Kerala Court February 2007 Judgments
Sabu Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-20-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ630
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Is the offence under Section 5 of the Explosives Substances Act prior to amendment in 2002 which inter alia carried a punishment of transportation for 14 years, one exclusively triable by a Court of Session? This is the short point for consideration in this Crl. M.C.2. The petitioner is the accused along with others in a crime registered, inter alia, under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 435 read with 149 I.P.C. The case against the co-accused has already been committed to the Court of Sessions as per order dated 09-12-2002 in C.P. 67 of 2001 passed by the learned Magistrate, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-VI. As the petitioner (accused No. 3) was not available for committal, the case against him has been refiled as C.P. 57 of 2002. On coming to know of the proceedings against him, the petitioner had appeared before the learned Magistrate and has now been enlarged on bail as per order of the Sessions Court, a copy of which is produced...
Tag this Judgment!Suo Motu Vs. Sri. Elampulassery Ismayil
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-19-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)KLT22
K.S. Radhakrishnan, Acting C.J.1. This contempt of court proceedings have been initiated by the Munsiff-Magistrate, Perinthalmanna on a complaint filed on 17.06.2005 by an advocate commissioner appointed in I.A. 486 of 2005 in O.S. No 25 of 2005 alleging that on 17.05.2005 the contemner had entered his office and threatened him with dire consequences if an adverse report is given against the defendant in the suit, the father-in-law of the contemner. Further it was alleged that the contemner had caught hold of the collar of the shirt of the Advocate Commissioner and had caused extensive damage to the office of Advocate Commissioner. It was alleged that the contemner had torn off the commission warrant and the draft report and other files of the Commissioner. The complaint was forwarded to the Sub Inspector of Police, Perintalmanna under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he was directed to register a crime which was investigated and a final report for offences punishab...
Tag this Judgment!Business India Builders and Developers Ltd. Vs. Union Bank of India an ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-19-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Ker114
K.S. Radhakrishnan, Actg. C.J.1. Writ petition was preferred by the appellant herein seeking a declaration that the word 'encumbrances' enumerated in Rule 9(9) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 does not include tenancy arrangements with respect to the secured assets sold as per Rule 8 and also for a declaration that the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (Enforcemerits) Rules 2002 does not authorise the eviction of tenants in occupation of secured assets and also for other consequential relicfs. Petitioner has also challenged the no-lice dated 31-10-2006 received from the bank directing the petitioner to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the bank failing which petitioner was informed that coercive steps would be taken to evict the petitioner from the premises. Learned single Judge found no infirmity in the notice issued by the bank and dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same this a...
Tag this Judgment!Aneesh Haridas Vs. University of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-15-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Ker191
ORDERC.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Petitioner completed his schooling in Tamil Nadu. He failed in the 12th standard examination in Mathematics. After applying for writing the SAY (Save An Year) Examination, he wrote the Entrance Examination in Kerala for admission to engineering courses, However, by the time admissions were given, result of the SAY Examination was published and the petitioner got 50% marks in the failed subject making him eligible for admission to engineering course. Petitioner was admitted in the third respondent college for engineering course in the year 2005-06 and after he wrote the first year (Semester I and II) examinations, University declined permission to the petitioner to take practical examination on the ground that petitioner was ineligible to join the engineering course for the year 2005-06 for the reason that failed students are entitled to take the entrance examination only after writing SAY Examination, which in Kerala was held prior to the entrance exam...
Tag this Judgment!Jacob Vs. Thomas
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-15-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ791
ORDERK.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. This revision petition is by the landlord, who urged the ground available under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to evict the tenant. The Rent Controller allowed eviction only under latter count and rejected on the former part. In appeal by the tenant and cross-objection by the landlord the eviction ordered under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act was reversed and the order on the other grounds was sustained. Therefore, this revision petition by the landlord.2. It is contended that the bonafides urged by the landlord has been concurrently found by the Authorities below. But the tenant was given the benefit in terms of the first Proviso to Section 11(3) of (sic) Act as it was found that a building owned by the landlord with Number 173 was in his (sic) at the material point of time. It is (sic) that this finding entered by the Rent Controller and confirmed by the Rent Control ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaskaran Vs. Assistant Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporati ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-15-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)KLJ754; (2008)ILLJ84Ker
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner, a licencee of a toddy shop for the abkari year ending on March 31,2007, is faced with an order made by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation', under Sub-section (1) of Section 45-A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, the 'Act', for short. His contentions are that the mere issuance of a determination order under Section 45-A of the Act is insufficient to enforce recovery of any amount as determined thereby and that the Corporation has to obtain necessary orders from the Employees' Insurance Court, hereinafter referred to as the 'Court', under Section 75 of the Act before taking any further steps in terms of Sections 45-C to 45-I of the Act. Still further, it is contended that the Act does not apply to toddy shops and that no other toddy shop in the area has been proceeded against for determination of contribution under Section 45-A.2. The second limb of the contention is stated o...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaskaran Vs. Asst. Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-15-2007
Reported in: [2007(115)FLR180]
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner, a licensee of a toddy shop for the abkari year ending on 31.3.2007, is faced with an order made by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation', under Sub-section (1) of Section 45A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, the 'Act', for short. His contentions are that the mere issuance of a determination order under Section 45A(1) of the Act is insufficient to enforce recovery of any amount as determined thereby and that the Corporation has to obtain necessary orders from the Employees' Insurance Court, hereinafter referred to as the 'Court', under Section 75 of the Act before taking any further steps in terms of Sections 45C to 45I of the Act. Still further, it is contended that the Act does not apply to toddy shops and that no other toddy shop in the area has been proceeded against for determination of contribution under Section 45A.2. The second limb of the contention is stated only to...
Tag this Judgment!Sabu George S/O. George Vs. the Home Secretary and P.K. Ravi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-14-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ1865
R. Basant, J.1. Can composition of an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act even after the conviction and sentence have become final after the judgments of the trial, appellate and revisional courts be accepted(ii) If so, which court is to accept the same? Has the trial court, appellate court or the revisional court powers to accept such composition? (iii) If no such court can accept such composition, can this Court invoke its Constitutional powers under Article 226 of the Constitution or the original extraordinary inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to accept the composition and relieve the accused of the obligation to undergo the sentence of imprisonment?2. These questions of importance arise for consideration in these petitions. As the questions raised were reckoned by me as important and vital, I had sought the assistance, which I get in good measure too, of Shri.S.Sreekumar, Standing Counsel for the C.B.I. and Shri.T.G. Rajendran, Advocate. All counsel have been heard in ...
Tag this Judgment!Vijayan Vs. Sobhana and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-14-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Ker177
Antony Dominic, J.1. The second defendant in O.S. No. 122 of 1995 on the file of the Family Court, Kollam is the appellant. Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this appeal alone are noted. It is stated that the first respondent herein was married to the fourth respondent and the marriage was solemnised on 25-1-1981. In their wedlock, the first respondent gave birth to respondents 2 and 3, who were minors at the time when the suit was instituted. For various reasons, respondents 1 and 2 could not live together and they are separately living since 31-3-1989 with the children living with the mother. It is stated that by Ext. B3 dated 12-6-1989 the plaint schedule property which belonged to the fourth respondent was purchased by the appellant, who was the second defendant in the suit, for valid consideration. In 1995 respondents 1 to 3, the wife and children of the fourth respondent filed the suit before the Family Court, Kollam praying for maintenance charged on the plaint ...
Tag this Judgment!MerlIn Alias Sherly AugustIn and anr. Vs. Yesudas and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-13-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Ker199; 2007(2)KLJ236
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Can a Lok Adalat make an award touching the rights of a minor This is the short issue for decision in this case.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners. Having regard to the issue in hand and the nature of the judgment being passed, notices to respondents are dispensed with.3. Vavachan and Karmely had three children, late Augustin, the first respondent Yesudas and the third respondent Lilly James. The first petitioner is widow of late Augustin and the second petitioner, a minor aged 6 years, is their child. The second respondent is the wife of the first respondent.4. Disputes arose during the lifetime of Karmely regarding an item of property. The petitioners, as heirs of Augustin, claiming share in it, filed Ext. P4, pre-litigation petition, essentially invoking Section 19(5)(ii) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, for short, hereinafter, the 'Act'.5. By the time the matter reached the Legal Services Committee for consideration, Karme...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »