). The 2nd respondent alone contested the case and this revision is at his instance.2. The case of the landlord as petitioner in the Rent Control Petition is that the petition schedule shop room was originally let out to Krishna Panicker, husband of the 1st respondent, in 1968. After the death of Krishna Panicker, the shop room was rented out to the 1st respondent on 5-1-1977 on a monthly rent of Rs. 80/-. The rent was increased from time to time and the present rent is Rs. 500/-. The rent upto May, 1998 was paid by the 1st respondent. The petitioner's second son depending on him intends to ...
R.D.O. Vs. Kurian
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-09-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT863
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Both these appeals and contempt case arise out of the judgment in O.P.19470 of 2000. Original Petition was preferred by the first respondent in W.A.2706 of 2000 for a writ of mandamus directing the State and others to release an amount of Rs. 5,51,785/- together with bank interest from 29.6.1999 and also for a writ of certiorari to quash Exts.P11 and P12 letters. Learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition and directed the State Government to release the amount claimed by the writ petitioner.2. State Government initiated proceedings under the Kerala Land Acquisition Act for acquiring 103 acres of land for the purpose of Cochin Export Processing Zone, which is an instrumentality of the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce. Proceedings were initiated against various land owners including the Writ Petitioner. Award No. 3786 dt. 25.2.1986 was passed by the land acquisition officer in favour of the claimants in the instant case for acquisition of 87.33 acres...
Kunhiraman Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-09-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT685
ORDERK. Hema, J.1. The main question posed in these cases is this: Can the de facto complainant or the aggrieved be heard or be impleaded in an application for anticipatory bail2. Petitioner filed application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. as B.A.No. 778/2005 and B.A.No. 779/2005 on the allegation that he apprehends arrest in a non-bailable offence in view of the complaint filed by the Federal Bank against him under Section 420 I.P.C. According to the prosecution, the petitioner pledged with the bank certain spurious gold ornaments in the Bank over a period of few years and playing deception on the Bank obtained lakhs of rupees from the three branches of Federal Bank on different, dates. On noting the cheating, the Bank lodged a complaint before the respondent/police.3. Petitions were filed by the Federal Bank to implead the Bank as respondent No. 2 in the bail applications as Crl.M.A.Nos. 2103 and 1864 of 2005 respectively. These were opposed by the petitioner.4. Sinc...
Bhadran Vs. Sunil Kumar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-09-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD(Cri)39; IV(2005)BC452; [2005]127CompCas930(Ker); 2005(2)KLT696
J.M. James, J.1. A question has come up for consideration of this Court that when a notice sent by the payee to the drawer of the cheque, intimating him of the dishonour of the cheque and demanding the cheque amount, is returned unserved for the reason of addressee having left the place and notice could not be served for want of latest address of the drawer, whether would enable the payee to present the said cheque again, and then file a complaint, on the cause of action thus arising due to the dishonour of the cheque, on the second presentation.2. The facts of the case are that Ext.P-1 cheque was presented for clearance. It was returned dishonoured as per Ext.P-2 memo dated 1.9.1989. The appellant issued notice dated 9.9.1989. When the postman took the registered letter to the addressee, he found that the addressee had gone to Velloor. He could not get Velloor address of the addressee. Therefore, he returned the notice unserved, putting the date of return as 10.9.1989. The same has be...
Padmaja Vs. Sajeev
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-09-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KLT265
ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. The questions of law arising for consideration in this revision are: (1) Whether a subsequent transferee of the property which was the subject matter of a suit for specific performance is entitled to invoke Sections 19(b), 22 or 28 of the Specific Relief Act; and (2) Whether a transferee against whom Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act applies is entitled to be heard in opposition to the execution of the document and delivery of possession in favour of the decree holder.2. The suit, O.S.No. 774 of 1993, on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Kozhikode was filed by the first respondent in this revision against respondents 2 and 3, for specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 30.5.1993, executed between the plaintiff and the first defendant. The second defendant was impleaded in the suit on the ground that he was a subsequent transferee. The suit was filed on 16.11.1993. Since the first defendant contended that he had transferred t...
Ravi Vs. Jovatte Francis
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-04-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT51
ORDERM. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. Whether a Magistrate is bound to send a notice to an informant while considering the final report submitted by the Police under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in spite of the fact that informant appeared before the Court at the time of consideration? Whether a Magistrate is competent to proceed with the original private complaint, when a final report is filed by the Police under Section 173(2) after an investigation as directed by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the private complaint? Whether a private complaint is maintainable once a final report under Section 173(2) is submitted by the Police. These are the important questions of general importance to be decided in this case.2. The factual matrix of the case relevant for a proper understanding of the question in brief is as follows:- First respondent filed C.M.P. No. 2163/02 before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kozhikode against the revisio...
Ettoop Vs. Kunhikannan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-03-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2249; 2005(2)KLT429
ORDERJ.M. James, J.1. Petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in C.C. No. 440/2004, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thalassery. The offences alleged against them are under Sections 341 and 506(ii) I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. Petitioners have preferred this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to quash Annexure-II complaint filed by the first respondent, the complainant, against them.2. The interesting brief facts are that the petitioners, two Advocates of Thalassery Bar, are alleged to have wrongfully restrained the first respondent, also an Advocate of the same Bar, and criminally intimidated him, by threatening that if the first respondent continued to harass the second accused, he would not walk on his two legs. The 3rd accused in Annexure-II complaint also threatened the first respondent. Hence, he filed a complaint before the Magistrate and that had been forwarded to the Thalassery police, which, after investigation, referred the same, and issued Ann...
Parameswaran Vs. Director of Panchayat
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-03-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT248
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Petitioner is the Secretary of Poruthassery Panchayat. Fourth respondent is the Poruthassery Panchayat Committee. Petitioner challenges Ext.P2 which is an order passed by the Director of Panchayats transferring him from the Poruthassery Grama Panchayat on the basis of Resolution No. 1 passed by it on 18.12.2004, under Section 179(4) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The contention of the petitioner is that though Section 179(4) stipulates that such a resolution can be passed only in a special meeting called for the purpose, that too, after affording him an opportunity to make a representation before the Panchayat or the President, the said statutory requirements under Section 179(4) have been flouted. In support of the said contention, reference is made to Rules 4 and 6 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Procedure for Panchayat Meeting) Rules, 1995 (for short 'the Rules'). On the basis of Rule 4, it is contended that t...
Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-03-2005
Reported in: II(2005)DMC658
V. Ramkumar, J.1. In this appeal preferred from the Central Prison, Thiruvanathapuram, the first accused in S.C. No. 256/2000 on the file of the Addl. Sessions Court, Thodupuzha challenges the conviction entered and the sentences passed against him for offences punishable under Sections 323, 325 and 302 read with Section 34, IPC.2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows :The first accused (appellant herein) was living at Arakkulam along with his wife Latha. On 26.3.2000, at about 2 p.m. he struck his wife on her cheeks and face causing the dislocation of one tooth of the lower jaw. Subsequently, on the same day at about 7 p.m. the first accused intentionally caused her death by throttling her. Thereafter, in furtherance of the common intention of the first and 2nd accused to cause disappearance of the evidence of the offence and to screen the first accused from legal punishment, both the accused together poured kerosene over the dead body of Latha in front of the hous...
N.i.i.T. Ltd. Vs. Manoharan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-02-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT1025
ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. The defendant, whose application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was dismissed by the trial court as per the order in I.A.No. 585 of 2004 in O.S.No. 171 of 2003, on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Thalassery, is the revision petitioner.2. The suit was filed by the respondent in the revision for realisation of a sura of Rs. 46,03,684/-. The claim is made by the plaintiff under different heads. There was an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, executed on 27.2.1995, whereby the plaintiff agreed to act as the franchisee of the defendant. Disputes arose between the parties. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant without authority appointed another franchisee and loss was occasioned to the plaintiff. Clause 16 of the agreement dated 27.2.1995 provides that all disputes and differences arising out of the agreement shall be referred to arbitration. The designation of Arbitrator is also mentioned ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »