Kerala Court June 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.
C.M. Prasanna Vs. M.K. Saseendran and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-16-2006
Reported in: I(2008)BC95; [2006]133CompCas883(Ker)
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The appellant launched prosecution against the first respondent alleging an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act'). This was on the basis of exhibit P1 cheque for an amount of Rs. 15,000, which is said to have been issued in repayment of the amount due from the first respondent to the appellant. 2. Before the court below, the issuance of the cheque was not disputed. But, according to the first respondent, there were other amounts due from the appellant, and on account of that dispute, the first respondent issued a stop memo to the bank not to make payment when the cheque was presented. At the same time, it was revealed that when the cheque was dishonoured on that count, there was sufficient amount in the credit of the first respondent to honour the cheque. Therefore, the first respondent took up a plea that the dishonour would not attract Section 138 of the Act, as the bouncing was not on the ground of ...
M.V. Raju Vs. Manager, Indian Overseas Bank
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-16-2006
Reported in: [2007]135CompCas51(Ker)
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The judgment debtor in E.P. No. 65 of 2003 in O.S. No. 35 of 2000, on the file of the sub-court, Pathanamthitta is the petitioner in this writ petition. The respondent-bank filed the suit for realisation of the money. The suit was decreed. The bank filed E.P. No. 65 of 2003, for realisation of an amount of Rs. 1,79,253. One of the modes of execution sought for was arrest and detention of the petitioner in civil prison. The petitioner did not appear before the executing court on receipt of the notice issued to him under Order XXI, Rule 37. The decree holder filed an affidavit. Warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner on March 22, 2005. The petitioner was arrested and brought before the executing court on October 21, 2005. On that day the petitioner paid an amount of Rs. 5,000 and E.P. was posted to October 25, 2005. On that day the petitioner paid another amount of Rs. 3,000 and the E.P. was adjourned to December 13, 2005. The petitioner filed an obj...
Josekutty Joseph Vs. Aniamma Thomas
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-15-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ker337; II(2006)DMC464; 2006(3)KLT114
V. Ramkumar, J.1. This Writ Petition which comes up before us upon a reference made by a learned Single Judge (Justice R. Basant), raises an interesting question of law under the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The said question is -Whether the decree passed by a civil court in respect of a matter covered by Clause (c) of the Explanation to Section 7(1) of the Act could be executed by the very same civil court after a Family Court has since been established for the area.2. We heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side. While the petitioner would contend that with the establishment of the Family Court for the area the earlier decree passed by the civil court can be executed only by the Family Court, the respondent would argue that the civil court continues to have jurisdiction to execute the decree passed by it notwithstanding the subsequent establishment of the Family Court for the area in question. It is this controversy that falls for...
Bank of Baroda Vs. Philip Thomas
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-15-2006
Reported in: II(2007)BC376; 2007CriLJ2838; 2006(3)KLT729
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The appellant did not succeed in the prosecution launched against the respondent alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The respondent/accused was acquitted. Therefore this appeal The appellant is a bank offering facility of credit card. The respondent availed that facility. The accused availed the credit facility to the tune of Rs. 138598/-. In part repayment there of, he issued Ext.P2 cheque dated 23.6.97 for an amount of Rs. 127000/-. This was presented for encashment on 17.10.97. It bounced for want of sufficient amount in the account maintained by him. The appellant represented the cheque again on 3.11.1997. Then also the same story repeated There upon appellant issued a notice Ext.P4, on 10.11.97. It was duly acknowledged by the accused as is revealed by one among the documents produced as Ext.P4 series. It was not responded either in the form of reply or repayment. This resulted in the complaint.2. Answering the p...
Sundaresan Nair and ors. Vs. Dr. S. Krishnankutty and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-15-2006
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ819
K. Hema, J.1. Defendants are appellants. They challenge in this appeal, an order of remand passed by the District Court. As per the said order, District Court allowed an amendment in favour of plaintiffs by which a prayer for declaration was permitted to be incorporated in the pkint. Defendants-appellants were allowed to file additional written statement, once the amendment is allowed. The appellants court also gave direction to trial court to give opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence. With these directions, the suit was remanded to trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.2. Facts, briefly: The plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction before the Munsiff Court. As per the averments in the plaint, Ext. Al -partition deed stipulates that the plaint schedule property which includes a temple, always remained as 'tharavad' property and it is impartible. The respective 'karanavar' of the tharavad has to 'hold' the property, enjoy the usufr...
Vijaykumar Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-14-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT546
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner, a doctor by profession, purchased a Mahindra Camper as per Ext. P1 sale certificate and applied for registration. The statutory authority required that the vehicle be painted in Highway yellow colour in terms of Rule 304 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the said stand of the statutory authority and seeking a declaration that Rule 304 need not be complied with for the registration of the vehicle in question. A direction that no insistence shall be made to conform to Rule 304 of the Rules, is also sought for.2. By interim order dated 18.12.2003, the second respondent was directed to register the vehicle on the undertaking of the petitioner that it will be used only for personal use of the petitioner and not for the purpose of carrying goods. That interim order was issued, essentially, on the basis of the undertaking of the petitioner in para (3) of th...
Laiju Vs. Brick Bond Builders (P) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-14-2006
Reported in: [2006]133CompCas583(Ker); 2006(3)KLT818; [2007]76SCL31(Ker)
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This is a petition seeking winding up of a private limited company. The petitioner and his wife hold 47.5% of the shares and the second respondent and the members of his family hold another 47.5%.2. According to the petitioner, the father of the second respondent was also interested in an item of property over which the petitioner envisaged interest, to build a multi-storied residential complex and that the father of the second respondent and the petitioner reached an understanding to float a company and it was accordingly that the aforesaid company came into force and one James Paul, a retired Chief Engineer was brought into the Company to seek his advice. The Company was formed with the main object of purchasing, developing, selling etc. of buildings and to construct houses, hospitals, flats, apartments etc. and to carry on the business of building contractors and undertake and carry out building construction works and to engage in trading of buildin...
Johny Vs. James
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-13-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT368
R. Basant, J.1. What is the correct procedure to be followed when a court receives proof (chief) affidavit? When and at what stage is the court to consider the objections raised to the marking of the documents in such affidavit? If there has been a delay in considering the objections and giving a ruling thereon, does that confer on a party the right to reopen the evidence and further examine/cross-examine a witness? These are the interesting questions that arise for consideration incidentally in this Writ Petition.2. A reference to the facts first. The petitioner is the plaintiff in a suit for injunction against passing off. Ext.P10 is the plaint. Against an interim order passed in that suit, C M.A.No. 1/01 was filed before this Court and by Ext.P2 judgment the said C MA was disposed of with specific directions to dispose of the suit within a stipulated time frame. Ext.P3 is the written statement filed by the defendant in the suit. The plaintiff and his witness were examined and the pl...
Welfare Fund Inspector Vs. Jaya
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-13-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KarLJ988
P.R. Raman, J.1. W.A. 2339/2004 arises out of the judgment of the learned Single Judge in O.P. No, 12344 of 2002 and W.A. 2345/2004 arises out of the judgment in O.P. No. 23834 of 2002. Both the Original Petitions raised common question of law and facts and the learned Single disposed of the Writ Petitions by a common judgment dated 12th August, 2004. Hence these Appeals also are disposed of by this common judgment.2. The appellant in both these Appeals is the Welfare Fund Inspector, Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board, Ernakulam. In O.P. 23834/2002 petitioner is one T.C. Jose and the 4th respondent is one K.D. Suresh, Thrissur. The petitioner contended that he along with four other persons were the licensees of Toddy Shop Nos. 96-99, 119-122 and 147 of Mamala Range in Ernakulam District for the year 2000-01, that they later transferred the right thereunder to the 4th respondent on the basis of an agreement, that being the immediate employer of the employees working in the said shops, the...
All Kerala Tourist Taxi Operators Association Vs. State Transport Auth ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-12-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Ker341; 2006(3)KLT242
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. These Writ Petitions are filed by certain associations of tourist taxi operators. The State Transport Authority, hereinafter referred to as 'the-STA', a statutory authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, 'the Act', for short, decided to delegate under Rule 138 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, hereinafter as 'the Kerala Rules', among other things, the power under Section 88(9) of the Act to grant permits in respect of tourist vehicles, to the Regional Transport Authorities, hereinafter as 'the RTAs'. That decision found its Waterloo in the judgment of this Court in WA. No. 21 53/2003 rendered holding that Section 88(9) of the Act makes it clear that the Parliament, in its wisdom, wanted that the power to grant permits to tourist vehicles be exercised by the STA. It was held that Section 88(9) of the Act enjoins that the authority empowered to grant permits in respect of tourist vehicles, valid for the whole of India or in such contiguous States ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »