Kerala Court November 2007 Judgments

Nasar Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: II(2008)BC551; 2008(1)KLJ54; 2008(1)KLT28

ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. Styling himself to be the Managing Partner of a partnership) firm by name Sreekrishna Agencies, Muthuvattor represented by his power-of-attorney holder one Basheer @ Basheerkhan, the revision petitioner (Nazar) filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in respect of a cheque for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 allegedly issued by the accused. The complaint was registered as CMP. No. 5144 of 2007 on the file of the J.F.C.M., Irinjalakkuda.2. As per the averments in the complaint, the complainant is a dealer in petroleum products and the accused was customer of the partnership firm by name Sreekrishna Agencies and in discharge of a legally enforceable debt towards the said firm, the accused handed over the cheque dated 24-5-2005 for Rs. 1,50,000/- drawn on the Chavakkad Branch of the City Union Bank; when the cheque was presented through the State Bank of Travancore, Irinjalakkuda, it was dishonoured by the drawee bank due to insufficiency o...

State of Kerala Vs. Puliyangattu Krishnan Master

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ571

ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. The State has filed this Civil Revision Petition challenging the order dated 5-2-2000, passed by the Taluk Land Board, Vadakara in the proceedings under Section 87 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). As on 1 -1 -1970, the respondent was an adult unmarried person. He married Sobhana on 1 -6-1974. Three children were born in that wedlock on 31-5-1980,30-5-1984 and the last one thereafter. As per document No. 271/89, the respondent acquired certain items of properties. Proceedings were initiated on the basis that as on 1 -1 -1970 the respondent was an adult unmarried person and, therefore, he could not hold more than 7.50 acres of land.2. As per the draft statement, the relevant date for determining the ceiling area was stated to be 1 -1 -1970 and on that basis it was stated that the respondent was liable to surrender 7.98 acres.3. The respondent contended that though he was unmarried as on 1-1-1970, by his marriage a statutory f...

Simon and ors. Vs. Kerala State and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2008Ker149

Kurian Joseph, J.1. Section 18 and Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act pro-vide for reference to the Court, in case the claimant is not satisfied with the award. A time schedule also is fixed for making an application for reference. Once such an application is duly filed, the Collector is bound to refer the same to the Court. But is it within the jurisdiction of the Court to examine the question whether there is a valid reference made within the prescribed time2. Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act provides for reference to Court, in case a claimant is aggrieved by, and has not accepted the fixation of land value by the Collector. The provision reads as follows:18. Reference to Court(1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom ...

Manager (L and Hpf), Lic of India Thiruvananthapuram Vs. Krishnakumari ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal preferred from the order dated:13..6..2003 passed by CDRF, Kollam in OP:655/2000. The aforesaid complaint in OP:655/00 was filed by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellant/LIC as opposite party claiming the insurance amount of Rs.50,000/- due to the complainant as nominee of the deceased insured. The opposite party repudiated the claim on the ground of suppression of material facts regarding the serious ailment of stomach cancer suffered by the insured. There is no dispute regarding the policy issued by the 1st opposite party in the name of the insured Gopalakrishna Pillai. The policy was taken on 8..9..1998 from the opposite party, LIC Karunagappally branch. The lower forum did not accept the contention taken by the opposite party regarding suppression of material facts with respect to the alleged disease of stomach cancer. So, the lower forum found deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in rep...

M.P. Lathika Widow of V.K. Rajeevan, Vs. Jayasree Sivanand and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: AIR2008Ker112; 2008(2)KLT161

K.T. Sankaran, J.1. The question of law involved in this appeal is whether the donee to whom immovable property was gifted along with her three sons, with a condition that she would have a life estate, is entitled to claim the protection under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act; or whether it would come under Section 14(2) of the said Act. 2. The AFA arises out of a suit for partition in respect of eleven items of immovable properties. The appellants herein are the legal representatives of defendant No. 6. The plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 are the children of Kumaran Vaidyar and Janaki. Defendants 5 to 9 are the legal representatives of the first defendant. Defendants 3 and 4 are the legal representatives of the second defendant. Kumaran Vaidyar died on 8.8.1967 and his widow Janaki died on 6.8.1991. Item Nos. 1 and 2 admittedly belonged to Kumaran Vaidyar. In this appeal, we are concerned with only item Nos. 1 and 2. Item Nos.3 to 8 belonged to Janaki, the mother of the plai...

Kavalan Vs. Mukundan

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ567; 2008(1)KLT888

ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. The Revision Petitioner/first plaintiff challenges the order passed by the court below rejecting the request made by the petitioner to direct the commissioner to measure the property with the help of the surveyor and to complete the work entrusted with the Commissioner. Learned Counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection that all the defendants are not made parties to the application and therefore the application and the C.R.P. are liable to be dismissed on that short ground.2. In the Civil Revision Petition, the first defendant is the sole respondent. The Revision is filed against the order in I.A. No. 632 of 2002. In the cause title in the application, the name of the first plaintiff is shown and thereafter it is shown as 'and others' and they are shown as petitioners. The name of the first defendant is shown as respondent and thereafter it is stated 'and others'. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submits that all the defendants were m...

Senior Finance Manager, M/S. Elenjikkal Aquamarine Exports Ltd. Vs. K. ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER The counsel for the appellant submitted a memo stating that the matter of the appeal has been settled between the parties and the appeal is not pressed. The same is recorded by this Commission. In the result, appeal is disposed of as settled....

Sudheer Kumar @ Sudheer Vs. Manakkandi M.K. Kunhiraman and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(I)KLJ203

ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J.1. Whether an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be compounded after the confirmation of the conviction passed by the Magistrate Court, by the appellate court and High Court in revision? Whether an order passed by the High Court in the criminal revision petition confirming the conviction can be nullified by the High Court in a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. noticing subsequent compromise of the case by the contesting parties? What is the effect of the non obstante Clause 'notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)' in Section 147 of the N.I. Act? These are the main questions to be considered in this case. In Sabu George v. Home Secretary (2007 (1) KLT 9821 it was held by the learned Single Judge of this Court that offence under Section 138 can be compounded even after confirmation of the conviction by the High Court in revision and considering the subsequent by the High Court in revision an...

Nanukuttan and anr. Vs. Gopalan Balakrishnan and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(I)KLJ245

K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. Heard. Admitted. Advocate Shri L. Mohanan take notice for respondents. Appeal itself is heard and disposed of as agreed to by both sides.The defendants in O.S. No. 1182/1997 on the file of the First Additional Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram who were respondents in A.S. No. 34/2001 on the file of the Principal Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram (A.S. No. 102/2001 of District Court, Thiruvananthapuram) are the appellants. The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal:(1) Whether a counsel who had appeared for a party before the trial court can be presumed to have acknowledge about the filing of the appeal? and(2) Whether he can be imputed with the knowledge of filing of any appeal so as to appear for the party for whom he had appear before the trial court.2. The respondents filed O.S. No. 1182/1997 before the First Additional Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram for a declaration and injunction. The appellants appeared and conteste...

G. Gopan Vs. Tonny Varghese and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: III(2008)BC488; 2008(1)KLJ152; 2008(1)KLT257

V.K. Mohanan, J.1. The appellant herein is the complainant in C.C. No. 297 of 1996 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Aluva which is a case instituted upon a private complaint for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to for short as 'the N.I. Act' only). As per the judgment dated 19-9-1998 in C.C. No. 297 of 1996 of the trial court, the accused was found guilty under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Challenging the above conviction and sentence, the accused preferred an appeal as Crl. Appeal No. 5 of 1999 (originally it was numbered as Crl. A. No. 387/98 of the Sessions Court, Ernakulam). As per the judgment dated 1-6-2000 in Crl. Appeal No. 5 of 1999, the Additional Sessions Judge, North Paravur allowed the appeal setting aside the conviction and sentence of the trial court. Challenging the above order of the lower Appellate Court, the complainant i...