Kerala Court December 2006 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.
Santhosh Kumar Vs. Baby and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-18-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Ker214; 2007(2)KLJ241
K.T. Sankaran, J.1. The first respondent filed the suit for partition claiming 1/2 share in the plaint schedule property. According to the plaintiff, the property belonged to Chellappan Achari, father of the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 2 to 5 and the husband of the first defendant. Chellappan Achari died on 29-10-1978. The plaintiff has 1/6th share in the property. She purchased the shares of defendants Nos. 4 and 5. Thus she claims 1/2 share in the property.2. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 contested the suit. They contended that the property did not belong to Chellappan Achari, but it belongs to first defendant.3. The trial Court held that the plaintifi has 1/6th share in the property and she having purchased 2/6 share of defendants Nos. 4 and 5, is entitled to 1/2 share in the property. The contention that the property was acquired by Chellappan Achari was accepted by the trial Court. There was a prayer for a declaration that the document executed by the first defendant in favour of the ...
Kaniyapuram Assan Marakkar Appacha thekkathu Janakeeya Committee Vs. A ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-15-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)KLT336
M. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. Petitioners are the petitioners in E.A. No. 117/04 in E.P.61/03 on the file of Munsiff Court, Attingal. The decree was passed in O.S. 432/90 in favour of fourteen plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2. As per the decree, it was declared that legal representatives of Sheik Nainar Kochu Marakkar and Meeravu Kunjali are plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 and, they are entitled to possess the plaint A schedule property and reconstruct thekkathu or elankam in the plaint A schedule property and administer the place of worship in the name of Asan Marakkar thekkathu and elankam and for recovery of possession of plaint B and C schedule properties from defendants in their capacity as legal heirs of Kochu Marakkar and Kunjali. Defendants 3 to 12 were also restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from starting any place of worship in the name of Assan Marakkar Appacha Thekkathu and from interfering with the rights of plaintiffs to administer and possess A, B and C sc...
S.N.M. College Vs. S.i. of Police
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-15-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)KLT282
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. this Court in Sojan Francis v. M.G. University 2003 (2) KLT 582 declared that the guidelines banning political activities within the college campus and forbidding the students from organising or attending meetings other than the official ones within the campus is not designed to prohibit any of the fundamental rights of the students guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) or (c) of the Constitution of India. Later after hearing all the students organisations of the State like Students Federation of India (SFI), Kerala Students Union (KSU), Akhila Bharathiya Vidyarthi Parishat (ABVP) etc., this Court in Kerala Students Union v. Sojan Francis : 2004(2)KLT378 upheld the rights of the private managements and the educational agencies in prohibiting the functioning of students organizations like SFI, KSU, ABVT etc. within the campus either directly or through their member-students and also the prohibition of strike, gherao, dharna, bandh, hartal etc. within the campus eith...
Madhavan Vs. Thankam
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-15-2006
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ253
K.T. Sankaran, J.1. The appellant/plaintiff and the respondent/defendant entered into Ext. A1 agreement dated 23-2-1990 for sale of the plaint schedule property having an extent of 53 cents of 'nilam'. The price fixed was Rs. 315/- per cent of land. The plaintiffbuyer paid an advance Rs. 10,000/- on the date of agreement. The period fixed in the agreement for completion of the transaction w as 11-2-1991. According to the plaintiff, possession was given to him on the date of agreement. The plaintiff alleged that on 11-2-1991, a sum of Rs. 6,601/- was paid to the defendant and the time for completion of the transaction was extended till 30th Makaram 1168 (M.E.) which corresponds to 12-12-1993. Ext. A2 notice was issued by the plaintiff on 3-2-1993 demanding execution of the assignment deed to which Ext. A3 reply was sent by the defendant stating that she was prepared to execute the assignment deed, provided, the plaintiff paid the loan amounts due to the banks charged on the property. Ev...
Madhavan Pillai Vs. K.S.R.T.C. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-15-2006
Reported in: II(2007)ACC240
K.T. Sankaran, J.1. At the time of consideration of the application to condone the delay in filing the appeal, records were called for from the M.A.C.T. and the case was posted for hearing the application for condonation of delay as well as the M.F.A.2. The application for condonation of delay was allowed and the M.F.A. was heard. The only ground on which the M.A.C.T. dismissed the original petition is that the driver of the K.S.R.T.C. was not made a party. It is stated in the impugned award that there is no averment in the petition that the accident happened at the time when the driver was in the regular course of employment under the first respondent, K.S.R.T.C. It is stated in the claim petition that the bus was driven by the bus driver in a rash and negligent manner. It is stated in evidence by P.W. 1/claimant that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the K.S.R.T.C. bus. The First Information Report, scene Mahazar, charge, report of A.M.V.I. vehicle Mahazar ...
V.K.M. Pavithran Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-15-2006
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ756
K.M. Joseph, J.1. Questions raised in both the Writ Petitions being connected, they are disposed of by a common Judgment.2. Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 24490/06 is the Manager of Peringathur MLP School, while W.P.(C) No. 20627/06 is filed by one Shri V.K.M. Pavithran (hereinafter referred to as the Manager and Shri Pavithran respectively). The 6th respondent in both cases is one Shri K.P. Sasidharan. The brief facts necessary to decide these cases, which are not in dispute, are as follows:Shri Pavithran and Shri Sasidharan have continuous service from 1-6-1982. Prior to continuous approved service, Shri Pavithran had service unqualified approved from 10-6-1981 to 5-12-1981. On the other hand, Shri Sasidharan had unqualified approved service from 22-9-1980 to 30-4-1981 and he had yet another spell of such service from 1-6-1981 to 17-10-1981. Ext. P1 in W.P. (C) No. 20627/06 is the seniority list published on 1-1-1993. Therein, Pavithran is shown as serial No.5 while Sasidharan is shown as...
C.A. Mohammed Kunhi Vs. Special Tahsildar Land Acquisition Railway and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-14-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Ker91
ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. The land belonging to the petitioner was acquired for the purpose of doubling the railway track from Kazaragod to Trikaripur. Award was passed on 18-10-2001. Dissatisfied with the award, the petitioner filed Ext. P3 application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for reference to Court. The first respondent, the Land Acquisition Officer, received Ext. P3 application on 12-12-2001. Since no reference was made to the Court by the first respondent, the petitioner caused to send Ext. P4 lawyer notice dated 6-11 -2004. The first respondent did not send any reply to Ext. P4 notice. The prayer in the writ petition is for the issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the first respondent to refer the case to the Land Acquisition Court as per Ext. P3. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner represented by his power of attorney holder. Ext. P3 application was also signed and submitted by the power of attorney h...
K.G. Bindu Vs. P. Sreekantan Nair and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-13-2006
Reported in: III(2007)BC630; 2007(1)KLJ245
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. The petitioner is the accused in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The signature in the cheque is not disputed. Fairly specific contention appears to have been raised as early as in the reply to the notice of demand that the cheque was handed over as a blank signed cheque as security when the husband of the petitioner/accused availed a loan of Rs. 1.75 lacs from the complainant. It is the fairly specific contention of the petitioner/accused that the cheque was issued as a blank signed cheque as security for due repayment of the said amount of Rs. 1.75 lacs. It is the further specific contention that the other entries in the cheque were not made by the accused, but by the complainant. That cheque is being misutilised to stake a totally false and fanciful claim for Rs. 6.25 lakh, it was contended.2. Trial has commenced. The complainant's evidence is already over. At the stage of defence evidence the petitioner filed an application tha...
international Best Foods Ltd. Vs. Food Inspector
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-13-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)KLT353
K.R. Udayabhanu, J.1. The petitioners, who are the accused in C.C.No. 248 of 2001 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kottayam with respect to the offences under Sections 2(ia)(a)(m), 7(i)and 26(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, have sought for setting aside the above proceedings.2. The prosecution case is that the Food Inspector purchased three packets of glucovita glucose-D from the shop by name Vaypookara Medicals situated in Kottayam Municipality and on subjecting the same for examination by the Public Analyst, it was found that the same did not conform to the standard prescribed for 'Dextrose' under the P.F.A. Act and Rules and hence the same is adulterated. According to the petitioners, the above charge is not sustainable as glucovita glucose-D and dextrose are entirely different food articles. It is pointed out that the ingredients of glucovita-glucose-D as mentioned in the complaint are as follows:Sugar, Dextrose Monohyderate, Malic acid, Calcium P...
Bindu Vs. Sreekantan Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-13-2006
Reported in: III(2007)BC703
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. The petitioner is the accused in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The signature in the cheque is not disputed. Fairly specific contention appears to have been raised as early as in the reply to the notice of demand that the cheque was handed over as a blank signed cheque as security when the husband of the petitioner/accused availed a loan of Rs. 1.75 lakh from the complainant. It is the fairly specific contention of the petitioner/accused that the cheque was issued as a blank signed cheque as security for due repayment of the said amount of Rs. 1.75 lakh. It is the further specific contention that the other entries in the cheque were not made by the accused, but by the complainant that cheque is being misutilised to stake a totally false and fanciful claim for Rs. 6.25 lakh, it was contended.2. Trial has commenced. The complainant's evidence is already over. At the stage of defence evidence the petitioner filed an application that...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »