Kerala Court June 2009 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.
Thomas Vs. Thahira Beevi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-22-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)KLJ731
S.S. Satheesachandran, J.1. The Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:1. To call for the records leading to the passing of Ext.P4 and quash the same.2. Grant such other reliefs which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the Interest of justice.2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 112/08 on the file of the Sub Court, Nedumangadu. Suit was one for money based on a promissory note. Respondent is the defendant in the suit. Ext.Pl is the copy of the plaint. With the suit, the plaintiff moved an application for attachment before judgment of an immovable property belonging to the defendant. Ext.P2 is the copy of the application moved under Order 38 Rule 5 and Section 151 of the C.P.C. for interim attachment before judgment. In that application, an interim order of attachment was passed by the learned Sub Judge. On appearance of the defendant and after considering the objections raised, attachment was made absolute...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vijayarajan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-22-2009
Reported in: 2010ACJ280; AIR2009Ker205
Joseph, J.1. Appellant is the 2nd respondent in a petition filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Respondents 1 to 4 are the claimants. They are the legal representatives of one Anilkumar who died in a motor vehicle accident. It was their case that the said Anilkumar was riding his motor cycle towards his residence and it hit accidentally on a concrete electric post which stood on the eastern side of the road and he sustained injuries to which he succumbed. The 5th respondent in the appeal is the registered owner and the appellant was the insurer. The claim was raised for Rs. 4,99,500/-. The Tribunal has placed reliance of the Full Bench judgment of this Court reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Malathi C. Salian : 2003 (3) KLT 460 (FB) and held that the plea that the appellant is not liable cannot be sustained and accordingly, it was found that the application under Section 163A is maintainable. It is accordingly that the Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. V. Mathai and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-22-2009
Reported in: 2009ACJ510
K.M. Joseph, J.1. The appellant is the respondent No. 3 in a claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, by the petitioners, who claimed as legal heirs and dependants of one Dinto Mathew, who died as a result of the injury sustained in an accident, due to negligence on the part of the driver of a lorry. This appeal is directed against the award passed by the Tribunal, by which the claimants-respondents are granted an amount of Rs. 4,12,500.2. We heard the learned senior counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondents.3. The learned senior counsel for the appellant, Mr. Mathew Jacob raised three contentions before us. Firstly it is contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing the income at Rs. 3,000 per month. The complaint is that apart from producing certain documents, which may show that deceased possessed certain qualifications, there is no evidence to show the actual income that is derived by the deceased. Secondly, it is contended that ...
Bindhu K.S. Vs. the Secretary and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-19-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Ker199; 2009(2)KLJ673
V. Giri, J.1. An interesting question, inter alia, involving construction of Section 51 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 {hereinafter referred to as the ''Act') arises for consideration in this writ petition.2. The petitioner, a contract carriage operator, is the registered owner of a vehicle bearing No, KL-Q7/X 952 5 which had a permit valid till 24.3.2009. Ext.P3 is the copy of the registration certificate in relation to the vehicle in question. The petitioner had entered into a hire-purchase agreement with the second respondent and the second respondent lias, therefore, been recognised as the person with, whom such agreement lias been entered into by the petitioner in relation to the vehicle in question ad so endorsed in ExtP3. Finding that the permit in question requires a renewal, the petitioner approached the financier, viz., the second respondent, fora No Objection Certificate as evidenced by Ext. P4 dated 4.4.2009. According to the petitioner., the financier did not respond to th...
The Chengamanad Service Co.Op. Bank Ltd. Vs. P.R. Mohanan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-19-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)KLJ689
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The appellant is a Co-operative Society, registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It filed the Writ Petition seeking a direction against the second respondent to discharge his statutory duty under Section 37(2) of the Act. The facts of the case are the following:2. The first respondent is a surety for a loan availed of by one Mr. Prasad, who is no more. The loanee, as also the surety, defaulted to pay the amount due to the Society. The loan was disbursed on the strength of an agreement executed by the first respondent - surety under Section 37(1) of the Act. On default of payment by the first respondent, the appellant moved the second respondent - controlling officer for deduction of the amount due to the Society from the salary of the first respondent under Section 37(2) of the Act. Even after repeated requests, the said officer was sleeping over the matter. In the above background, mis Writ Petitio...
Jose Peter Vs. C.K. Vijaya Kumar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-18-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Ker184; 2009(2)KLJ696
S.S. Satheesachandran, J.1. The question arising for consideration is whether the Court can pass an order to impound the passport of a judgment debtor in an execution proceedings on the apprehension raised by the decree holder that he is likely to leave the country, and thus, the decree holder would be deprived of realising the fruits of the decree.2. The petitioner is the judgment debtor in E.P. No. 253/2008 in O.S. No. 152/2005 on the file of the Vadakara Munsiff Court Suit was one for money which was decreed ex parte. The execution petition filed before the Munsiff Court, Vadakara was transferred to Munsiff court, Mancheri. The decree holder moved an application before that court under Section 151 of the CPC for an order to the Passport officer, Malappuram to impound the passport of the judgment debtor alleging that the judgment debtor who was in a gulf country has just now come back to his house, but, avoiding the notice and trying to leave the country. It is the further case of th...
Vinija Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-18-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ4555
R. Basant, J.1. Should the constitutional commitment to human rights, personal liberty and freedom of the individual persuade this Court to read the expression 'in the presence of witnesses' in the proviso to Section 2(o)(ii) of the Kerala Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as the KAAPA) as 'in the presence of non-police witnesses' This is the short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition.2. To the crucially vital and relevant facts first. The petitioner's husband Suresh alias Sura is detained under Section 3 of the KAAPA. He is alleged to be a known goonda. He is involved in as many as six crimes. They all relate to offences punishable under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the Sand Act). The vital details about those six crimes are given below:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sl. F.I.R. No. DATED Mahazar Mahazar ...
Sulaiman P.A. Vs. Additional Chief Secretary to Govt. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-16-2009
Reported in: 2009(16)KLJ861
R. Basant, J.1. Is the omission to furnish a report on the basis of which the detaining authority entertains the requisite satisfaction under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention;) A at 2007 (hereinafter referred to as KAAPA) fatal as to invalidate the preventive detention of the detenu? This is the only question that we propose to consider in this petition filed by the petitioner, the father of the detenu, for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to produce his son, the detenu and release him from custody.2. Elias aged 22 years is the detenu. The petitioner is the father of the detenu. Altogether five cases were registered against him. One was pending investigation, in the other four, final reports have been filed. Incidents in relation to those five cases took place on 23/l1/2004, 11/2/2007, 10/06/2007, 05/01/2008 and 20/5/2008. There is no contention that going by the definition of the expression 'known rowdy' in Section 2(p) of the KAAPA, the detenu will not be...
Josey Francis Vs. Sunoj K. Balan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-16-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Ker188; 2009(2)KLJ784
ORDERS.S. Satheesachandran, J.1. The revision is filed by the defendant in O.S. No. 102/2006 on the file of the Sub Court, Kochi, for a decree of specific performance of an agreement of sale. Petitioner/defendant in his written statement, among other contentions, resisted the suit claim as barred under Order II Rule 2 of CPC. Such a contention was raised for the reason that before instituting the present suit, the respondent/plaintiff had instituted another suit basing his claim on the very same agreement of sale for a decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction. After settling of the issues in the suit and when it came up for evidence, the petitioner/defendant moved an application for framing an additional issue whether the suit is maintainable, The learned Sub Judge thereupon framed an additional issue and it was considered as a preliminary issue. After hearing both sides, the learned Sub Judge passed the order impugned in the revision holding that the suit is maintainable. Correctnes...
P.K. Kumara Menon Vs. Padmakumar W/O. Sidhartha Kaimal
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-16-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Ker186
ORDERS.S. Satheesachandran, J.1. The Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:1. Pass a writ of certiorari or any other writ or appropriate order quashing Exts. P1 and P2; and2. Order the respondents to pay the entire costs of the petition to the petitioner.2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 877/2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Ernakulam and the respondents are the defendants 2 to 5 in the suit. Suit was one for recovery of possession of A schedule item No. 3 on the strength of the title of the plaintiff from defendants 4 and 5 and also for a declaration that a Will deed and two sale deeds are not valid and binding on the plaintiff. A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing upon plaint A schedule item No. 3 property was also sought for. Suit was originally filed before the Munsiff Court and while pending as such before that court, the plaintiff moved an application for am...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »