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.
Abdul Salam C.H. Vs. Sameera and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-04-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ1877; 2008(1)KLJ255
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J.1. The petitioner is the accused in C.C. No. 148/2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Kannur. The said case was charge sheeted by the Kannur Town Police Station alleging offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 506 (II) of Indian Penal Code. Subsequently the defacto complainant preferred a private complaint against the petitioner in respect of the very same incident alleging offences punishable under Sections 307, 324, 326, 452 and 506 (II) of Indian Penal Code. The said private complaint stands committed to the Court of Sessions, Thalassery as per order dated 9-5-2006 and pending as C.P. 22/2006. However, the case charge sheeted by the police, i.e. C.C. No. 148/2006 is still pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Kannur. Therefore, this Transfer Petition is filed for transferring C.C. No. 148/2006 to the Court of Sessions, Thalassery.2. When the case came up for admission the learned Single Judge felt that there is confl...
P. Janardhanan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-04-2006
Reported in: III(2007)BC385
ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. In the manner in which I propose to dispose of the Criminal Revision Petition, I do not think that it is necessary to issue notice to the second respondent/ complainant as no interference is being made in the conviction of the petitioner.2. The revision petitioner was found guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C. No. 937 of 2002, on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class II, Kollam. The Trial Court sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for eight months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months. The Trial Court also directed that if the fine is realised, the same shall be given to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed Crl. A. No. 136 of 2006, on the file of the Court of the Sessions J...
Gopakumar Vs. Sajikumar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-01-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)KLT1
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. The only question arising for consideration in this Writ Appeal before us is as to whether a resolution adopting a no-confidence motion against the President of a Cooperative Society is capable of being rescinded by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Rule 176 of the Co-operative Societies Rules or whether the same could only be canvassed in an election dispute under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (for short 'the Act').2. The facts of the case fall in a very narrow compass. The 1st respondent in this Writ Appeal was elected as the President of the Neyyattinkara Government Servants Co-operative Society Ltd. No. (T) 280 on 1-6-2003. On 24-8-2006, a meeting of the managing committee passed a no-confidence motion moved by seven members of the Society against the 1st respondent as evidenced by Ext. P1. Alleging that this resolution was passed in violation of the procedure prescribed by Rule 43A of the Rules, the 1st respondent filed Ext. P3...
Balu Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-01-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)KLT401
R. Basant, J.1. The petitioner face indictment in a prosecution under Section 57(a) and 56(b) of the Kerala Abkari Act. They are Salesman and Licensee respectively of a duly licensed toddy shop. The crux or the gravamen of the allegation is that samples of toddy drawn from the Petitioner's business premises on 30-10-2005 at 7.30 p.m. were sent for chemical examination, two of the said samples answered the test for starch positively. It is on this only and primary fact that the allegation is raised that the petitioners is liable to be punished under Section 57(a) and 56(b) of the Kerala Abkari Act. No other allegations whatsoever are raised. The chemical examiner's report clearly shows that there was no noxious ingredients injurious to health available in the toddy. The investigation is pending and final report has not been filed so far submits the learned Public Prosecutor.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that even if the allegations were accepted in toto, the allega...
Mani C. Kappan Vs. K.M. Mani
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-01-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)KLT228
ORDERThottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner, a candidate in the election held on 22-4-2006 to the Kerala Legislative Assembly from No. 94 Pala Assembly constituency challenges the election of the respondent, the successful candidate.2. The allegation against the respondent is that he filed a false affidavit along with his nomination paper suppressing material facts and omitting to mention the dues he allegedly owes to the Tourism Department. It is alleged that the affidavit filed by the respondent is not in conformity with the directions of the Election Commission of India contained in its Order No:3/ER/2993/JS-II dated 27-3-2003 ('EC Order', for short). Hence, it is contended that there is non-compliance of Sections 33, 33A and 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ('Act', for short) and Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 ('CE Rules', for short) and therefore, the election of the respondent is liable to be declared void under Sub-sections (1)(d)(i) a...
Jayaprakash Vs. Government of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-01-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)KLT343; (2007)2LLJ427Ker
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in O.P.No. 13451/1996 wherein the learned Single Judge upheld Exts. P3 and P5 orders of the original and appellate authorities under the Kerala Headload Workers Act, whereby the rights of respondents 6 and 7 Unions to claim 'attimari work' in the Kollam District Depot of the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation was upheld. The appellants are the petitioners who are some of the regular workers of the Corporation as also office bearers of the Union of the regular workers. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the Writ Appeal are as follows.2. The Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') constructed a new godown in its Kollam District Depot at contonment area, wherein there were already one Maveli store, four tanks for palmoline collection and one godown, which started functioning on 20-4-1996. Before the construction of the new godown, the depot was f...
Beeny Thomas Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-01-2006
Reported in: III(2007)BC380
ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. The petitioner was found guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for four months and to pay a compensation of Rs. two lakhs to the complainant under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in default of payment of compensation, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence in appeal. The Appellate Court confirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence of imprisonment as imprisonment till rising of the Court. The direction to pay compensation was confirmed. However, the default sentence was enhanced to three months by the Appellate Court.2. Crl. M. Appl. No. 12267 of 2006, signed by the complainant as well as the accused, was filed under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act seeking to compound the offence under Section 138 of the Act. That application was allowed.Accordingly, the. Criminal Revision...
A. Sankara Narayana Menon Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-01-2006
Reported in: 2007(3)KLT807
A.K. Basheer, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in this Original Petition is whether the appellate authority was justified in invoking the power of 'rectification' envisaged under Section 15 of the Kerala Building Tax, 1975, (for short the Act), in the facts and circumstances of the case.2. Petitioner who owns a cinema theater was assessed under the Act and directed to pay an amount of Rs. 12,000/- towards tax by the assessing authority in Ext.Pl order dated June 23, 1994. After more than 2 years, the successor in office reopened the above assessment order and found that petitioner was liable to pay Rs. 72,000/- as tax instead of Rs, 12,000/- as found earlier. Ext.P2 is the revised order passed by the assessing authority.3. The above order was challenged by the petitioner before the appellate authority, the Revenue Divisional Officer. By order dated December 6, 1996 the revised order of the assessing authority was set aside by the appellate authority. A copy of the ...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bindu and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-01-2006
Reported in: I(2007)ACC688; 2007(1)KLJ253
M.N. Krishnan, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Claims Tribunal in O.P. (M.V) No 780 of 1999. Claimants are the widow, daughter and mother of the deceased who died in a road accident. He was employed having a salary of Rs 7,427. Tribunal after taking into consideration the entire materials awarded a compensation of Rs. 10,61,000 with 9% interest. It is against that decision the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company.2. Heard both sides.3. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company would contend that the multiplier taken is not correct and that since the wife had got employment under the compassionate scheme that has to be taken into account while fixing the compensation. Deceased was employed as Reprographic Assistant in the Cochin University having a monthly salary of Rs. 7,427. Tribunal deducted one-third for his personal expenses and fixed the dependency at Rs. 5,000 and applied the multiplier of 17 and awarded the compensation of Rs. 10,20,000 ...
Jayan and ors. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-01-2006
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ444
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Appellants were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life each and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- each as they were convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They were charge sheeted in connection with the murder of husband of PW 2 who was working as Quality Control Inspector, Chirayinkeezh. Allegation of the prosecution was that on 20-4-1995 at 6.30 p.m. A1 uttered obscene words against PWs 2 and 4 at Kunnapuzha Junction and that he also shattered the spectacles worn by PW 4. On coming to know about the same, on the same day at about 9.30 p.m., deceased Stanley Benzer along with CW2 came to the courtyard of his house in a motorcycle uttering obscene words against A1 who is residing near his house. Due to that enmity A1 to A3 in furtherance of their common intention of causing death of deceased Benzer trespassed into his courtyard and stabbed him with MO1 series pen knives on various parts of his body and he su...