Kerala Court April 2005 Judgments
Alexander Vs. C.B.i.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-07-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT310
ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.In this petition filed under Section 407 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the accused in C.C. No. 4/95 on the file of the Special Court (SPE/CBI)-I, Ernakulam, seeks a transfer of the above case from the said Court to the other Court dealing with the C.B.I. cases at Ernakulam, for an adjudication of the question of discharge in a fair, unbiased and transparent manner. The Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) and the State of Kerala are the respondents to this petition. The matter was argued in detail before me.Petitioner's Contentions2. In the words of the petitioner himself, when his petition for discharge was argued before the Special Judge on 7.3.2005, what transpired was the following:The Special Judge remarked:'I have to frame charges'. My counsel replied 'only if there are sufficient materials'.'I was in Court and was completely taken aback and shocked at the observation made by the Court. The Court was then impressed upon the fact that the Supreme Court has ...
Tag this Judgment!Paraman Vs. Kodungallur Municipality
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-06-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT53
P.R. Raman, J.1. The right to collect bus stand fee for the year 2005-2006 was done by inviting tenders by the Kodungallur Municipality-- the first respondent herein. Petitioner and the additional third respondent along with others submitted their respective tenders. Petitioner offered an amount of Rs.6,42,000/- whereas the third respondent offered Rs. 6,37,125/-. According to the petitioner, his offer is the highest. He is willing to pay the balance 1/3rd of the amount on the very same day, viz., on 26.3.2005, the day on which the tenders were opened. According to him, he tendered the balance amount, but the same was not accepted as it was beyond 5.30 p.m. and he was advised to attend the office the next day on which day a special working day for the Municipality. However, on that day also the amount was not received. Later he came to understand that steps were taken to accept the tender submitted by the third respondent who was the next highest tenderer. Alleging that the action of t...
Tag this Judgment!Malayath Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-06-2005
Reported in: III(2005)ACC617; 2005(3)KLT190
K.S. Radhakrishnan, Ag. C.J.1. The necessity of enforcing the provisions of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 was highlighted by the Apex Court in Church of God v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association, 2000 (3) KLT 651 (SC). Rule 3(1) of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 provides for the ambient air quality standards in respect of noise for different areas/zones as specified in the Schedule annexed to the Rules. Responsibility as to the enforcement of noise pollution control measures has been narrated therein. So also, its consequences. The principle laid down by the Apex Court was followed by a Bench of this Court in W.A.3125 of 2001 and the following directions were issued.'We, therefore, dispose of the Writ Appeal and the Original Petition by directing the State of Kerala, the first respondent, to take necessary steps to identify the zones and generally to fulfil all the requireme...
Tag this Judgment!Augustions Vs. Joseph and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-06-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Ker204
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. Appellant -plaintiff in O.S. No. 4 of 1994 did not succeed in obtaining letters of administration in respect of Ext.Al Will dated 17-12-1981 executed by his father Chacko. Therefore, this appeal.2. The said Chacko died on 3-1-1985. Later, in the year 1994, the appellant applied for letters of administration invoking Section 312 of the Indian Succession Act. His three brothers and two sisters were arrayed as respondents in the said petitions. In the mean time, another sister Brijitha expired on 4-12-1988. There were no other legal representatives to the testator than the plaintiff and the respondents.3. Respondents 2 and 3 contested the Will contending that their father had not executed Ext. A1 Will/Thereupon, O.P. No. 12 of 1994 was converted as a suit. Evidence was let in by either side. Execution of the Will was attempted to be proved through PW2 the attester to the Will satisfying the requirement under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of...
Tag this Judgment!Varghese Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-05-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT802
ORDERJ.M. James, J.1. P.M. Varghese alias Kochumon, the first accused in Crime No. 497/1998 of Nilambur Police Station, has preferred this petition, under Section 438 Cr.P.C, praying to direct the police authorities investigating the crime to release him on bail, in the event of his arrest, in connection with the crime.2. The facts reveal that the petitioner along with 10 other accused, unlawfully assembled on 26.11.1993 mid-night, in front of the house of one Samuel, with the common object of murdering him, criminally trespassed into his house and inflicted injuries, because of which Samuel died on 10.12.1998. The widow of deceased Samuel gave a complaint to the local police, who registered the Crime against 11 accused, the petitioner being the first accused.3. The petitioner-first accused-was at that time serving in Assam Regiment in Indian Army. The Investigating Officer addressed letters to the Commanding Officer. But there was no response. On 31.3.2004, the Commanding Officer of A...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnankutty Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-05-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT568
J.M. James, J.1. The accused has faced trial for the offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act before the Additional Sessions Court (Ad Hoc-1), Thodupuzha. He was found guilty and, therefore, convicted and sentenced thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of rupees one lakh, or in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The same is under challenge.2. The facts of the case are that on 21-8-2000, at about 3.30 P.M., the appellant was found carrying 5.25 litres of Indian made foreign liquor, in MO.2 series, six bottles of 750 ml. each and MO.3 series, two bottles of 375 ml. each, along the Thodupuzha - Muvattupuzha road. In front of the Village Office, Thodupuzha, MO.2 series and MO.3 series were seized by the Excise officials under Ext.P1 mahazar, attested by PW.2. C.R. No. 13 of 2000 was registered and, PW.3, the Excise Inspector, conducted investigation. He obtained Ext.PS chemical analysis report. The trial court accepted the ...
Tag this Judgment!Shaji Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-05-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ3121; 2005(3)KLT127
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The appellants, accused 1 to 4, along with two others faced trial for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 342, 449 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 149 thereof. Accused 5 and 6 were acquitted and the appellants were found guilty, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 143, for one year under Section 148, for another term of six months under Section 342, again for two years under Section 449 and to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-with a default sentence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. This is under challenge in this appeal.2. The prosecution alleged that at about 3 p.m. on 31.12.2000, the accused persons, carrying deadly weapons like M.O.1 chopper, M.O.2 series iron rods, M.O.3 iron pipe and wooden sticks trespassed into the oil mill where the victim Usman @ Haneefa was working. He was sitting on M.O.4 chair. All the accused beat him and fin...
Tag this Judgment!Radhamani Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-05-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT86
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 18913/2004 is the appellant. Admittedly she applied for an FL3 licence as per application dated 4.3.1992. That licence was meant for the year 1992-93. So eligibility has to be assessed with reference to that point of time. According to the appellant/petitioner, there was no such consideration. This resulted in an earlier Writ Petition. It was disposed of as per Ext.P1 judgment directing consideration of application. It seems that the appellant did not pursue the matter further. While so, there was some change in the Abkari Policy introduced w.e.f. 11.9.1992. This disabled the Government from granting further licence. Thereafter new Abkari Policies were drawn up every year, obviously because the licences granted were confined to a particular year. Necessarily, the renewal shall also be subject to the conditions contained in the new Abkari Policy and consequent amendment to the Abkari Rules. While so, in the year 2002, this Court pronounc...
Tag this Judgment!Sukumaran Vs. Anthony
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-04-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT919
ORDERR. Bhaskaran, J.1. This revision is filed by the judgment-debtors 1 and 2 in E.P.No.707 of 2001 in O.S.No.875 of 1992 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Thrissur. The 1st respondent is the decree-holder and 2nd respondent is the third judgment-debtor. The order under challenge is passed by the Execution Court holding that the Execution Petition to execute the compromise decree is perfectly maintainable and posting the case for settlement of proclamation. According to the revision petitioners, if the revision is to be allowed, the Execution Petition can be dismissed as not maintainable. Therefore, this revision is also maintainable.2. Though the order under challenge does not disclose the necessary details for a proper understanding of the case, the facts narrated in the revision memorandum as well as in the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent disclose certain undisputed facts. Since the argument of the learned Senior Advocate Shri. R.D. Shenoy is restricted to...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›