Kerala Court September 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.
Raju Vs. Jaiprakash
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-02-2005
Reported in: III(2007)BC172
Manjula Chellur, J.1. This appeal is filed challenging the acquittal of the accused in proceedings filed for prosecuting the respondent for an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.2. According to the complainant-appellant when the accused persons approached the complainant for advancement of loan, a sum of Rs. 5,50,000 was advanced and in repayment of the said amount a cheque dated 5.12.1997 for Rs. 5,50,000 was drawn on Syndicate Bank, Seshadripuram Branch in favour of the complainant towards the discharge of the whole debt. As the said cheque was dishonoured for insufficient funds as per the bank endorsement after issuing mandatory notice dated 25.3.1998 the complainant launched the prosecution when the accused failed to pay the amount under the cheque.3. The respondent/accused appeared and contested the matter. The defence of the accused was there was a sale transaction pertaining to the landed property between the complainant and one Krishnamurthy and ...
Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-01-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)KLT389
K.K. Denesan, J.1. Challenge is against Ext.P1. Petitioner while working as IIIrd Grade Overseer in Special Building Section No. II, P.W.D. Medical College Section, Kozhikode has been transferred as per Ext. P1 dated 29-6-2005 passed by the 2nd respondent-Chief Engineer to I & P Roads Sub Division, Kozhikode in the open vacancy. In the normal course, petitioner cannot have any grievance against the order of transfer evidently for the reason that the transfer is from one building to another building in the very same station. The grievance of the petitioner arises on the ground that it is stated in Ext. P1 that the 2nd respondent received allegations against Asst. Engineer and Overseer of Medical College Section, Kozhikode and therefore the impugned order of transfer had to be issued.2. It is the definite case of the petitioner that no show cause notice or any other communication was served on him affording opportunity to say anything regarding the allegation referred to in Ext.P 1. Coun...
Jacob Thomas Vs. Pandian
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-01-2005
Reported in: I(2006)ACC204; 2006ACJ464; AIR2006Ker77; [2006(2)JCR250]; 2005(4)KLT545
J.B. Koshy, J.1. The question referred for consideration of the Full Bench is whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals have jurisdiction to dismiss an application for compensation filed before them for default/non-prosecution by invoking the powers under Rule 395 of the M.V. Rules read with Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure. In Lukose v. Govindan Nair (1990 (1) KLT 378), a Division Bench of this Court observed as follows:'In other words, the Act and Rules do not empower the Claims Tribunal to dismiss an application merely for default of the applicant without arriving at findings and without adverting to reasons after the stage of framing issues.' (paragraph 5)The Court was of the opinion that after framing issues as provided under Rule 379 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), the Tribunal has no power to dismiss the case for default. In Saramma Scoria and Ors. v. Mathai and Anr. (2002 (2) KLT 404 : 2002 (2) ILR 191.) relying on th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›